See our white paper: Consequential Validity: Using Assessment to Drive Instruction .The International Critical Thinking test differs from traditional critical thinking tests in that traditional tests tend to have low consequential validity; that is, the nature of the test items is such that faculty, not seeing the relevance of the test to the content they teach, ignore it.In one case, a section from a textbook may be chosen; in another, an editorial, in a third, a professional essay.
All of the above assessment instruments, when used appropriately and graded accurately, should lead to a high degree of consequential validity.
In other words, the use of the instruments should cause teachers to teach in such a way as to foster critical thinking in their various subjects.
Whether you're a parent with a pen in hand preparing to write yet another hefty tuition check, a student with a headache trying to persuade yourself to get out of bed and go to class or a high schooler with a lot of options deciding what to do after graduation, you've probably asked yourself that question at least once. The test, in part, asks students to use data, articles, blog posts and emails to answer questions and demonstrate skills it says are important for "not only for success in high school and college" but also "for success in the workplace and other aspects of life outside the classroom."Thefound that at about half of schools, large groups of seniors scored at basic or below-basic levels.
And an exclusive report out Monday from analyzed results from the College Learning Assessment Plus, or CLA , a critical-thinking test given annually to freshmen and seniors from about 200 U. According to a rubric, that means they can generally read documents and communicate to readers but can't make a cohesive argument or interpret evidence. At California State University in Los Angeles, for example, 35 percent of seniors had below-basic skills and 29 percent had basic skills.
The purpose of the International Critical Thinking Test is to provide an assessment of the fundamentals of critical thinking that can be used in any subject. The first goal is to provide a reasonable way to pre- and post-test students to determine the extent to which they have learned to think critically within a discipline or subject.
The second goal is to provide a test instrument that stimulates faculty to teach their discipline so as to foster critical thinking in the students.A 2011 book called made waves years ago when it used CLA data to claim that 36 percent of students didn't show any big improvement in learning after four years of college.A Pew Research Center study from that same year found that 57 percent of Americans thought the higher education system wasn't a good value, and 2016 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the average student spends only 3.5 hours every day on educational activities.Students cannot become skilled in analyzing and assessing reasoning without practice in it.However, when they have routine practice in paraphrasing, summarizing, analyzing, and assessing, they will develop skills of mind requisite to the art of thinking well within any subject or discipline, not to mention thinking well within the various domains of human life.In other words, the test is designed to have high consequential validity; that is, the consequence of using the test is significant: faculty tend to re-structure their courses to put more emphasis on critical thinking within the disciplines (to help students prepare for the test).It also has the consequence that faculty think through important critical thinking principles and standards (which they otherwise take for granted).In evaluating student exams the grader is attempting to answer two questions: In Part I of the test, the grader makes 8 judgments concerning student work, each worth 10 points.In Part II of the test, the grader grades holistically (0-20 points).The International Critical Thinking Test is the perfect test to teach to.For one, the structure and standards for thought explicit in the test are relevant to thinking in all departments and divisions.