In the Classroom
Designing a Written Assignment To Promote the Use of Critical Thinking Skills in an Introductory Chemistry Course Maria T. Oliver-Hoyo Department of Chemistry, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8204;
[email protected] Critical thinking, a sense of inquiry, and growth toward intellectual maturity are three interlocking desired outcomes that have spearheaded recent university initiatives at North Carolina State University (NCSU). One of these, the Hewlett Initiative, began with a grant initially funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation in 1997 (1). One of the four major goals of this initiative was to provide an opportunity for all entering freshmen to participate in at least one small (20 students or fewer) course during their first year, preferably during the first semester. A major emphasis of the small group experience was to increase student-driven learning through a number of vehicles—fostering critical thinking, promoting student inquiry, and encouraging growth toward intellectual maturity. As a result of the Hewlett Initiative, faculty throughout the university have been involved in workshops to study educational models for teaching and learning, plan courses to incorporate such models, and test different teaching strategies with the potential to achieve these outcomes. As a chemical educator actively involved in these initiatives, the author developed a rubric to be used with students in a freshmen chemistry course designed to foster critical thinking skills. The intellectual standards that define critical thinking skills are embedded in the rubric. It is expected that if the process of critical thinking is fostered during a semester, the experience will set in motion a pattern that will be applied by these students in other class settings. Quantifying gains in critical thinking skills is a difficult task, although a systematic, qualitative approach to promoting these skills is feasible. Streamlining the process started with defining the terminology that guided the creation and use of the rubric as a tool to foster critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness (2). This article describes the design of the exercise and the application of the rubric with emphasis on the practical issues involved in the use and implementation of the rubric to promote critical thinking skills. Design of the Exercise Inquiry-guided instruction, IGI, was chosen as the principal teaching strategy in this course. Inquiry complements the dimensions of critical thinking (3–5), and research shows a pattern of general support for inquiry-based teaching (6). This process of active investigation promotes critical thinking since it involves the ability to formulate good questions, identify and collect appropriate evidence, present results sys-
tematically, analyze and interpret results, formulate conclusions, and evaluate the worth and importance of those conclusions. It also develops students’ responsibility for their own learning and promotes initiative and curiosity. In an example of an inquiry-guided activity, students are presented with two ice cubes of equal volume, one made from H2O and the other from D2O. Students are informed that the ice cubes are made solely from water with the normal (two hydrogen to one oxygen atom) composition. When the ice cubes are placed in water, the students observe that one floats while the other sinks. The thought-provoking question for this demonstration is to explain the phenomenon. Animated discussions always follow this inquiry-guided demonstration. Students in one section of the general chemistry course, CH 101, participated in the semester-long exercise. The requirement for enrollment was that the student was a firstsemester freshman. Required for all science students, CH 101 is a conceptually driven course that explores the principles of atomic structure, bonding, reactivity, energetics, intermolecular forces, and types of reactions as well as introducing organic and inorganic chemistry. IGI practices in this course consisted mainly of interactive discussions, challenging group work, explanations of chemical phenomena, and conceptually driven homework and testing. These practices were incorporated into the lecture. Emphasis was placed on mastering concepts with minimal memorization and no drill-and-practice exercises. Demonstrations were used in every class to stimulate students and test their ability to apply and integrate concepts discussed in class. This inquiry-based section consisted of 20 first-semester freshmen. Written reports were used to monitor the use of critical thinking skills. A total of 18 written reports were evaluated. Each student selected a topic for his or her written assignment from a list provided by the instructor; no two students shared the same title. Examples of these titles include: A Chemical View of Drugs of Abuse; Biomedical Polymers: Replacement Parts for the Human Body; Chemical Design of the Manhattan Project; The Chemistry in Art Restoration; Importance of Nuclear Chemistry in Archeology; and Household Chemistry. The titles were broad enough to direct the search, while allowing students total control over investigations within the general title. Students submitted three drafts prior to the final version. Drafts were due every month of the semester, so the assignment continued over the entire semester. Each draft was graded using a rubric developed by the author for the assessment of the written reports (Table 1). This rubric was thoroughly discussed in class several times. A copy of the rubric with the level attained in each trait was returned to the student with each graded draft. The instructor evaluated each one of the four drafts. The original plan consisted of having the instructor evaluate the first and last drafts while allowing the students to peer-review the second and third versions. This particular aspect was
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 8 August 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
899
In the Classroom
modified after the first draft when it became obvious that the students needed a fuller discussion of the rubric as a method of evaluating the students’ work to conform to the expectations of a science major. Rubric The rubric developed was based on primary trait analysis scales (7). The traits to be measured included the writing of the abstract, sources of information used, organization of the paper, relevance of the ideas, content of the paper, and the written presentation. Each trait targeted a particular cog-
nitive skill as defined in Bloom’s taxonomy (8). Table 1 lists these skills in relation to the corresponding trait being evaluated. Students were given the rubric but were not told explicitly which cognitive skill each trait measured. Each trait was rated on a scale of 1–3. Students were warned that they should not expect to attain level 3 of this scale on any of the traits in the first draft, but efforts to achieve that level would pay off as successive drafts of their paper would require less work. The intellectual standards that define critical thinking (clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evi-
Table 1. Traits Evaluated in Written Reports Trait Evaluated
Cognitive Skills Applied
Criteria for Attaining Levels of the Rubric
Abstract
Synthesis
3. All main points of information are succinctly presented. Keywords that accurately describe information in the report are properly used. The abstract is written in a professional way. The abstract is less than 200 words long and contains a clear articulation of thesis statement or argument. 2. Some points of information or keywords are missing, but all the criteria are addressed. 1. One or more criteria are absent.
