Judy Chaffi ns

Director of Gifted Education

Allen County ESC

judy.chaffi ns@allencountyesc.org

419-222-1836

Critical Thinking SLO and Assessment

The most fundamental concept of critical thinking is simple and intuitive. All humans think. It is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or down-right prejudiced. Unfortunately shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Critical thinking begins, then, when we start thinking about our thinking with a view to improving it.

Definition: Critical Thinking:

Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life By Richard Paul, Linda Elder, Pearson Education

Critical thinking is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, partially true, or false. Critical thinking is a process that leads to skills that can be learned, mastered and used. Critical thinking is a tool by which one can come about reasoned conclusions based on a reasoned process. This process incorporates passion and creativity, but guides it with discipline, practicality and common sense.

Definition

Wikipedia

“We are approaching a new age of synthesis. Knowledge cannot be merely a degree or a skill…it demands a broader vision, capabilities in critical thinking and logical deduction without which we cannot have constructive progress.”

~ Li Ka-shing

“We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers, people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely.”

~ E. O. Wilson

Inspiration

Foundational Skills: Observing, Comparing/Contrasting, Grouping/Labeling, Classifying/Categorizing, Ordering, Sequencing, Patterning, Prioritizing

Higher Level Thinking Skills: Bloom’s

Knowing: Fact Gathering; Understanding: See Foundational Skills, Putting “It” In Your Own Words; Applying: Using What You Know to Verify, Prove, Create; Analyzing: Fact/Opinion, Relevant/Irrelevant Information, Reliable/Unreliable Sources, Meaning of Statements; Evaluating: Judgment, Decision Making; Synthesizing: Putting It All Together, Creating Something New-Problem Solving

Problem Solving Skills: Identifying Issues/Problems: Questioning; Inferences: Cause/Effect, Generalizations, Assumptions, Point of View; Data/Evidence, Consequences/Implications: Predictions

Logical Reasoning Skills: Inductive, Deductive

Critical Thinking Skills

Figural Similarities: matching shapes, finding patterns….

Figural Sequences: figural sequence problems, producing a pattern…

Figural Classifications: classifying by pattern, finding pattern exceptions…

Figural Analogies: select and supply problems, making up analogies…

Verbal Similarities and Differences: antonyms, synonyms…

Verbal Sequences: following directions, opposites, time sequences…

Logical Relationships: cause-effect, implication…

Verbal Classifications: parts of a whole, general to specific, distinguishing relationships…

Verbal Analogies: “kind of”, “used for”, association analogies….

Measureable Skills

Student Learning Objective (SLO) TemplateTeacher Name: Jane Doe Content Area and Course(s): Gifted Pull-Out: Critical Thinking Grade Level(s): 3rd – 6th Grades Number of Students: ________

Baseline and Trend DataAcademic Year: 2013-2014 Baseline data includes 2013 OAA test data for ELA (3rd -6th grades), Math (3rd-6th grades), and Science (5th grade). Results demonstrate that all students performed at the proficient level or above in these subject areas. My students recorded a range of reading scores on the OAA from 415-507. Their strongest area was acquisition of vocabulary and weakest was in informational text. Math scores ranged from 429-522. Their strongest performance was in Number, Sense and Operations and weakest was in Data Analysis and Probabilities. In addition, I have IOWA Test of Basic Skills data for my 3rd grade students providing nationally normed scores in reading, math, science and social studies. These show that these students score at the 95 thile or above in ELA or math, but percentiles ranged from the 56thile to the 99thile in science. Their social studies skills were also a range between the 50 thile to the 99thile. Students were very strong in vocabulary and comprehension at their grade level, but could grow in these two at above grade level areas. I have Cognitive Abilities Test data for all students. This serves to identify students as superior cognitive gifted according to OAC 3301-51-15. All students were identified as gifted using state criteria. They qualified as either superior cognitive, specific academic in reading and/or specific academic in math. Trend data: I have taught this configuration of students through the pull-out model for 5 years. In that time, I have noted that they usually are strong in problem-solving skills but are weak in writing skills; in particular, they are weak in using descriptive details to bring greater meaning to an idea/topic. Most have strong performance on the OAAs, scoring in either the accelerated or advanced range in reading and math. I will begin a database of this year’s pre-assessment scores and analyze the data for future use in identifying strengths and weaknesses. The pre-assessment given in September measured critical thinking skills including: higher level thinking skills (applying, analyzing, evaluating, creating), problem-solving skills (both cognitive and creative: assumptions, inference, point of view, data gathering, predictions, sequencing), and logical reasoning skills (inductive, deductive, drawing conclusions, fact/opinion, cause and effect, patterning). Results of the regionally created, district approved pre-assessment indicated a need for growth in analyzing, inductive and deductive thinking, cause and effect, and writing skills using informational text. Copies of student trend and baseline test data are attached on an Excel spreadsheet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Population

