discipline based panel for critical thinking syracuse april 28, 2005

Discipline Based Panel forDiscipline Based Panel forCritical ThinkingCritical Thinking

Syracuse April 28, 2005Syracuse April 28, 2005

Who we areWho we are

Professor Andrew CostaProfessor Andrew CostaPhilosophy and EthicsPhilosophy and EthicsAdirondack Community CollegeAdirondack Community College

Professor Gwen CraneProfessor Gwen CraneEnglishEnglishSUNY OneontaSUNY Oneonta

Professor Shir FillerProfessor Shir FillerEnglishEnglishNorth Country Community CollegeNorth Country Community College

Professor Clyde HerreidProfessor Clyde HerreidBiological SciencesBiological SciencesUniversity at BuffaloUniversity at Buffalo

Professor David Hunter (Chair)Professor David Hunter (Chair)Philosophy and Religious StudiesPhilosophy and Religious StudiesBuffalo State CollegeBuffalo State College

Professor Dorothy LaffinProfessor Dorothy LaffinBusiness AdministrationBusiness AdministrationSuffolk County Community Suffolk County Community CollegeCollege

Professor Hedva LewittesProfessor Hedva LewittesPsychologyPsychologySUNY Old Westbury SUNY Old Westbury

Professor James SchofieldProfessor James SchofieldSocial ScienceSocial ScienceOnondaga Community CollegeOnondaga Community College

The Critical Thinking The Critical Thinking CompetencyCompetency

Students willStudents will

11 IdentifyIdentify, , analyzeanalyze and and evaluateevaluate argumentsarguments as they occur in their as they occur in their own and others’ work; andown and others’ work; and

22 DevelopDevelop well-reasoned arguments. well-reasoned arguments.

First TaskFirst Task

Flesh out the key elements:Flesh out the key elements: IdentifyingIdentifying arguments arguments AnalyzingAnalyzing arguments arguments EvaluatingEvaluating arguments arguments Developing Developing well-reasoned argumentswell-reasoned arguments

Identify ArgumentsIdentify Arguments

What is an What is an argument?argument?


What is an What is an argument?argument?

A connected series of statements A connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.intended to establish a proposition.

Monty Python’s Flying Monty Python’s Flying CircusCircus


The Logic 101 Model:The Logic 101 Model:

All men are mortal. All men are mortal. Premises Premises Are they Are they true?true?

Socrates is a man.Socrates is a man.

Socrates is mortal.Socrates is mortal. Conclusion Conclusion Does Does it follow?it follow?

All As are Bs.All As are Bs.

X is an A.X is an A. Logical Form Logical Form Is it valid? Is it valid?

X is a B.X is a B.


Can this model apply across the Can this model apply across the curriculum?curriculum?

What about reasoning in biology, What about reasoning in biology, sociology, history or fine arts?sociology, history or fine arts?


These should count as arguments:These should count as arguments:

DesigningDesigning an experiment to test an hypothesis. an experiment to test an hypothesis. PredictingPredicting the outcome of some process. the outcome of some process. DecidingDeciding on the best measurement technique. on the best measurement technique. ExplainingExplaining the causes of some historical event. the causes of some historical event. EvaluatingEvaluating a work of art or performance. a work of art or performance.


A better conception of argument:A better conception of argument:

Any reasoning aimed at deciding what to Any reasoning aimed at deciding what to believe or to do.believe or to do.

Students should be able to identify the Students should be able to identify the characteristic features of such reasoning.characteristic features of such reasoning.

Analyze ArgumentsAnalyze Arguments

1.1. Identify an argument’s Identify an argument’s premisespremises, , definitions and assumptionsdefinitions and assumptions

What evidence is put forward?What evidence is put forward?

What results are reported?What results are reported?


1.1. Identify an argument’s premises, Identify an argument’s premises, definitionsdefinitions and assumptions and assumptions

What do the key words and terms What do the key words and terms mean?mean?

How might we define them?How might we define them?


1.1. Identify an argument’s premises, Identify an argument’s premises, definitions and definitions and assumptionsassumptions

What is being left unsaid?What is being left unsaid?

Can we make it explicit?Can we make it explicit?

AnalyzeAnalyze ArgumentsArguments

2.2. Identify the argument’s Identify the argument’s conclusionconclusion

What is the take home message?What is the take home message?

What is the report’s recommendation?What is the report’s recommendation?

What is the experiment claimed to What is the experiment claimed to show?show?

Isolate it from the premises.Isolate it from the premises.

Evaluate ArgumentsEvaluate Arguments

1.1. Judge whether an argument’s Judge whether an argument’s premises premises supportsupport the conclusion, the conclusion, independently of whether they are independently of whether they are true.true.


1.1. Judge whether an argument’s Judge whether an argument’s premises premises supportsupport the conclusion, the conclusion, independently of whether they are independently of whether they are true.true.

If the premises were true, would that If the premises were true, would that be be sufficient reasonsufficient reason to believe the to believe the conclusion?conclusion?


