Energizing Critical Thinking at a Small Liberal Arts College

Energizing Your CASE
A Small Liberal Arts College’s QEP on Critical Thinking through Writing
SACSCOC Annual Meeting
December 5-8, 2015
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Dr. Keith Whitfield, Associate VP for IE and Faculty Communication
Dr. John Burkett, Director of the Writing Center
College of Biblical Studies-Houston
Dr. Bryce Hantla, Director of IE and Accreditation

Mission
(“...accomplishing the mission of the institution,” CR 2.12)
SEBTS seeks to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by equipping students to serve the Church and fulfill the Great Commission.
Core Competencies
(1) Spiritual Formation
(2) Biblical Exposition
(3) Theological Integration
(4) Ministry Preparation
(5) Critical Thinking and Communication Demonstrate the ability to think critically, argue persuasively, and communicate clearly.
The Local Situation: SEBTS

Discovering the Need
Evidence of a local problem
(“broad-based involvement of institutional
constituencies in development,” Principles,
CR 2.12; CS 3.3.2)
• Mounting concerns that “my students
cannot think or write well.”
• Voiced concerns from college and
graduate faculty
Evidence of a national problem
• The AAC&U (2007 reports that only 11% of college seniors are proficient in writing and merely 6% are
proficient in critical thinking (p. 8).
• Similar reports: Arum and Roksa (2011), Bok (2006), USDE (2006)

Narrowing the Focus Where we started (Original QEP Submission):
• Assess Undergraduate and Graduate students
through a Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC)
program (~2,800 students)
• Use rubric that adapts previously established SLOs
from program objectives
How we focused (Post-Review QEP sequence and rubric):
• Focus on Undergraduate students (~309 students)
(“institutional capability,” CS 3.3.2)
• Establish requirements for Writing Intensive (WI)
courses to utilize the Writing Center
• Create simplified SLOs specifically for the CASE
Rubric that WI classes used while teaching
(“focuses on SLOs,” CR 2.12)

Which Writing-Intensives to Select?
● How many WI courses would you designate?
● Which courses would you nominate for WI courses?
General Education
● Composition I (ENG1110)
● Composition II (ENG1120)
● Hermeneutics (BTI1100)
● Faith, Reason, & Mind (PHI1100)
● World Cultures & Religions (PHI2100)
● Survey of Brit. Lit. (ENG2110)
● Survey of Am. Lit. (ENG2120)
● History of Ideas IV (HOI2120)
Academic Disciplines
● Theology I (THE3110)
● Christian Ethics (ETH3600)
● Old Testament Theology (BTI4600)
● New Testament Theology (BTI4700)
● American Religious History (HIS3532)
● Christian Philosophy (PHI4100)
● Christian Apologetics (PHI4600)
● Christian Counseling (MIN4620)

Three Designated WI Courses
1. Hermeneutics
Biblical Studies
• Critical analysis and
exposition
• Exegesis research
essay
2. Theology I
Theological Studies
• Deductive synthesis
and application
• Application research
essay
3. History of Ideas IV
Philosophy and Literature
• Worldview analysis
and Western
thought
• Academic research
essay

Developing the Instrument
Clarifies issue & thesis
Identify the debated question at issue
Assert a claim, interpretation, or position responding to the issue
Argues with reasons & evidence
Organize reasons supporting the argument
Develop evidence supporting reasons and claims
Situates perspectives
Summarize differing viewpoints on the issue
Situate personal perspective among or against other viewpoints
Explains implications & applications
Draw valid implications or
Draw realistic applications
“Identifies ... a plan to assess their achievement” (CS 3.3.2)

“...Demonstrates institutional capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP; (2) includes broad-based involvement of the
institutional constituencies in the [...] proposed implementation of the QEP; and (3) identifies goals and a plan to assess their achievement.” (CS 3.3.2)

Predicting the results:
● What would you say was the strongest criterion?
● What would you say was the weakest criterion?

Data-Driven Pivots
From enhancement to benchmark model
• Initial goal (2012): “All college students will demonstrate the ability to think critically
through written argumentation as measured by the learning outcomes composing the
CASE Rubric.”
• SMART goal (2013): “College students will score an average (mean) of 3.0 or better in all
criteria of the CASE Rubric in the capstone writing-intensive course.”
From CASE to CASÆ Rubric
• The update separates out the elements of issue and thesis.
• It also arranges the criteria in the order in which writers typically organize research
essays.