This is a gifted pull-out course with superior cognitive identified gifted students and specific academic gifted students identified in either reading or math. These are children identified as gifted by the state of Ohio OAC 3301-51-15. Aggregated scores are demonstrated in the table below, including social studies and science for this group of students.

 

CogAT Superior Cognitive

AbilityScore

 

IOWA Superior Cognitive

Achievement Score:Core

 IOWA Superior

Cognitive Achievement

Score: Composite

IOWAAchievement

Score:Total Reading

IOWAAchievement

Score: Total Math

IOWAAchievement

Score: Social Studies

 

IOWA Achievement

Score: Science

9 10 9 4 12 5 7

I have 15 students total for 225 minutes per week (3rd-5th grade) and 240 minutes for my 6th graders, according to Gifted Operating Standards, ORC 3324.01-07. We meet one day per week. There are 4 third-grade students, 2 fourth-grade students, 5 fifth-grade students and 4 sixth-grade students. There are no students on an IEP. All students have Written Education Plans, (WEPs), which set yearly goals based on strengths. No students are excluded. Since we only meet one day per week, holidays, weather delays or cancellations, field trips, absences and other classroom conflicts can negatively impact gifted class direct instruction time. I will collaborate with classroom teachers and parents to maximize learning opportunities lost in these instances.

Interval of Instruction

This course begins in August 27, 2013, and ends April 15, 2014 for evaluation purposes. The class meets once per week for a full day of instruction for a total of 225 minutes for 3rd through 5th grades, and 240 minutes per week for 6th grade. Total number of days meeting is approximately 35 per year. As stated above, the total number of times meeting with direct gifted instructional time can be diminished due to weather, classroom priorities/conflicts or student absences. Each day that our class or individual students do not meet can significantly impact student achievement due to the exponential impact of fewer days to make up the experiences. I will collaborate with classroom teachers and parents to maximize learning opportunities lost in these instances.

Standards and Content

I have selected the Common Core ELA and Math Standards and the New Ohio Science and Social Studies Academic Learning Standards as the basis for my instruction and assessment, with critical thinking as the goal. For ELA, CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRS.R.10 – Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently, and CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.10-Write routinely over extended time frames and shorter time frames for a range of tasks, purposes an audiences for reading will be used with differentiated expectations at each grade level. To guide math instruction, I have selected the following standards from the Common Core 8 Standards for Mathematical Practice: making sense of problems and persevere in solving them, reason abstractly and quantitatively, construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others, and look for and make use of structure. Other standards confirm the need, align well, and will be used as resources to strengthen my focus on critical thinking. The National Association for Gifted Program Standards Standard 3: 3.4.1 Curriculum Planning and Instruction states: Educators use critical-thinking strategies to meet the needs of students with gifts and talents. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills has Critical Thinking and Program Solving Standards as one of its key components. Ohio’s Race to the Top Area B: Standards and Assessments goal states that by 2014, 100% of Ohio’s classrooms will implement a more rigorous college-and career-ready curriculum that, together with aligned assessments and teacher supports will form the foundation of a comprehensive system to empower Ohio’s students to succeed globally in the 21st century. Critical thinking is a core component of that initiative and this SLO therefore aligns well with that larger Ohio goal as well. Program goals and objectives adopted in the district's board policy for gifted states: The service will provide the opportunity for students to develop higher-level thinking skills through academic content areas, which also aligns well with this SLO. Most of my instruction involves integrated projects involving multiple content areas. The use of these standards meets the individual needs of my students as I am able to differentiate their assignments based on their grade level and individual content area strengths as indicated in their WEPs, with an emphasis on critical thinking throughout. I will focus on critical thinking skills through integrated assignments, using above grade level academic standards as a guide, and grade band goals where appropriate. Copies of the appropriate grade level Common Core ELA and Math standards, the New Ohio Science and Social Studies Academic Learning Standards, the National Association for Gifted Program Standards, and since Ohio is a participating member of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills initiative, the Critical Thinking and Program Solving Standards will also be attached. Those standards have been incorporated into the Revised Ohio Science and Social Studies Learning Standards. This is a broad, not targeted, SLO.