2.2. Judge whether an argument’s Judge whether an argument’s premises are premises are reasonablereasonable to believe, to believe, independently of whether they independently of whether they support the conclusionsupport the conclusion


What is the What is the sourcesource of the premises and of the premises and is it is it crediblecredible??

When is an experiment When is an experiment well-designedwell-designed?? When is measurement When is measurement accurateaccurate and and

preciseprecise?? When is testimony When is testimony trustworthytrustworthy??

When can we rely on When can we rely on observationobservation??

Develop Well-Reasoned Develop Well-Reasoned ArgumentsArguments

Develop an Develop an argumentargument for some for some conclusion.conclusion. E.g., E.g.,

ProposingProposing an experiment to test some an experiment to test some hypothesishypothesis

EvaluatingEvaluating a work of art a work of art PredictingPredicting the impact of some public policy the impact of some public policy ExplainingExplaining the decline of rust-belt cities the decline of rust-belt cities ArguingArguing that we have no free will that we have no free will


Students shouldStudents should identify identify

Relevant Relevant qualificationsqualifications and and distinctionsdistinctions

ObjectionsObjections and respond to them and respond to them Questions about source Questions about source credibilitycredibility AlternativeAlternative conclusions and address conclusions and address

themthem


Describe the broader Describe the broader contextcontext

Why does it Why does it mattermatter whether the whether the conclusion is true? conclusion is true?

What What followsfollows from it? from it? What would its truth What would its truth showshow??


ApplyApply similar reasoning in another similar reasoning in another casecase

Where else can we use thisWhere else can we use this Experimental designExperimental design Measuring instrumentMeasuring instrument

How can we How can we generalizegeneralize the lessons the lessons of this case?of this case?

Levels of CompetenceLevels of Competence

We established levels of competence We established levels of competence for each outcome.for each outcome.

Students will identify, analyze, and Students will identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments as they occur evaluate arguments as they occur

in their own and others’ work:in their own and others’ work:

Exceeding: Exceeding: The student’s work The student’s work

1.1. Identifies the target argument(s) Identifies the target argument(s) and clearly distinguishes it from any and clearly distinguishes it from any extraneous elements such as extraneous elements such as expressions of opinion and expressions of opinion and descriptions of events.descriptions of events.




2.2. Carefully articulates the argument’s Carefully articulates the argument’s conclusion, clearly distinguishes it conclusion, clearly distinguishes it from its premises and identifies from its premises and identifies most relevant definitions and/or most relevant definitions and/or hidden assumptions.hidden assumptions.




3.3. Clearly and correctly assesses Clearly and correctly assesses whether the argument’s premises whether the argument’s premises provide sufficient logical support for provide sufficient logical support for the conclusion, independently of the conclusion, independently of whether the premises are true.whether the premises are true.



Exceeding: Exceeding: The student’s workThe student’s work

4.4. Clearly and correctly assesses the Clearly and correctly assesses the reasonableness of the premises, reasonableness of the premises, including the credibility of their including the credibility of their sources, independently of whether sources, independently of whether the premises support the the premises support the conclusion.conclusion.

Students will develop well-Students will develop well-reasoned arguments:reasoned arguments:

Exceeding:Exceeding: The student’s workThe student’s work

1.1. Develops a clearly articulated Develops a clearly articulated argument, using evidence and/or argument, using evidence and/or systematic logical reasoning in systematic logical reasoning in support of a conclusion or point of support of a conclusion or point of view.view.



2.2. Identifies relevant qualifications or Identifies relevant qualifications or objections or alternative points of objections or alternative points of view and prioritizes evidence and/or view and prioritizes evidence and/or reasons in support of the reasons in support of the conclusion.conclusion.



3.3. Describes the broader relevance, Describes the broader relevance, significance or context of the issue significance or context of the issue and/or applies it to a novel problem. and/or applies it to a novel problem.

Remaining QuestionsRemaining Questions

1.1. Have we captured Have we captured Critical ThinkingCritical Thinking across the curriculum?across the curriculum?

Skills or kinds of arguments left out?Skills or kinds of arguments left out?


2.2. Have we correctly identified the Have we correctly identified the levels levels of competence?of competence?

Are we expecting too much/little?Are we expecting too much/little?


3.3. Can we use this rubric to Can we use this rubric to assessassess ? ?

Does it require student essays?Does it require student essays?

Could a multiple choice test suffice?Could a multiple choice test suffice?

What about the “in-betweens”?What about the “in-betweens”?


1.1. Have we captured Have we captured Critical ThinkingCritical Thinking across the curriculum?across the curriculum?

3.3. Have we correctly identified the Have we correctly identified the levels levels of competence?of competence?

4.4. How can we use this rubric to How can we use this rubric to assessassess ? ?

discipline based panel for critical thinking syracuse april 28, 2005

Documents

arguments premises

arguments conclusion

conclusion slide

wellreasoned arguments

circus slide

critical thinking syracuse

better conception of

key elements