Strengths & Opportunities
Clarifies issue & thesis
Most students can assert a quality thesis
Need to separate out the question at issue
Argues with reasons & evidence
Most can argue with deductive reasons and some evidence
Need to consider audience when developing reasons and
evidence
Situates perspectives
Need to show relation between diversity and issues
Need to show how to write a literature review
Explains implications & applications
Correlation exists between applications and overall score
Need to emphasize multiple applications

Bibliography
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College Learning for the New Global Century. Washington D.C.: AAC&U.
Akin, D., Keathley, K., Travers, M., Burkett, J., & Hantla, B. (2012). Arguing the CASE: Critical Thinking through Writing, a Quality Enhancement Plan, 2011-
2015. http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/2012trackbqeps/SoutheasternBaptistTheologicalSeminaryQEPExecutiveSummary.pdf
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Bok, D. (2009). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2012). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research
Findings and Recommendations.
Hantla, Bryce F. (2014). Noetic Sanctification: Using Critical Thinking to Facilitate Sanctification of the Mind. Christian Perspectives in Education 7
(1). 3-30. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1115&context=cpe.

Bibliography (Cont’d)
Hantla, Bryce F (2012). “Cooks in the Kitchen: Promoting Writing Center Research through Collaboration.” Conference Presentation at the NC Writing
Center Network Annual Conference. http://www.uncg.edu/eng/writingcenter/conference/program.php.
Hewitt, G. (1995). A Portfolio Primer: Teaching, Collecting, and Assessing Student Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: a guide to critical thinking across the curriculum (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Quay, S. E. (2007). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. The Journal of Popular
Culture, 40(5), 900-902.
Rhodes, T. L. (2008). VALUE: Valid assessment of learning in undergraduate education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2008(S1), 59-70.
Spellings, M. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of US higher education. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Education.
Stein, B., Haynes, A., & Redding, M. (2007). Project CAT: Assessing Critical Thinking Skills. Paper presented at the STEM Assessment Conference,
Washington, D. C.
Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
White, E. M. (1994). Teaching and Assessing Writing: Recent Advances in Understanding, Evaluating, and Improving Student Performance. Revised and
Expanded. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Appendices
Original CASE Rubric (2013) . . . . . . A
Exposition of CASE Rubric (2014, . . . . . B
per request of Faculty and WI Professors)
CASÆ Rubric (2015) . . . . . . . C

CASE Rubric for Critical Thinking
Developed by the QEP Committee for SEBTS’s QEP:
Arguing the CASE: Critical Thinking through Writing
Critical Thinking is a general term referring to a wide range of cognitive skills and affective dispositions needed to fulfill the
following:
 Writing effectively: create, organize, and communicate logically and creatively sufficient evidence in support of
conclusions and in light of audience;
 Decision making: make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to practice in light of scriptural
principles.
The student… (4) Exemplary (3) Proficient (2) Sufficient (1) Insufficient
Clarifies
issue and thesis
 Articulates
accurately the
question at issue.
 Asserts a clear,
relevant, and
significant thesis.
 Expresses well the
question at issue.
 Asserts a clear and
relevant thesis.
 Identifies the
question at issue.
 Writes a thesis.
 Writes unclearly or
incorrectly the
question at issue.
 Writes an
insufficient or
unclear thesis.
Argues
with reasons and
evidence
 Organizes excellent
reasons for
argument.
 Details precise
evidence for
argument.
 Organizes clear
reasons for
argument.
 Organizes ample
evidence for
argument.
 Supplies reasons in
support of
argument.
 Provides some
evidence for
argument.
 Identifies
insufficient reasons
for argument.
 Provides
insufficient
evidence for
argument.
Situates
perspectives
 Contextualizes
significant
perspectives
accurately.
 Creates personal
perspective in light
of others.
 Explains other
perspectives
sufficiently.
 Creates a fair
personal
perspective.
 Acknowledges
other perspectives.
 Identifies personal
perspective with
unacknowledged
bias.
 Presents other
perspectives but
minimally or
unfairly.
perspective but
unfairly or with
bias.
Explains
implications and
applications
 Creates valid and
significant
implications or
applications
explicitly drawn
from thesis and
evidence.
 Creates valid and
realistic
implications or
applications from
thesis and evidence.
 Identifies
implications or
applications but not
explicitly related to
 Identifies
insufficient
implications or
applications that are
unrealistic,
illogical, or not
related well to