Assessment(s)

I used a regionally-created by gifted coordinators, district approved, gifted pre-assessment in September to establish baseline data that addresses critical thinking skills including: higher level thinking skills, (applying, analyzing, evaluating, creating), problem-solving skills (both cognitive and creative: assumptions, inference, point of view, data gathering, predictions, sequencing), and logical reasoning skills (inductive, deductive, drawing conclusions, fact/opinion, cause and effect, patterning). The short answer and extended response items were rated using a regionally-created, district approved rubric. The assessment was designed to align with my overall content skills, and contains stretch through the use of higher level thinking questions and tasks because each grade has a separate test with items addressing at and above grade-level skills. Each grade-level test included 19 multiple choice questions worth 2 points each, 4 short answer worth up to 2 points each, and 1 extended response answer worth up to 4 points. The post-assessment mirrors the pre-assessment, using similar items, but not copying them. The table below illustrates the test blueprint for the pre-assessment. To help ensure objectivity, I exchanged the short answer and extended response items with a fellow gifted teacher and we graded each other’s students’ papers. I chose a 50 point assessment since this class meets approximately 35 days per year, thereby reducing contact time with students. The growth portfolio will only be used if a student scores a 48 or above on the pre-test in order for them to demonstrate growth. It consists of a concept map (pre and post) on a topic appropriate for their grade level and pertaining to a unit of study the class does at each grade level, 2 formative writing assessments (pre and post), and an above grade level problem-solving problem graded by a district approved rubric using a 4 point scale. The student must score at least a 12 on the growth portfolio with a maximum possible of 16 points.

Pre-Assessment

# of Questions-

Multiple Choice (2 pts. Each)

# of Questions

-Short Answer (0, 1 or 2

pts.)

# of Question

s-Extended Response (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 pts.)

 Growth

Portfolio(3 tasks with a

maximum score of 4 pts. per

task) Final score on each task must be at least a 3,

for a minimum total of 12

points.

Higher Level Thinking Skills

7 1

Problem Solving Skills

6 2

Logical Reasoning Skills

6 2

Total #s of Questions/Tasks

19 4 13

Total Possible Points = 50

38 total points

8 total points

4 total points

16 total points

Growth Target(s)

I have set tiered targets based upon the regionally-created, district approved pre-assessment measuring critical thinking skills including: higher level thinking skills, problem-solving skills, and logical reasoning skills.

Pre-Test Scor

e

Numbers of

Students Scoring in this range on the Pre-Assessmen

t

Growth TargetRange of Possible

Scores

0-100 30 minimum or 25 points more,

whichever is greater0 = 30; 10 = 35

11-204 35 minimum or 20 points more,

whichever is greater11 = 35; 20 = 40

21-3010 40 minimum or 15 points more,

whichever is greater21 = 40; 30 = 45

31-401 45 minimum or 8 points more,

whichever is greater31 = 45; 40 = 48

41-50

 

0 48 minimum + growth portfolio (GP with 12 pts. min.) or 50 + GP

41 = 48 + GP; 50 = 50 + GP (12 pts. min., +

or – SEM as it is determined

Rationale for Growth Target(s)

The students in this class have already demonstrated high achievement compared to their grade level peers. I selected targeted ELA Anchor Standards, 8 Standards for Mathematical Practice and 21st Century Critical Thinking Skills Standards incorporated into the Newly Revised Science and Social Studies Learning Standards because their academic growth depends on instruction focused on deeper, more abstract and complex targets, including reaching beyond their grade level.The tiered growth targets I have set are both reasonable and rigorous for this population of students because each student has a separate growth target based upon all key concepts of our gifted pull-out course targeting critical thinking skills. Each student’s grade level is separately addressed in both the pre- and post-assessments. Students should be able to demonstrate grade level growth by the inclusion of a range of grade level questions (at and above) on the pre-test and the use of multiple styles of questions: multiple choice, short answer, and extended response. For students scoring 48 points or above on the pre-test, the growth portfolio tasks will provide sufficient evidence of growth. I will target instruction to address student weaknesses in the use of informational text to promote growth in this area. Students scoring at the lower end of the pre-assessment should be able to attain the rigorous growth target listed due to their ability to process at a higher speed, retain information with fewer repetitions and their ability to connect information on an abstract level. Their identified ability predicts they are capable of growing more than a minimum of one year’s growth. One confounding factor that may limit their achievement, is since we only meet 35 times per year, if we miss a day due to weather or other events outside of our control, my contact time is reduced proportionately with them and the ability to make up the work is also limited due to competing classroom priorities. I will communicate learning issues with classroom teachers and parents as needed to compensate for this limitation.Our school district is focusing on the broader goals of increased proficiency in reading and math along with improved writing skills across all grade levels. We are also increasing awareness and use of 21st Century skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, communication and collaboration. This SLO aligns directly with those goals.

