Discipline Based Panel for Critical Thinking

1. Discipline Based Panel forCritical Thinking Syracuse April 28, 2005

2. Professor Andrew Costa Philosophy and Ethics Adirondack Community College Professor Gwen Crane English SUNY Oneonta Professor Shir Filler English North Country Community College Professor Clyde Herreid Biological Sciences University at Buffalo Professor David Hunter (Chair) Philosophy and Religious Studies Buffalo State College Professor Dorothy Laffin Business Administration Suffolk County Community College Professor Hedva Lewittes Psychology SUNY Old Westbury Professor James Schofield Social Science Onondaga Community College Who we are

3. The Critical Thinking Competency Students will • Identify, analyze and evaluatearguments as they occur in their own and others’ work; and • Develop well-reasoned arguments.

4. First Task Flesh out the key elements: • Identifying arguments • Analyzing arguments • Evaluating arguments • Developing well-reasoned arguments

5. Identify Arguments What is an argument?

6. Identify Arguments What is an argument? A connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Monty Python’s Flying Circus

7. Identify Arguments The Logic 101 Model: All men are mortal. Premises Are they true? Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal. Conclusion Does it follow? All As are Bs. X is an A.Logical Form Is it valid? X is a B.

8. Identify Arguments Can this model apply across the curriculum? What about reasoning in biology, sociology, history or fine arts?

9. Identify Arguments These should count as arguments: • Designing an experiment to test an hypothesis. • Predicting the outcome of some process. • Deciding on the best measurement technique. • Explaining the causes of some historical event. • Evaluating a work of art or performance.

10. Identify Arguments A better conception of argument: Any reasoning aimed at deciding what to believe or to do. Students should be able to identify the characteristic features of such reasoning.

11. Analyze Arguments • Identify an argument’s premises, definitions and assumptions What evidence is put forward? What results are reported?

12. Analyze Arguments • Identify an argument’s premises, definitions and assumptions What do the key words and terms mean? How might we define them?

13. Analyze Arguments • Identify an argument’s premises, definitions and assumptions What is being left unsaid? Can we make it explicit?

14. AnalyzeArguments • Identify the argument’s conclusion What is the take home message? What is the report’s recommendation? What is the experiment claimed to show? Isolate it from the premises.

15. Evaluate Arguments • Judge whether an argument’s premises support the conclusion, independently of whether they are true.

16. Evaluate Arguments • Judge whether an argument’s premises support the conclusion, independently of whether they are true. If the premises were true, would that be sufficient reason to believe the conclusion?

17. Evaluate Arguments • Judge whether an argument’s premises are reasonable to believe, independently of whether they support the conclusion

18. Evaluate Arguments What is the source of the premises and is it credible? • When is an experiment well-designed? • When is measurement accurate and precise? • When is testimony trustworthy? • When can we rely on observation?

19. Develop Well-Reasoned Arguments Develop an argument for some conclusion. E.g., • Proposing an experiment to test some hypothesis • Evaluating a work of art • Predicting the impact of some public policy • Explaining the decline of rust-belt cities • Arguing that we have no free will

20. Develop Well-Reasoned Arguments Students should identify • Relevant qualifications and distinctions • Objections and respond to them • Questions about source credibility • Alternative conclusions and address them

21. Develop Well-Reasoned Arguments Describe the broader context • Why does it matter whether the conclusion is true? • What follows from it? • What would its truth show?

22. Develop Well-Reasoned Arguments Apply similar reasoning in another case • Where else can we use this • Experimental design • Measuring instrument • How can we generalize the lessons of this case?

23. Levels of Competence We established levels of competence for each outcome.

24. Students will identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own and others’ work: Exceeding: The student’s work • Identifies the target argument(s) and clearly distinguishes it from any extraneous elements such as expressions of opinion and descriptions of events.

25. Students will identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own and others’ work: Exceeding: The student’s work • Carefully articulates the argument’s conclusion, clearly distinguishes it from its premises and identifies most relevant definitions and/or hidden assumptions.

26. Students will identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own and others’ work: Exceeding: The student’s work • Clearly and correctly assesses whether the argument’s premises provide sufficient logical support for the conclusion, independently of whether the premises are true.

27. Students will identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own and others’ work: Exceeding: The student’s work • Clearly and correctly assesses the reasonableness of the premises, including the credibility of their sources, independently of whether the premises support the conclusion.

28. Students will develop well-reasoned arguments: Exceeding:The student’s work • Develops a clearly articulated argument, using evidence and/or systematic logical reasoning in support of a conclusion or point of view.

29. Students will develop well-reasoned arguments: Exceeding:The student’s work • Identifies relevant qualifications or objections or alternative points of view and prioritizes evidence and/or reasons in support of the conclusion.

30. Students will develop well-reasoned arguments: Exceeding:The student’s work • Describes the broader relevance, significance or context of the issue and/or applies it to a novel problem.

31. Remaining Questions • Have we captured Critical Thinking across the curriculum? Skills or kinds of arguments left out?

32. Remaining Questions • Have we correctly identified the levels of competence? Are we expecting too much/little?

33. Remaining Questions • Can we use this rubric to assess ? Does it require student essays? Could a multiple choice test suffice? What about the “in-betweens”?

34. Remaining Questions • Have we captured Critical Thinking across the curriculum? • Have we correctly identified the levels of competence? • How can we use this rubric to assess ?