Exposition of CASE Rubric for Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking is a general term referring to a wide range of cognitive skills and affective dispositions needed to fulfill the following:
 Writing effectively: create, organize, and communicate logically and creatively sufficient evidence in support of conclusions and in
light of audience;
 Decision making: make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to practice in light of scriptural principles.
The student… Exemplary Proficient Sufficient Insufficient
Clarifies
issue and
thesis
 Articulates a provocative and
significant issue or question.
 States a thesis that is clear,
accurate, narrow in scope, and
significant in purpose.
 Articulates an issue and
generic terms and fails to
communicate the significance
of the issue.
 States a clear, relevant and
general in scope thesis.
 Identifies an issue.
 States a thesis that is
plainly stated and general
in scope.
 Identifies an issue unclearly
or incorrectly.
 States a minimally
acceptable thesis for
assignment.
Argues
with reasons
and evidence
 Organizes persuasive reasons
for supporting the thesis.
 Clearly demonstrates the
logical movement from
evidence to conclusion.
 Evidence is clear, objective,
and well researched for every
aspect of the argument.
 Organizes solid reasons for
supporting the thesis.
 Logical connections between
evidence and conclusions are
apparent.
 Provides evidence that is
clear, objective, and well-
researched, but tend toward a
general overview.
 Provides suitable reasons and
evidence for the argument
that supports the thesis.
 Displays a logical trajectory in
the argumentation.
 Assembles unclear or
irrelevant reasons for
position taken with little
organization.
 Presents biased evidence
and/or undocumented
positions in the place of
evidence.
Situates
perspectives
 Synthesizes and proposes a
multifaceted perspective with
accurate representations of
opposing viewpoints from both
primary and secondary
sources.
 Contextualizes personal
perspective among or against
key opposing viewpoints.
 Presents research of
important positions that
seriously considers some
opposing viewpoints.
 Proposes personal
perspective against opposing
viewpoints, but less as a
referee and more as an
advocate.
 Presents other perspectives.
perspective with
unacknowledged bias.
 Unfair treatment at times of
other perspectives but or
presented at a minimally
acceptable level or shows.
perspective but may present
unrecognized unfairness or
bias at points.
Explains
implications
and
applications
 Expresses reasonable
conclusion with valid and
significant implications or
applications drawn from the
thesis and supporting
evidence.
 Integrates and connects
conclusion with thesis clearly
and distinctly.
 Expresses conclusion with
valid but weak implications or
applications from evidence.
 Draws conclusions from
evidence accurately with
vague connection to the
thesis.
 Expresses conclusion,
implications or applications,
but merely echoes thesis.
 Implications are vaguely
related to the argument and/or
evidence presented in the
paper.
 Expresses general
conclusion without reference
to the thesis or argument
supported points made in the
paper. Implications are
unrealistic, illogical, or not
related to the thesis and/or
evidence.