Fall, 2013 CRITICAL THINKING PRE-ASSESSMENT

Third GradeFall, 2013

 Student Name: _______________________________________ Date: ___________________ Multiple Choice Questions: For each of the following questions, circle the answer that most correctly answers the question.  Type your question here. [higher order thinking: analysis-analogy question]

1st answer choice2nd answer choice3rd answer choice4th answer choice

 Type your question here. [problem-solving: inference question]

1st answer choice2nd answer choice3rd answer choice4th answer choice

 Type your question here. [problem-solving: prediction question]

1st answer choice2nd answer choice3rd answer choice4th answer choice

 Type your question here. [higher order thinking: analyze/evaluate-main idea question]

1st answer choice2nd answer choice3rd answer choice4th answer choice

 

ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST

Critical Thinking SLO Pre/Post-Assessment Checklist

3rd GradeNumber of Questions Needed:

Tally Numbered Question

Multiple Choice:Higher Level Thinking Skills

7

Problem Solving Skills 6Logical Reasoning Skills 6 Short Answer 4 Extended Response 1Critical Thinking SLO Pre/Post-Assessment Checklist

4th GradeNumber of Questions Needed:

Tally Numbered Question

Multiple Choice:Higher Level Thinking Skills

7

Problem Solving Skills 6Logical Reasoning Skills 6 Short Answer 4 Extended Response 1Critical Thinking SLO Pre/Post-Assessment Checklist

5th GradeNumber of Questions Needed:

Tally Numbered Question

Multiple Choice:Higher Level Thinking Skills

7

Problem Solving Skills 6Logical Reasoning Skills 6 Short Answer 4 Extended Response 1Critical Thinking SLO Pre/Post-Assessment Checklist

6th GradeNumber of Questions Needed:

Tally Numbered Question

Multiple Choice:Higher Level Thinking Skills

7

Problem Solving Skills 6Logical Reasoning Skills 6 Short Answer 4 Extended Response 1

Rural School 3-6 Gifted Pullout Data Baseline Data

Critical Thinking/ELA-Research SLO2013-2014

IOWA IOWACritical Thinkin

g

ELA Researc

h

First Name

Last Name

Gender

GradeCogAT Compo

site

Individual

Testing Woodco

ck Johnson

III

IOWA

Core

IOWA

Comp

Total Readi

ng

Total Math

OAA Readi

ng

OAA Math

OAA Scienc

ePre-

Assessment

Scores

Pre-Assessment

Scores

1Studen

tA M 4 133 86 83 446 453 N/A 28 7

2Studen

tB F 4 94 129 96 86 461 521 N/A 27 3

3Studen

tC F 4 108 130 95 96 452 469 N/A 24 5

4Studen

tD F 4 119 96 89 461 501 N/A 35 8

5Studen

tE M 4 125 95 88 446 439 N/A 24 9

6Studen

tF M 5 129 79 99 468 508 N/A 34 8

7Studen

tG F 6 130 95 88 443 503 440 41 10

8Studen

tH M 6 113 96 89 400 431 406 26 4

9Studen

tI F 6 129 97 90 425 461 390 31 12

10Studen

tJ F 6 126 95 95 468 490 440 36 14

Teacher Name: Ohio Wonder Woman School: Rural Ohio Elementary

SLO Title: Critical Thinking Assessment Name (if available): Critical Thinking

Student NameStudent Number

Baseline Score

Growth

Target

Final Score

Exceeds/

Meets Target? (yes/ no)

Student A   28 35    

Student B   27 35    

Student C   24 35    

Student D   35 40    

Student E   24 35    

Student F   34 39    

Student G   41 48    

Student H   26 35    

Student I   31 38    

Student J   36 45    

Suburban Elementary 3-4 Grade Gifted Pullout Data Baseline DataCritical Thinking SLO2013-2014

