Program-level Assessment With Faculty Learning Communities: The Wisdom Of Well-managed, Small Crowds. Amy Liu , Mary Maguire, Lynn Tashiro Sacramento State University Wayne Tikkanen Office of the Chancellor, California Sate University. Introductions.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Amy Liu, Mary Maguire,Lynn Tashiro
Sacramento State University
Office of the Chancellor, California Sate University
Example: Sac State Challenges for Evaluating Critical Thinking in a program
FLC elements to address challenges:
• establish common vocabulary, experience, trust and consensus
• Academic freedom is about how you teach not what you teach if your course is part of a program.
• be a part of a national conversation
• participants apply in teams of 3 or 4
Discussion Question: What should students know and be able to do to demonstrate “Critical Thinking”
Facilitation tool- Dialog Protocol: “The talking stick”
Critical Thinking Value Rubric PLO/Dimensions The Wisdom Of Well-managed, Small Crowds
6.1 Clearly state and describe the issue/problem to be considered, using all relevant information necessary for full understanding.
6.2 Develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis of information from relevant and appropriate sources.
6.3 Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyze the assumptions of self and others. Carefully evaluate the relevance of contexts when presenting a position.
6.4 Formulate a specific and sophisticated position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) which accounts for the complexities of the issue. Acknowledge the limits of the position and synthesizes others’ points of view.
6.5 Draw logical conclusions and related outcomes. Consequences and implications reflect student’s informed evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order.