CASE Rubric, 2015 Edition
CASÆ Rubric for Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking refers to a range of cognitive skills, critical criteria, and affective dispositions needed to do the following:
Write effectively: Create and communicate logically and stylishly sufficient evidence to support conclusions in view of audience;
Make wise decisions: Make intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to practice in light of biblical principles.
Does the student… (4) Exemplary (3) Proficient (2) Sufficient (1) Insufficient
Clarify the issue?
 Articulates clearly
and accurately the
debated question at
issue as the research
problem.
 Expresses well the
debated question at
issue as the research
problem.
 Identifies the
debated issue.
 Indicates vaguely or
incorrectly the
debated issue.
Assert a thesis?
 Asserts a clear,
concrete, and
significant thesis
addressing the issue.
 Writes a clear,
concrete, relevant
thesis addressing the
issue.
 Writes a clear thesis
touching the issue.
 Writes an unclear or
insufficient thesis.
Situate perspectives?
 Explains accurately
all major viewpoints
in the scholarly
conversation.
 Replies insightfully
to major viewpoints.
 Summarizes fairly
major viewpoints in
the scholarly
conversation.
 Responds amply to
major viewpoints.
 Summarizes slightly
major perspectives in
the conversation.
 Responds to major
viewpoints with
unacknowledged
bias.
 Presents other
perspectives but
partly or unfairly.
 Responds trivially or
shows reactionary
bias or dismisses
diversity of opinion.
Argue with reasons
and evidence?
 Organizes significant
valid reasons for the
argument.
 Details precise
evidence for the
argument.
 Organizes valid
reasons for the
argument.
 Organizes ample
evidence for
argument.
 Supplies clear
reasons for the
argument.
 Provides some
evidence for
argument.
 Offers insufficient
reasons.
 Provides insufficient
evidence.
Explain applications
or implications?
 Creates several
significant
applications or
implications drawn
explicitly from the
thesis and argument.
 Creates several
realistic applications
or implications
drawn from the
thesis and argument.
 Identifies realistic
applications or
implications but not
explicitly drawn
from the thesis or
argument.
 Identifies meagre
applications or
implications that are
unrealistic, invalid,
or irrelevant.
o This updated general CASE Rubric incorporates two changes recommended by faculty: it separates out the elements of issue
and thesis, and it arranges the criteria in the order in which writers typically develop and organize research essays: Introduction
with criteria C, A, and S; Counterarguments with criterion S; Core Argument with criterion A (argue), and Conclusion with
criterion E.
o The QEP Committee recommends this updated general CASE Rubric to the academic areas so that they can update their
specific CASE rubrics for the three writing-intensive courses (BTI 1100, THE 3110, and HOI 2120). Faculty of WI courses
should use the respective specific CASE rubric to enhance critical thinking through research writing, using the rubric to teach
critical criteria, offer feedback, grade essays, and score performance of critical thinking in research-writing projects.
o Writing Center consultants will use the CASE Rubric to help students locate current performance and chart a plan to improve.

CASE Rubric, 2015 Edition
Defining Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking and Communication: Demonstrate the ability to think critically, argue persuasively, and
communicate clearly.
—Fifth core competency, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Since critical thinking is a key term in Southeastern’s fifth core competency and directly addressed by Southeastern’s QEP, it
was necessary for the QEP Committee to define critical thinking in a way that could be shared by the different academic areas, to inform
both their instruction and assessment of critical thinking. The definition below is adapted from a well-known source on critical thinking
(quoted in the QEP report, p. 20), but here revised and with subheadings for clarity.
Critical thinking is a general term referring to a wide range of cognitive skills, critical criteria, and affective dispositions
needed to accomplish effectively the following essential abilities:
a) Reading critically: analyze and evaluate arguments and truth claims for soundness (rhetorical analysis); also, analyze and
evaluate features of language and literature for meaning and significance (literary analysis);
b) Self-awareness: discover and revise personal and cultural presuppositions and prejudices;
c) Writing effectively: create, organize, and communicate logically and creatively adequate reasons and evidence in support of
conclusions and in light of audience;
d) Decision making: make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to practice in light of biblical
principles.
The QEP evaluates only the two demonstrable “outside” skills: writing effectively and decision making through the assessment of critical-
thinking through research-writing projects.
Critical derives from Greek kritikos referring to the ability to discern and judge well (LSJ 997). Aristotle notices that audiences
take one of two roles: “either a spectator [theoros] or a judge [kritês]” (Rhetoric 1.3.2). The role of judge is an insightful metaphor
emphasizing the abilities to analyze, evaluate, and reply to ideas and arguments as cases according to learned criteria and processes of
evaluation. Critical often translates in education to the distinction between passive and active learning—learning more and more to
engage ideas, texts, and arguments with principled discernment.

Energizing Critical Thinking at a Small Liberal Arts College

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Energizing Critical Thinking at a Small Liberal Arts College

Similar a Energizing Critical Thinking at a Small Liberal Arts College (20)

Último

Último (20)

Energizing Critical Thinking at a Small Liberal Arts College