IOWA IOWA IOWA IOWA IOWA IOWA IOWA IOWA Critical Thinking

First Name

Last Name

Gender

Grade

CogAT Compo

site

IOWA Core

IOWA

Comp

Total Reading

Total Math

Reading Comprehension

Language

Vocabular

y

Math Concepts

Social Studi

es

Science

OAA Readi

ng

OAA Math

Pre-Assessm

ent Scores

1 Student A F 3 130 89 87 89 91 94 77 78 88 86 56 N/A N/A 312 Student B M 3 128 97 99 94 97 98 92 85 94 92 98 N/A N/A 343 Student C M 3 131 79 87 65 96 72 40 61 84 96 84 N/A N/A 284 Student D F 3 120 98 99 94 99 98 92 85 97 86 95 N/A N/A 325 Student E F 3 123 98 99 89 98 90 99 90 92 92 95 N/A N/A 286 Student F M 3 126 97 97 92 98 94 92 90 99 86 90 N/A N/A 347 Student G F 3 123 98 97 90 98 94 98 85 92 92 84 N/A N/A 308 Student H F 3 129 92 88 90 88 90 92 93 84 50 84 N/A N/A 279 Student I F 3 126 99 99 99 99 99 99 98 99 96 90 N/A N/A 34

10 Student J M 3 130 97 99 94 98 94 92 93 99 86 99 N/A N/A 3511 Student K M 3 126 97 99 99 96 99 88 96 92 99 98 N/A N/A 3412 Student L F 3 137 99 99 97 99 99 99 90 97 92 84 N/A N/A 3313 Student M F 3 128 92 91 90 96 98 62 70 92 59 95 N/A N/A 2714 Student N F 3 127 96 94 88 97 84 96 93 94 77 84 N/A N/A 3415 Student O M 3 133 84 77 94 73 94 83 93 67 50 56 N/A N/A 2716 Student P M 3 122 97 99 98 98 98 83 96 99 99 99 N/A N/A 2417 Student Q M 4 124 96 96 96 97 94 86 98 94 93 85 446 481 3218 Student R M 4 133 94 93 85 97 82 91 88 99 87 85 472 481 3719 Student S M 4 118 99 99 96 98 94 98 98 97 93 96 441 501 3020 Student T M 4 123 97 99 95 99 97 91 88 97 99 94 446 521 3021 Student U F 4 133 95 97 94 92 89 91 98 90 87 90 433 460 2922 Student V M 4 136 99 99 95 99 94 98 95 99 70 90 446 481 3423 Student W F 4 122 98 95 99 97 99 86 99 97 87 65 460 469 3224 Student X M 4 129 99 99 95 98 82 98 99 99 96 96 433 453 3425 Student Y F 4 120 96 93 97 90 99 91 88 90 80 79 441 460 34

Teacher Name: Ohio Wonder Woman School: Suburban Elementary School

SLO Title: Critical Thinking Assessment Name (if available): Critical Thinking 3rd and 4th Grade

Student Name Student NumberBaseline

ScoreGrowth Target

Final Score

Exceeds/ Meets Target? (yes/

no)

Student A   31 38    

Student B   34 40    Student C   28 35    Student D   32 38    Student E   28 35    Student F   34 40    Student G   30 35    Student H   27 35    Student I   34 40    Student J   35 40    Student K   34 40    Student L   33 38    Student M   27 35    Student N   34 40    Student O   27 35    Student P   24 35    Student Q   32 38    Student R   37 45    Student S   30 35    Student T   30 35    Student U   29 35    Student V   34 40    Student W   32 38    Student X   34 40    Student Y   34 40    

7th Grade 6th GradeScore

sScores Number Scores Scor

esNumber

49 49 1 43 43 1

45 45 2 42 42 3

45 44 1 42 41 1

44 43 1 42 40 1

43 42 2 41 37 1

42 41 1 40 35 3

42 40 2 37 34 4

41 39 2 35 33 1

40 37 2 35 32 2

40 36 1 35 30 3

39 35 1 34

39 34 1 34

37+ more 32 1 34+ more

Average

40 18 Average

35.8

Median

40 Median 34.5

Suggestion:

Give the pre-assessment to the next grade level class to help establish data predictions for end-of-year growth targets.