Developing a rubric to assess critical thinking in a multidisciplinary context in higher education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Critical thinking (CT) is a generic attribute that is greatly valued across academic disciplines in higher education, and around the globe. It is also defined as one of the graduate attributes of higher education for the sample private university where this research was conducted, as it is perceived that CT helps the graduate to become ‘engaged citizens’ in the twenty-first century. Despite the well-documented importance of CT, its assessment remains a challenge. This study addresses this challenge through the systematic development and field-testing of a rubric for assessing critical thinking in a multidisciplinary context in higher education. A multidisciplinary group of faculty (i.e. education, nursing, medicine) from the sample university partnered with a policy research group in Canada to translate this plan into action. The development of the assessment tool followed a multi-step process including: (i) identification of the main elements of CT; (ii) choice of a rubric format; (iii) adaptation of the currently available relevant rubrics; and, (iv) field testing and establishment of the reliability of the rubric. The process resulted in the development of a holistic template, the Assessment of Critical Thinking (ACT) rubric. Two versions of the rubric have been field tested on a sample (n=59) of students drawn from different entities of the sample university. The data collected was subjected to psychometric analysis which yielded satisfactory results. This was a modest attempt to develop an assessment tool to guide multidisciplinary faculty members in teaching and assessing CT by assisting them to make decisions about the level of their students’ CT skills through a combination of numerical scores and qualitative description. It may also empower them to make self-initiated, conscious efforts to improve their classroom practice with reference to CT. The ACT rubric provides an anchoring point to start working on the daunting yet doable task of developing and fine-tuning both the assessment measures of CT and interventions to promote CT based on the assessment findings. Future research may not only provide robust evidence of the reliability and validity of the ACT rubric for a larger and varied sample but also help in making informed decisions to enhance teaching and learning of CT across entities of the sample university. How to cite this article: BHUTTA, Sadia Muzaffar; CHAUHAN, Sahreen; ALI, Syeda Kausar; GUL, Raisa; CASSUM, Shanaz; KHAMIS, Tashmin. Developing a rubric to assess critical thinking in a multidisciplinary context in higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in the South. v. 3, n. 1, p. 6-25, Apr. 2019. Available at: https://sotl-south-journal.net/?journal=sotls&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=69&path%5B%5D=34 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».