Sources of Information
Knowledge and Evaluation
3. Sources of information are appropriately cited in the document. A thorough search of the literature was conducted. The nature of sources is judged to be appropriate. Citations are consistently formatted. 2. An effort on all criteria is shown. 1. One or more criteria are absent.
Organization
Analysis
3. Clear section headings are used in the document. Material is presented under the appropriate heading. Information is presented in reasonable amounts. There is a logical and coherent flow of information throughout the document. 2. Either one of the last two criteria not met. Contains clear section headings with relevant material in each section. 1. Requires major improvements on all criteria.
Relevance
Knowledge and Application
3. Appropriate scientific terminology is used. The writing in the report integrates information from class, lecture, and activities into new material. The student can provide a link between theory and applications. 2. One criterion is lacking, but efforts on the other two are shown. 1. Scientific terminology is used, but none of the other criteria is met.
Content
Comprehension
3. The student’s writing conveys new information in the student’s own words. Concepts are correctly understood. An appropriate depth of content is present. The writing in the report is simple and direct. The student writes in the active voice rather than passive voice. 2. The material in the report is not well understood but effort is shown towards comprehension. 1. The content is too broad. Focus is not on the scientific aspect of the topic.
Presentation
Evaluation
3. The report is well written in English and has a professional appearance: typewritten, neat, and easy to read. All previous formative evaluations were addressed. The presentation conforms to the required format. 2. Efforts on all criteria were made but not fully achieved. 1. One or more of the criteria are not met.
900
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 8 August 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
dence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness) are embedded in the rubric. These intellectual standards guided the construction of levels for each trait, specifically Level 3. Table 2 provides the relationship between the standards and each trait. Appropriate wording is necessary to implicitly direct students towards those standards. Table 3 gives three practical examples.
The instructor kept grading and assignment of levels (in the rubric) separately. Grading was to provide feedback for students on performance. The instructor recorded assignment of levels to monitor relative changes from draft to draft. For instance, if improvements on a subsequent draft were not meritorious of a higher level in the rubric, the students were given a slighter higher grade from the previous draft to acknowledge their effort but the instructor recorded separately that no change in levels was attained. Students get discouraged if, after putting in extra work on a draft, their grading actually drops. If no sustained use of critical thinking standards was shown, the instructor recorded a 0 score for assignment of levels and a separate grade for the draft on the instructor record. The instructor record would have a score of 0 when either no modifications were included for that trait in a successive draft or when drafts were not handed in. The maximum value for each trait in CH 101 class is 54 points (18 students with three points per trait). Individual progress was also monitored but is not included in this paper. Only the relative gains obtained on sequential drafts are presented
Practical Issues The most common problems encountered are compiled in the matrix shown in Table 4. The remedial practices were incorporated in the course following the first draft and were applied through the semester as necessary. Once the instructor applies this rubric to student reports, there are options for recording progress and giving feedback to students. Discussion of these options is included for readers to be aware of alternative ways of monitoring the use of this rubric and consequently the promotion of critical thinking skills.
Table 2. Intellectual Standards Embedded in Traits of Critical Thinking Evidenced in Students’ Written Reports Abstract Clarity
X
Accuracy
X
Sources
X
Consistency
X X
Evidence
Relevance
Content
Presentation
X
X
X
X
X
Precision
Relevance
Organization
X
X X
X
X
X
X
Reasons Depth
X
X
Breadth
X
X
Fairness
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
Table 3. Example Application of the Rubric To Improve Students’ Writing and Critical Thinking Skills Rubric Portion Addressed
Instructor’s Comments on Students’ Papers
Pedagogical Rationale
All main points of information are succinctly presented.
Have you included all relevant information in a condensed form?
Instead of telling students that they need to shorten the abstract, ask them to evaluate the information they gathered, the information they are missing, and to reconstruct the ideas to present them in a shortened form.
A thorough search of the literature was conducted.
How long has this research been under study?
Instead of telling students they need more references, make them search the topic from a time perspective, so that they might evaluate the relevance of the references they have gathered and update their citations.
There is a logical and coherent flow of information throughout the document.
How do the different portions of your paper relate to others?
Instead of giving specific suggestions on how to move sections around, this questions prompts them to take a step back and look at the paper as a cohesive unit.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 8 August 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
901
In the Classroom
in Table 5. Two students in CH 101 chose to hand in only a final draft. Data for these two students are not included in Table 5. These improvements show the effective use of the rubric on subsequent drafts, and therefore, the sustained use of critical thinking skills. An alternative approach to using the rubric is to match the grade the students receive to the level of the rubric assigned. For example, achieving level 3 for the traits would correspond to a grade of “A” on the paper, while Level 2 for the traits would earn a student a grade of “B” for the paper. The absolute increase of scores would reflect the sustained effective use of the rubric. Discussion Written guidance to students has to be given carefully. Instructors must not provide too many details, obstructing students’ critical thinking processes. If modifications are too detailed, students simply follow directions. This adherence to strict directions does not indicate that they are exercising
higher cognitive skills or using the intellectual standards that define critical thinking. Clearly identifying a deficiency in a particular trait focuses a student’s attention on weaknesses in their draft, without providing too much specificity. The rubric proved to be a valuable tool in this regard. Students often tend to do exactly what they are told, and have a difficult time applying suggestions in a general fashion. For example, a suggestion to document cited information with a literature reference frequently resulted in the overuse of citations for facts not requiring a citation—a definition of a term. These recurring problems were addressed with classroom discussions. The delineation of a specific rubric provided students with clear goals, which they rose to meet, as demonstrated in this paper. Applying the rubric was particularly effective for producing improvements in successive drafts since the rubric provided guidance to students, defining the expected outcomes in the several traits with a description of each level. The increase in scores over the four drafts is not surprising. It is a well-tested observation that repetitive drafts of a
Table 4. Common Problems in the Writing Assignment and Remedial Practices Area of Difficulty
Nature of the Problem
Remedial Practice
Abstract
Either very wordy summaries or little substance was included.
The instructor and students discussed articles with accompanying abstracts.
Sources
Only electronic references were cited.
The instructor and students discussed the differences between primary and secondary sources, and using the Internet to find sources.
Organization
The writing shows a lack of cohesiveness in each section and poor flow of information.
The instructor consulted with individual students as the semester progressed.
Relevance
Not enough background from class was incorporated at the time of submission of early drafts.
As the class evolved, students were prompted to add possible applications and updated information from general media such as newspapers, magazines, etc.
Content
The content presented was too broad in scope.
The instructor and students reviewed and discussed good examples of scientific articles.
Table 5. Class Totals of Relative Changes from Successive Drafts for Traits Measured in a CH 101 Writing Exercise Abstract
Sources
Organization
Relevance
Content
Presentation
8
10
15
13
21
17
Second draft of paper
15
14
22
21
27
23
Third draft of paper
26
19
27
24
31
29
Fourth draft of paper
33
30
40
36
36
38
First draft of paper
NOTE: Maximum value is 54 points per trait.
902
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 8 August 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
work usually result in an improved product. Nor does the improvement necessarily reflect a commensurate improvement in critical thinking. However, a basic tenet is that critical thinking is a repetitive process, and “the feedback students receive from teachers on their ability to meet the relevant standards will be a large factor in the improvement of student reasoning” (9). As expressed earlier, the instructor provided careful feedback to the students (Table 2) to point out areas of improvement without being prescriptive about the specific change(s) to be made. Indeed, the rise in scores for each draft in every trait measured indicates improvement in the application of the rubric. As each trait in the rubric targets a particular cognitive skill and the intellectual standards that define critical thinking are embedded in the rubric, this exercise shows that the effective use of this rubric is a valuable tool to promote the use of critical thinking skills. Acknowledgments The author wants to thank Alton Banks for his invaluable help with earlier drafts of this manuscript and for his willingness to use this rubric in his sessions of general chemistry. Long hours were spent sharing ideas and suggestions on how to maximize the benefits of using this rubric in our classes.
Literature Cited 1. The Hewlett Initiative at NCSU. http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/ lockers/project/acad_proj/hewlett/proappf.htm (accessed May 2003). 2. Critical Thinking Organization. http://www.criticalthinking.org (accessed May 2003). 3. Klaassen, C. W. J. M.; Lijnse, P. L. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1996, 33, 115–134. 4. Hall, Donald A.; McCurdy, Donald W. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1990, 27, 625–636. 5. Roth, Wolff-Michael; Roychoudhury, Anita. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1993, 30, 127–152. 6. Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2000. 7. Walvoord, Barbara E.; Johnson Anderson, Virginia. Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, 1998; Chapter 5. 8. Bloom, B. S. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain, 1st ed.; Longmans, Green: New York, 1956. 9. Paul, Richard. In Critical Thinking Workshop Handbook; Foundation for Critical Thinking: Santa Rosa, CA, 1996.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 8 August 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
903
