What We Have Learned
Each year, beginning in the summer of 2008, every major is required to report on the status of CTW in their area. During the 2008-09 academic year, all undergraduate majors were encouraged to pilot courses designated as CTW in order to provide an opportunity for revision of assignments, assessment strategies, critical thinking definitions, and faculty preparation. On June 16th and 17th 2009, the Undergraduate Assessment Committee (formerly the General Education Assessment Committee) reviewed the Critical Thinking through Writing Pilot reports. To view the CTW Ambassador pilot reports, click on the following link: http://www.ctwdb.gsu.edu/ctw/reports.php The following summary comes from the Undergraduate Assessment Committee's report to the Associate Provost for Institutional Effectiveness. For the complete report click the following here.
Results and Summary of 2009 CTW Annual Reports
Fifty-two degree programs have developed CTW plans. All but one program provided a CTW report during the summer, 2009. The Undergraduate Assessment Committee and the Director of Academic Assessment reviewed the 51 CTW reports posted in the online CTW Content Management System. At this point in the CTW process, Ambassadors reported in a reflective manner.
Piloting Courses: Of the 52 CTW programs, nearly 70% of the programs piloted at least one course. Although an impressive number of courses were piloted last year, nearly a third of the programs did not or could not pilot a course (in three cases, the courses didn’t make). (See Appendix C in full report for Pilot Status.)
Faculty Preparation for Teaching CTW courses: The types of faculty preparation mentioned in reports across the university tended to fall into four major categories though a few of the CTW programs reported more than one type of faculty preparation or training for creating CTW assignments and teaching these courses. The four major categories include: Faculty Workshops or meetings, One-on-one training with colleagues, the Ambassador works alone as the only one teaching CTW courses, (no mention of group or faculty preparation), and no mention of faculty preparation in the report (See Appendix C in full report for an explanation of Faculty Preparation).
Typical issues reported by Ambassadors regarding faculty preparation centered around assessment strategies for measuring critical thinking. The most common issues reported focus on developing and revising rubrics and assignments.
Assessment: Nearly half of the CTW Ambassadors focused on a discussion of their rubrics or assessment criteria. Only three reported the results of the CTW rubrics/assessment in terms of student learning. (See Appendix D in full report for details by program.) Several programs made general comments about student improvement in writing or thinking, but did not provide evidence of these improvements. The Undergraduate Committee expected to see more detailed results of student learning in this section of the report, and their feedback encouraged Ambassadors include this detail in the coming year.
Assignments: Reflections on the assignments indicated that close to half of the Ambassadors felt that assignments needed revision. Many programs included CTW writing assignments requiring lengthy papers. Others built in unlimited revisions of writing. CTW faculty reported that both the length of papers and the unlimited revisions proved to be arduous for them. About one-third of the programs reported that their assignments were appropriate and no revisions are planned in the coming academic year. A few of the Ambassadors discussed, in general terms, that assignments encouraged students to think critically and that students enjoyed them (n=6). Others mentioned that working with the assignments influenced faculty to revisit and revise their definitions of critical thinking (n=6). (See Appendix E in the full report for details regarding Assignments and their effects.)
Achievements: Achievements at this early phase in the QEP were difficult for CTW faculty to define. In fact, more than a third of the Ambassadors did not report in this section at all. However, subtle indications of achievements could be found in other areas of the report and were defined by faculty in various ways. Many times their responses seem to be areas in which they are pleased with the program in their department so far, e.g. faculty preparation and assignments. Ambassadors reported that the discussions about CTW had positive effects on colleagues in terms of their renewed enthusiasm for teaching, as well. Several also mentioned, though without supporting data, that their students improved in thinking and writing as a result of attending to critical thinking and to using writing as a means of learning. (See Appendix F in full report for details by program on Achievements)
Action Plans: Like the Achievements section of the Content Management System, Action Plans were mentioned throughout the report but not always stated in this section. The most common action planned for AY 2009-10 concerns faculty preparation and training for CTW, often reported in the Faculty Preparation section. Half of the Ambassadors mentioned that faculty preparation would be imperative as the CTW initiative unfolds this fall. Nearly as many faculty reported that revised assignments and rubrics are also part of their Action Plan for AY 2009-10. A few programs went as far as to consider revising their definitions of critical thinking or their course offering itself. Only four programs did not mention an action for the coming year. (See Appendix G in full report for details by program of Action Plans).
