Assessment of Critical-Analytic Thinking
- 1.3k Downloads
National policy and standards documents, including the National Assessment of Educational Progress frameworks, the Common Core State Standards, and the Next Generation Science Standards, assert the need to assess critical-analytic thinking (CAT) across subject areas. However, assessment of CAT poses several challenges for developers of both large-scale and classroom assessments: Current CAT assessments often suffer from questionable item contexts, subjective rubrics, and underdeveloped construct formulations. Attention to these aspects of assessment would improve understanding of the development of students’ CAT and provide tools for helping teachers teach and students learn. We discuss these challenges within the context of several content areas and highlight the importance of developing formative assessments that capture the development of CAT in different domains of learning.
KeywordsCritical-analytic thinking Formative assessment Large-scale assessment Classroom assessment National Assessment of Educational Progress Common Core State Standards Next Generation Science Standards
- Afflerbach, P. (2012). Understanding and using reading assessment, K-12 (2nd edn.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
- Alexander, P. A. (2014). Thinking critically-analytically about critical-analytic thinking: an introduction. Educational Psychology Review. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9283-1.
- Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: limited learning on college campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals–handbook I: cognitive domain. New York: McKay.Google Scholar
- Byrnes, J. P., & Dunbar, K. (2014). The nature and development of critical-analytic thinking. Educational Psychology Review. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9284-0.
- Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy. Accessed 1 Oct 2014.
- Dewey, J. (1933). How we think, a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
- Dray, A. J., Brown, N. J. S., Lee, Y., Diakow, R., & Wilson, M. (2011). The assessment of reading comprehension in adolescents: the San Diego striving readers project (final report to the Institute of Education Sciences). Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Evaluation and Assessment Research Center.Google Scholar
- Facione, P. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: its character, measurement, and relation to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84.Google Scholar
- Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (Eds.). (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: concept-oriented reading instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Guthrie, J., Klauda, S., & Ho, A. (2013). Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 9–26.Google Scholar
- Kennedy, M., Fisher, M., & Ennis, R. (1991). Critical thinking: literature review and needed research. In L. Idol & B. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: implications for reform (pp. 11–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Knapp, M. & Associates. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high-poverty classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- National Assessment Governing Board. (2010). Reading Framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved from: www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks.html. Accessed 1 Oct 2014.
- National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies.Google Scholar
- NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Retrieved from: http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards. Accessed 1 Oct 2014.
- Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2013). Advances in the PARCC ELA/Literacy summative assessment. Retrieved from www.parcconline.org/samples/ELA. Accessed 1 Oct 2014.
- Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2014). Grades 6–11 condensed scoring rubric for prose constructed response items. Retrieved from www.parcconline.org/samples/english-language-artsliteracy/grades-6-11-generic-rubrics. Accessed 1 Oct 2014.
- Quellmalz, E. S., & Haertel, G. D. (2004). Use of technology-supported tools for large-scale science assessment: Implications for assessment practice and policy at the state level. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
- Quellmalz, E., Davenport, J., & Timms, M. (2012b). 21st century science assessments. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
- Schraw, G., & Robinson, D. (2012). Assessment of higher order thinking skills. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
- Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Pine, J. (1992). Performance assessments: political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher, 21(4), 22–27.Google Scholar
- VanSledright, B. A. (2013). Assessing historical thinking and understanding: Innovative designs for new standards. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Wentzel, K. (2009). Students’ relationships with teachers as motivational contexts. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 301–322). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Willingham, D. (2007 summer). Critical thinking. Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 8–19.Google Scholar
- Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: an item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar