Creating Coherent Pathways to Develop Critical Thinking Skills in Students

Creating Coherent Pathways to Develop Critical Thinking Skills in Students

R.E.A.S.O.N. Creating Coherent Pathways to Develop Critical Thinking Skills in Students To develop critical thinkers who have the skills and disposition to reason holistically in an inductive and deductive manner; to analyze, criticize, synthesize and advocate ideas; and to reach factual or judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from integrated and diverse frames of reference (including scientific, mathematical, historical, sociological, economic, moral, and philosophical methods) in an attempt to respond to a variety of issues. Evidence of critical thinking competency is observed through the decision-making and problem-solving behaviors in the personal, academic, professional, and social life of an individual. Pathway 2 Enriching Educational Experiences Service-Learning Living and Learning Communities Peer Mentoring Human, Financial, Information Resources Pathway 1 Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations UNI 101 General Education Courses Infusion of Critical Thinking in the General Education Core Formative and Summative Assessment Pathway 3 Faculty and Staff Engagement Professional Development CT Community of Practice Mini-Grants Structure Active Learning Diversity cohesion

Quality Enhancement Plan Outcomes The two great points to be gained in intellectual culture are the discipline and the furniture of the mind; expanding its powers, and storing it with knowledge. (The Yale Report, 1828, p. 7) The key to educational excellence lies in fostering habits of mind that enable students to continue their learning, engage new questions, and reach informed judgments. (AAC&U, 2007, p. 30) Upon completion of the general education core, Norfolk State University undergraduate students will be able to: Reflect on information presented in diverse media and diverse frames of reference to identify main ideas, themes, and assumptions and make comparative judgments from data. Evaluate the validity and limitations of assumptions in relation to evidence and identify limitations and contradictions in an event. Argue to effectively advocate ideas and alternative solutions; identify, develop, and evaluate arguments and issues. Solve problems in creative, efficient, and effective ways to demonstrate creative problem-solving skills. Obtain desired goals or outcomes by assessing potential deviations from such outcomes; evaluate and implement a plan to work towards a goal or conclusion. Network to communicate ideas, alternative solutions, and desired outcomes in a variety of media and in diverse frames of reference; communicate the results, findings, and recommendations in a variety of media. Building on solid critical thinking skills, students will demonstrate competence in scientific and quantitative reasoning, information literacy, and written and oral communication.

QEP Model NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Theoretical Framework and Implementation Model From Theory To Practice Curriculum Design Critical Thinking Dimensions Perry s Positions of Intellectual Development Knefelkamp & Widick s Developmental Instruction Model QEP Action Areas Critical Thinking Tests (Local and Standardized) / Critical Thinking Rubrics Co-Curricular Experiences / Revised General Education Core / Faculty & Staff Development General Education Core Tier 2 General Education Core Tier 1 / UNI 101 1. Identify main ideas, themes, and assumptions. 2. Make comparative judgments from data, systematic observations, and practice or discipline wisdom. 3. Determine the validity and implications of assumptions. 4. Identify limitations and contradictions in an event. 5. Analyze and evaluate arguments and issues. 6. Demonstrate creative problemsolving skills. 7. Implement and evaluate a plan to work towards a goal or conclusion. Dualism Dualism represents a mode of developing meaning that tends to view the world dichotomously. Multiplicity Multiplicity refers to honoring diverse views when the right answers are not yet known. All opinions are equally valid. Relativism Relativism is characterized by recognition of the need to support opinions. All opinions no longer are equally valid. Knowledge is contextually defined and based on evidence and supporting arguments. Commitment Commitment involves choices, decisions, and affirmations that derive from the vantage point of relativism. Structure Framework and direction provided to students. Diversity Variety and complexity of alternatives and perspectives that are presented and encouraged. Experiential Learning Concreteness, directness, and engagement contained in learning activities. Cohesion 1 A safe environment where risk taking is encouraged. Pathways Curriculum Design Information Diversity Campus Diversity Active Learning Pedagogies Integrative Learning Activities Advising Peer Mentoring Undergraduate Research Opportunities Student-Faculty Interaction Faculty Development Focal Areas Development of critical thinking skills Information Literacy Awareness of and appreciation for human diversity Reinforcement of critical thinking skills through: Talking & Listening Writing Reading Reflecting Small group discussion s and projects Seminars Case studies Core texts Service learning Reflective journals 1 The term cohesion will replace the term personalism. From Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998), personalism refers to the creation of a safe environment where risk taking is encouraged and is manifested in an interactive environment that demonstrates enthusiasm derived from the course material, instructor availability, and comprehensive feedback. For the purposes of the QEP, this definition is retained for the term cohesion. vi Norfolk State University

Table of Contents GREETINGS FROM THE PRESIDENT 8 QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN COMMITTEE 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 BACKGROUND 25 Norfolk State University and the QEP Theme 27 Purpose and Overview 29 Focus of the Quality Enhancement Plan 29 Background Related to the Quality Enhancement Plan 35 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 49 Theoretical Framework Supporting the Quality Enhancement Plan 51 Perry s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development 52 Knefelkamp and Widick s Developmental Instruction Model 54 Nelson s Classroom Teaching Strategies 55 Guiding Principles for the Quality Enhancement Plan 56 IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS 59 PATHWAY 1: Curricular Innovations 62 PATHWAY 2: Enriching Co-Curricular Activities 75 PATHWAY 3: Faculty and Staff Development and Engagement 82 ASSESSMENT AND IMPACT OF THE QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN 97 Overview 97 Relevant Internal and External Measures to Evaluate the QEP 99

Management, Oversight, and Means for Assessing Success of the QEP 100 Internal System for Evaluating the QEP and Monitoring its Progress 100 How Results of the Evaluation will be Used to Improve Student Learning 101 Formative Assessment and Process Evaluation 101 Summative Assessment 106 Assessment in Pathway 1 107 Assessment in Pathway 2 108 Assessment in Pathway 3 109 Summative Evaluation of Program Impact 110 Assessment Map and Timeline 111 INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY TO INITIATE AND SUSTAIN THE QEP 113 Administrative Coordination and Support Structure 115 Implementation Timeline and Action Steps by Pathway 120 Budget 124 SUMMARY 126 REFERENCES 129 APPENDICES 141

Quality Enhancement Plan Committee Co-Chairs Dr. Elsie Barnes Dr. Charles Ford Professor and Vice President for Academic Affairs Professor and Department Head, History Members Dr. Moncef Belhadjali Dr. Gladys Bennett Dr. William Byrne Dr. Nuria Cuevas Dr. Donna Dabney Dr. Marvin Feit Dr. Mildred Fuller Dr. Curtis Greaves Ms. Keisha Kirkland Dr. Larry Mattix Dr. Khadijah Miller Mr. Chinedu Okala Dr. Rudolph Wilson Dr. Enrique Zapatero Professor and Associate Dean, School of Business Acting Executive Director, First-Year Experience Professor and Acting Dean, School of Liberal Arts Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Director, Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment Professor and Associate Dean, School of Education Professor, School of Social Work Professor and Department Head, Allied Health and Chair, University Assessment Advisory Committee Director, Counseling Center Student Government Association President Professor and Associate Dean, School of Science and Technology Assistant Professor and Department Head, Interdisciplinary Studies Professor, Fine Arts and Past Faculty Senate President Professor, Political Science and Team Leader, QEP Pilot-Test Working Group Associate Professor, Management Information Systems and Chair, General Education Council

Committee Support Staff Ms. Junelle Banks Dr. Nuria Cuevas Dr. Alexei Matveev Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment QEP Proposal and Pilot-Test Working Group Dr. Rudolph Wilson Chair and Professor, Political Science Course Enhancement Ms. D Nita Graham- Andrews Ms. Kimberly Hutson Ms. Patricia Jackson Mr. Ronald White Dr. Enrique Zapatero Computer Science (CSC 150) Political Science (LOG 210) English (ENG 102) Mathematics (MTH 103) Management Information (ISM 499) Assessment Dr. Mildred Fuller Ms. Eleanor Hoy Dr. Khadijah Miller Allied Health Technology Interdisciplinary Studies Critical Thinking in Information Literacy Mr. Henry Albritton Library 10

Executive Summary 1 11

12

Executive Summary Norfolk State University proposes to improve critical thinking skills in undergraduate students by embedding critical thinking teaching, learning, and assessment strategies across the general education curriculum. Educationallyenriching co-curricular activities will be developed and implemented to reinforce and sustain student achievement of critical thinking outcomes. Co-curricular activities will include living and learning communities, a peer mentoring program, and service-learning activities. An ongoing, comprehensive faculty and staff development program will be developed to ensure consistent application of critical thinking pedagogies and assessment strategies. In addition to a comprehensive annual schedule of faculty and staff development sessions conducted by external and internal consultants, the program also will include faculty communities of practice organized by general education subject area. Background and Focus of the Quality Enhancement Plan Effective critical thinking skills are a hallmark of a high-quality education and a critical characteristic of productive citizens who are able to contribute to a dynamic global society. 13

A. Critical Issues Addressed in the QEP Rooted in a rich liberal studies tradition, critical thinking dispositions and skills stimulate a spirit of critical inquiry and provide a foundation for lifelong learning. The proposed QEP supports the mission of the general education program to develop informed persons who possess a rational open-mindedness that leads to analytical and critical patterns of thought. Similarly, professional programs such as Nursing, Social Work, and Teacher Education value critical thinking as an essential skill students must possess prior to matriculation in the professional component of the undergraduate program. B. Significant Issues Related to Student Learning and Improving the Learning Environment Norfolk State University (NSU) students report higher or equal levels of engagement in higher-order learning activities than the national average on measures such as the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). Given relatively high levels of self-reported engagement in learning activities focused on higher-order reasoning skills, students demonstrate very modest results on locally-developed core competency assessments of critical thinking skills. For example, 71% of students achieved a relatively low passing cut-off score of 60% on three of five core critical thinking competency dimensions. Two conclusions may explain the apparent contradiction. First, NSU students generally perceive significant growth in cognitive skills, but many fail to meet critical thinking performance standards set by NSU faculty. Second, systematically administered, value-added direct measures of critical thinking skills are needed in order to provide feedback to students and faculty regarding student development of cognitive skills. Results from the measures can be used to guide the development and implementation of pedagogical and learning strategies to enhance cognitive skill development in students, such as critical thinking. For these reasons, it is important for faculty to continually challenge and support students in developing higher-order reasoning skills. 14

C. Relevant Goals and Objectives Related to Improving Student Learning The primary goal of the proposed QEP is to develop critical thinkers. These thinkers will have the skills and dispositions to analyze, criticize, synthesize and advocate ideas. Students also will be able to reason holistically in an inductive and deductive manner and to reach factual or judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from integrated and diverse frames of reference, in an attempt to respond to a variety of issues. The frames of reference include scientific, mathematical, historical, sociological, economic, moral, and philosophical methods. The objectives of the QEP are to improve critical thinking skills in undergraduate students by: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Implementing curricular revisions to enhance the learning environment and to support achievement of critical thinking outcomes by undergraduate students. Developing enriching co-curricular activities to promote and enhance student learning and intellectual development outside of the classroom through living and learning communities, developing a peer mentoring program, and enhancing service-learning and civic engagement activities. Developing a comprehensive, annual faculty and staff development program to build expertise in critical thinking pedagogies and assessment strategies embedded across the general education core in order to support and sustain improvement of critical thinking learning outcomes in undergraduate students. Monitoring program implementation and conducting ongoing research, assessment, and program evaluation in order to ensure the sustainability of quality improvements in student outcomes. Developing a resource repository of critical thinking pedagogies, assessment, and student development for use by faculty, staff, and students. D. Benefits to be Derived from the Quality Enhancement Plan Anticipated benefits from the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) include, but are not limited to: 15

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. A revised and enhanced general education core program focused on developing and improving critical thinking skills in undergraduate students. An increase in student pre-test and post-test scores on direct measures of critical thinking skills. An increase in student achievement of educational and professional goals. For example, improved passing rates on professional certification and licensure examinations and an increase in graduate and professional school enrollment is expected. An increase in scholarly and creative activities by faculty and students focused on enhancing critical thinking outcomes. An NSU Critical Thinking Website to support faculty communities of practice in sharing innovative pedagogies, practices, tools, teaching and learning strategies, assessment practices, training and workshop materials, and program effectiveness information. A Critical Thinking Resource and Information Room for use by faculty, staff, and students and supported by the University Library and the Office of Quality Enhancement and Critical Thinking Studies. A critical thinking teaching and learning database to build and identify a cadre of faculty trained in effective teaching, learning, and assessment strategies to serve in consultative, training, research, and tutoring roles. An increase in faculty confidence and expertise with reference to teaching, developing, and assessing critical thinking skills in undergraduate students. Institutional Capability to Initiate and Continue the Quality Enhancement Plan In order to ensure objectives are met and to ensure continuity, sustainability, coordination, and appropriate oversight for the various components of the QEP, an effective administrative structure is required. A. Implementation and Completion Timeline Initial implementation steps will begin in spring 2008 with the initiation of a formal search for a QEP director and identification of an interim director 16

to oversee start-up activities such as handling details for a successful search, establishing the office in the identified location, initiating start-up marketing plans, and working with the General Education Council and QEP Committee to implement preliminary plans for summer and fall 2008 activities. Full implementation of the three pathways to enhance critical thinking skills in undergraduate students e.g., revision and review of the general education core to embed critical thinking outcomes, faculty development, and cocurricular activities will begin in fall 2008. The pathways will be reviewed and evaluated annually beginning in 2008 through 2013. Implementation plans and strategies will be revised as necessary on an ongoing basis. A program impact study will be conducted in 2012-2013. Results from the annual evaluations and the program impact study will be used to inform continuation plans for the QEP after 2013. B. QEP Staff The Office of Quality Enhancement and Critical Thinking Studies will be established in the summer of 2008 to support implementation and oversight of the QEP. The office will be staffed by a full-time director and a full-time administrative support specialist. Two faculty coordinators, each on a one course release per semester, also will support the QEP. The QEP director will report to the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs and will be responsible for successful implementation of all components of the QEP, including collaborating with the University Library and the Office of Information Technology to ensure appropriate access to academic resources and technology to support implementation and sustainability of the QEP. The primary function of the office is to ensure that learning and program outcomes are met and to ensure ongoing assessment and review processes inform program planning, decision-making, and improvement of student learning outcomes. The office also is responsible for effective faculty and staff development activities and the development of curricular and co-curricular strategies to support student achievement of critical thinking outcomes. 17

C. Financial and Physical Resources to Support, Sustain, and Complete the QEP As part of the annual University budget proposal and approval process in fall 2007, an initial start-up budget of $383,733 was approved to establish and support implementation of the QEP and program activities in 2008-2009. In addition, a tentative budget for 2009-2013 was developed and was based on an average of approximately $373,000 annually with an allowance for five (5) percent increases annually. Annual resource needs for the QEP will follow existing University processes and procedures for annual budget requests and approvals. A permanent cost center has been established for the QEP effective July 1, 2008 to institutionalize QEP operations and to formalize establishment of the QEP within the University structure and existing policies and procedures. D. Academic Resources and Systems to Implement and Sustain QEP Outcomes Student achievement of outcomes related to the Quality Enhancement Plan will be developed by embedding critical thinking pedagogies and learning strategies throughout the general education core. Critical thinking outcomes will be reinforced and sustained through: 1) significant enhancement of service learning activities, 2) development of living and learning communities for students, and 3) enrichment and expansion of peer mentoring programs. Implementation of such programs will provide students with opportunities to practice and assess their abilities to think critically. Enriching educational experiences such as service-learning, living and learning communities, and peer mentoring facilitate the development of intentional learners integrative thinkers who can see connections in seemingly disparate information and draw on a wide range of knowledge to make decisions. They adapt the skills learned in one situation to problems encountered in another.... As a result, intentional learners succeed even when instability is the only constant (AAC&U Greater Expectations National Panel, 2002, pp. 21-22). 18

E. Administrative Processes for Maintaining Progress of Quality Improvements As manager of the Office of Quality Enhancement and Critical Thinking Studies, the QEP director will report to the Vice President for Academic Affairs regarding all administrative and operational processes as well as progress in achieving and sustaining quality improvements related to the Quality Enhancement Plan. The QEP director will have primary responsibility for ensuring ongoing assessment of all components of the QEP and for ensuring results are used for planning, improvement, and decision-making. The QEP staff, programs, and all components related to implementation of, and operations for, the Quality Enhancement Plan will be subject to established University and state policies and procedures. In collaboration with the General Education Council and the QEP Committee, the QEP director will ensure critical thinking learning outcomes are achieved, curricular review of the general education core is conducted systematically, curricular revisions are implemented in accordance with curriculum review and approval procedures, faculty and staff development is implemented and evaluated as planned, and co-curricular experiences are developed, implemented, assessed, and revised as appropriate. Assessment of the Quality Enhancement Plan Formative assessment and process evaluation measures will include assessment of entry-level critical thinking skills possessed by undergraduate students. Pre-tests and post-tests of critical thinking skills as direct measures of cognitive development also will be administered as well as locally-developed courseembedded assessments, common course assignments and projects across general education subject areas, annual curriculum mapping and alignment reviews, course syllabus reviews, and general education course audits by subject area. The timeline and cycle for administration of the assessment measures will begin in fall 2008 and will continue through 2013. An Assessment Map and Timeline for QEP outcomes and activities have been developed and are included in the proposal. The QEP director will review and update the map and timeline routinely. 19

A. Means for Assessing Success of the QEP The assessment and evaluation processes for the QEP will be aligned with University policies and processes. The QEP director will have primary responsibility for ensuring ongoing assessment and evaluation of all components of the QEP and ensuring results are used for planning, improvement, and decision-making. The QEP director will be expected to work closely with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment (IEA) with respect to developing a comprehensive assessment and evaluation plan, adhering to University assessment and evaluation policies, including reporting requirements, and seeking assistance in the identification and development of appropriate assessment and evaluation measures. The QEP director will become a member of the University Assessment Advisory Committee, the General Education Council, and the QEP Committee. The purpose of the assessment and evaluation plan will be to determine whether QEP program goals have been achieved including the impact of curricular and co-curricular interventions on student outcomes, student achievement of critical thinking outcomes, success of the QEP implementation plan, and program impact. B. Relevant Internal and External Measures to Evaluate the QEP The assessment and evaluation plan will incorporate direct measures of student achievement of core competency and program learning outcomes. The critical thinking subtests of the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) and the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) will be administered as pretests and post-tests to assess student progression in achieving critical thinking and reasoning skills. The Scale of Intellectual Development (SID) and the Measure of Epistemological Reflection (MER) will be used to assess student progression in cognitive and intellectual development along the dimensions of Perry s model of intellectual and cognitive development. Common course test items, and common course projects and assignments, will be developed by the faculty. The tests, projects, and assignments will be embedded in general education courses to evaluate the effectiveness of critical thinking pedagogies and learning strategies to improve student achievement of critical thinking outcomes and to assess student achievement of intended learning outcomes. Course syllabus reviews and curriculum mapping will be conducted on an annual basis in order to assess and document the extent to which critical 20

thinking learning outcomes have become saturated across the general education curriculum. The syllabus reviews and curriculum maps also will be used to identify gaps in the curriculum and to identify areas to target for faculty and staff development programs. Course evaluations will be conducted in accordance with University policies and procedures to assess and monitor the effectiveness of the general education courses as critical thinking pedagogies and learning strategies are embedded throughout the core program. Ongoing evaluations of faculty and staff development activities and co-curricular activities will be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the faculty development and co-curricular pathways of the QEP. Process and program impact evaluations will be conducted by external consultants to evaluate implementation of QEP activities and interventions, and faculty, staff, and student engagement in QEP activities. Indirect assessment measures will be administered on a systematic basis. The measures include the National Survey of Student Engagement, the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement, the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement, and the Graduating Student Exit Survey. Surveys and assessment measures for servicelearning activities, student living and learning communities, peer mentoring activities, and faculty communities of practice will be developed to provide feedback for planning, program development, and program effectiveness. C. Internal System for Evaluating the QEP and Monitoring its Progress The administrative and operational systems and processes for the QEP will be evaluated and monitored in accordance with routine University policies and procedures for systematic review of programs. QEP staff and administrator performance evaluations will be conducted annually, in accordance with University policies and procedures. Budget reviews and related procedural and process reviews will be conducted on an annual basis. In addition, process evaluation surveys will be administered to evaluate and monitor implementation and progress of the QEP. Data will be collected to identify and evaluate engagement, participation, and satisfaction with the curricular review and revision processes, faculty and staff development programs, and cocurricular activities. The results will be used to inform planning and decisionmaking to ensure successful implementation and sustainability of the Quality Enhancement Plan. 21

D. How Results of the Evaluation will be Used to Improve Student Learning The results from the assessment and evaluation plan will be used by the QEP Committee, General Education Council, the University Curriculum Committee, Academic Council, Executive Cabinet, and the QEP director on an ongoing basis to inform plans for curriculum review and revision, enhancement of pedagogical and learning strategies in critical thinking, faculty and staff development, and enhancement of educationally-enriching co-curricular activities. Broad Based Involvement of the Norfolk State University Community A cross-section of the Norfolk State University community was involved in the identification and development of the focus and theme for the Quality Enhancement Plan. A. Methods Used to Develop the Quality Enhancement Plan After identifying the QEP focus, theme, and curriculum domain through a participatory, university-wide process, teams of faculty, staff, and students were organized from 2005 through 2007 to conduct a comprehensive literature review of critical thinking pedagogies and learning strategies and to develop implementation strategies during summer institutes and summer academies sponsored by national organizations such as the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP). From the summer institute teams and the QEP proposal review processes, a QEP proposal writing team was established. The team reviewed and pilot tested assessment and pedagogical strategies, developed implementation strategies in accordance with practices identified in the literature, and prepared the first comprehensive draft of the Quality Enhancement Plan from spring 2006 through fall 2007. The Leadership Team accepted the completed draft copy of the Quality Enhancement Plan in November 2007. After review and feedback by the Leadership Team and the 22

Council of Deans in December 2007, the SACS working group incorporated the feedback and revised the final draft of the Quality Enhancement Plan for review by the Leadership Team. The final draft of the Quality Enhancement Plan was reviewed and approved by the Leadership Team in January 2008. B. Broad-Based Involvement in the Development of the QEP The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) was discussed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs at faculty and staff opening and closing conferences each fall and spring term beginning in spring 2005. The QEP has been discussed frequently in meetings of the Executive Cabinet, Board of Visitors, the Student Government Association, Academic Council, Deans Council, University Curriculum Committee, General Education Council, as well as in divisions, schools, and departments from 2003 through spring 2008. A campus-wide call for QEP Proposals was issued by the Leadership Team in August 2005. The purpose of the Call for Proposals was to invite faculty, students, administrators, staff, and alumni to participate in the process to identify viable strategies for use in developing a QEP. Seven proposals were submitted by faculty and staff. The proposal writers decided to collaborate and to combine individual proposals, form a QEP Proposal Working Team, and, with the permission of the QEP Committee, collaborated to develop a comprehensive QEP proposal during the 2005-2006 academic year. In fall 2007, the QEP Proposal Working Team conducted a small-scale QEP pilot project, funded by the Southern Education Foundation, to assess the feasibility of the proposed strategies. A draft of the QEP proposal was completed by the Proposal Working Team in October 2007. The QEP Writing Group presented the draft of the proposal to the General Education Council in November 2007. The Vice President for Academic Affairs presented the proposal to the Deans Council in November 2007. The proposal was reviewed by the NSU Leadership Team and the Board of Visitors in December 2007. The proposal was presented to the campus community during spring opening meetings in January 2008. Feedback from the presentations was used to restructure and finalize the proposal. 23

24

Background 2 25

26

Background Norfolk State University and the QEP Theme Norfolk State University (NSU), founded in 1935, was brought to life in the midst of the Great Depression as the Norfolk Unit of Virginia Union College. The institution provided a setting in which African-American youth of the region could give expression to their educational hopes and aspirations. In 1942, the institution became the independent Norfolk Polytechnic College and two years later became a part of Virginia State College. In 1956, the first baccalaureate degree was offered and in 1969, the College became fully independent. University status was attained in 1979. Now, as a public, comprehensive university located in a vibrant and diverse urban environment, NSU continues its mission to provide an affordable, high-quality education for an ethnically and culturally diverse student population, equipping them with the capability to become productive citizens who continuously contribute to a global and rapidly changing society. Student learning and academic excellence are focal points of NSU s mission and are supported by principles that guide the University s planning and decisionmaking (2004-2009 Strategic Plan, p. 7): 1. 2. Providing quality undergraduate instruction that challenges and inspires students. Encouraging life-long learning. 27

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Fostering the liberal studies tradition. Expanding undergraduate research opportunities. Infusing technology throughout the curriculum and the operational processes. Developing new technologies. Cultivating student leadership capabilities. Maintaining a safe, nurturing, student-centered environment. Engaging students in the campus community. Empowering University constituencies for campus involvement. Serving diverse student populations. Providing community service and outreach. Fostering the HBCU tradition. Encouraging collegial relationships. Providing quality customer service. Encouraging working relationships to reduce institutional silos. Traditionally, educators have promoted critical thinking skills as one of the most important characteristics of an educated person. Development of critical thinking skills in students is directly related to the University mission and strategic plan. For example, among others, achievement of strategic principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 12 listed above require students to possess critical thinking skills. In addition, professional success and active citizenship in global and constantly changing contemporary societies require minds that can grapple successfully with uncertainty, complexity, and conflicting perspectives and still take stands that are based on evidence, analysis, and compassion and are deeply centered in values (Nelson, 1998, p. 177). Effective critical thinking skills are a hallmark of high-quality education and a critical characteristic of productive citizens who are able to contribute to a constantly changing global society (re: NSU Mission Statement). Rooted in a rich liberal studies tradition (re: NSU Strategic Plan Guiding Principle 3), critical thinking dispositions and skills stimulate the spirit of critical inquiry (NSU Strategic Plan Guiding Principle 4) and provide a foundation for life-long learning (NSU Strategic Plan Guiding Principle 2). The proposed QEP also supports the general education program goal to develop informed persons who possess a rational open-mindedness that leads to analytical and critical patterns of thought. Similarly, professional programs such as Social Work, Teacher Education, and Nursing consider critical thinking to be an essential skill students must possess before matriculating in the professional component of the program. 28

Purpose and Overview Norfolk State University proposes to improve critical thinking skills in undergraduate students by embedding critical thinking teaching, learning, and assessment strategies across the general education curriculum. Educationallyenriching co-curricular activities will be developed and implemented to reinforce and sustain student achievement of critical thinking outcomes. Co-curricular activities will include living and learning communities, a peer mentoring program, and service-learning activities. An ongoing, comprehensive faculty and staff development program will be developed to ensure consistent application of critical thinking pedagogies and assessment strategies. The Program also will develop, support, and sustain improvement of critical thinking learning outcomes in undergraduate students. In addition to a comprehensive, annual schedule of faculty and staff development sessions conducted by external and internal consultants, the program also will include faculty communities of practice organized by general education subject area. Focus of the Quality Enhancement Plan As stated earlier, rooted in a rich liberal studies tradition, critical thinking dispositions and skills stimulate a spirit of critical inquiry and provide a foundation for lifelong learning. The proposed QEP supports the mission of the general education program to develop informed persons who possess a rational, open-mindedness that leads to analytical and critical patterns of thought. Similarly, professional programs such as Nursing, Social Work, and Teacher Education value critical thinking as an essential skill students must possess prior to matriculation in the professional component of the undergraduate program. In this section, the critical issues, focus, goals, objectives, scope, organization, and development of the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) are presented. 29

Critical Issues Related to Student Learning and Improving the Learning Environment Norfolk State University (NSU) students report higher or equal levels of engagement in higher-order learning activities than the national average on measures such as the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). Surprisingly, given relatively high levels of self-reported engagement in learning activities focused on higher-order reasoning skills, students demonstrate very modest results on locally-developed core competency assessments of critical thinking skills. For example, approximately 71% of students consistently achieve a relatively low passing cut-off score of 60% on three of five core critical thinking competency dimensions. Two conclusions may explain the apparent contradiction. First, NSU students generally perceive significant growth in cognitive skills, but many fail to meet critical thinking performance standards set by NSU faculty. Second, systematically administered, value-added direct measures of critical thinking skills are needed in order to provide feedback to students and faculty regarding specific development of higher-order cognitive skills in undergraduate students. Results from the measures can be used to guide the development and implementation of pedagogical and learning strategies to enhance cognitive skill development in students, such as critical thinking. For these reasons, it is important for faculty to continually challenge and support students in developing higher-order reasoning skills. Scope of the Proposed QEP The proposed curricular and co-curricular interventions and the comprehensive faculty and staff development program for the QEP are designed to address teaching and learning in the general education core. Results from an exhaustive review of literature and comprehensive analyses of assessment information were presented to the QEP Committee and the Leadership Team across several meetings during 2005-2007. The results, including interpretations of general education curriculum maps by the General Education Council, made a strong case that the QEP should address the identified gaps and inconsistencies in developing critical thinking in students and, as a foundation for student success in the chosen major, the general education core is the appropriate curricular domain in which critical thinking teaching, learning, 30

and assessment interventions should be embedded. After broad discussion and deliberation from fall 2006 through fall 2007, the QEP Committee agreed to focus the QEP on the general education core. Relevant Goals and Objectives Related to Improving Student Learning to teach the art of fixing the attention, directing the train of thought, analyzing a subject proposed for investigation; following, with accurate discrimination, the course of argument; balancing nicely the evidence presented to the judgment; awakening, elevating, and controlling the imagination; arranging, with skill, the treasures which memory gathers; rousing and guiding the powers of genius. (The Yale Report, 1828, p. 7) The primary goal of the proposed QEP is to develop critical thinkers. These thinkers will have the skills and dispositions to analyze, criticize, synthesize and advocate ideas. Students also will be able to reason holistically in an inductive and deductive manner; and to reach factual or judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from integrated and diverse frames of reference, in an attempt to respond to a variety of issues. The frames of reference include scientific, mathematical, historical, sociological, economic, moral, and philosophical methods. The objectives of the QEP are to progressively improve critical thinking skills in undergraduate students from 2008 through 2013 by: 1. Implementing curricular revisions in the general education core by spring 2010 to enhance the learning environment and to support achievement of critical thinking outcomes by undergraduate students. Strategies will include: a. Embedding critical thinking pedagogies, integrative learning activities, and assessment strategies across the general education curriculum and selected undergraduate courses (e.g., UNI 101 Introduction to University Life and LOG 210 Logical and Critical Thinking) and in selected co-curricular experiences (e.g., living and learning communities, peer mentoring, and service-learning). b. Conducting comprehensive reviews of general education course syllabi on a systematic basis (at least annually) to ensure coherence and 31

2. 3. consistency of critical thinking pedagogies and assessment strategies as designed across general education courses. Results from the reviews will be used for assessment purposes, to provide feedback to faculty and staff, and to plan faculty and staff development activities. It is expected the course and syllabi reviews will lead to a comprehensive review and revision of the general education core in order to ensure sequential coverage of all critical thinking outcomes across the general education core, to ensure students have developed intended critical thinking skills and outcomes, and to ensure opportunities for development and assessment of culminating experiences related to critical thinking skills and competencies. Developing and implementing enriching co-curricular activities by spring 2011 to promote and enhance student learning, intellectual development, and achievement of critical thinking outcomes outside of the classroom through living and learning communities, a peer mentoring program, and service-learning and civic engagement activities. Developing and implementing a comprehensive, annual faculty and staff development program from 2008 through 2013 to build expertise in critical thinking pedagogies and assessment strategies embedded across the general education core in order to support and sustain improvement of critical thinking learning outcomes in undergraduate students. Faculty communities of practice will be developed and supported as one component of an annual comprehensive, structured, campus-based faculty and staff development program. Recognized leaders in critical thinking pedagogies, research, and student development will be invited to conduct faculty and staff development workshops and seminars. Recognized leaders on campus (e.g., faculty and staff who have attended critical thinking teaching, learning, and assessment training sessions, and other learning opportunities such as the California Critical Thinking Institute, AAC&U summer institutes and conferences on teaching and learning) will lead ongoing seminars and discussions focused on developing and reinforcing critical thinking pedagogies and assessment strategies, will lead special topics working groups, and will encourage scholarship related to curricular and co-curricular teaching and learning focused on developing critical thinking skills in students. Faculty and staff will learn how to teach, reinforce, and assess critical thinking skills in curricular and cocurricular experiences. Faculty will review, revise, and as appropriate, design course syllabi, assignments, and tests to embed critical thinking outcomes in courses consistent with the map of critical thinking skills across the general education core. Faculty teaching in the general 32

4. 5. education core, including adjunct and newly hired faculty, and student development staff, including newly hired staff, will be included in the annual faculty and staff development program. Monitoring program implementation and conducting ongoing research, assessment, and program evaluation from 2008 through 2013 in order to ensure the sustainability of quality improvements in student outcomes. a. Administering a set of formative and summative assessment and evaluation measures to inform ongoing planning and decision-making and to build evidence relevant to program impact. In addition to ongoing assessment of student learning outcomes, the measures will include ongoing performance monitoring and evaluation, process and summative analyses, as well as impact analyses and cost studies. b. Building a scholarship of pedagogy, assessment, and student development related to developing critical thinking skills in students through the use of results from assessment, evaluation and related studies. c. Developing and maintaining a database of faculty and staff who are responsible for and qualified to develop and assess critical thinking skills in students by identifying faculty (adjunct and full-time) who teach general education core courses and staff who are managing and supporting selected co-curricular activities and programs (e.g., living and learning communities, peer mentoring programs, service learning, etc.) who also maintain active membership in the faculty or staff critical thinking learning communities. Establishing a resource repository of critical thinking pedagogies, assessment, and student development by spring 2009 for use by faculty, staff, and students. Additional information regarding the proposed interventions and strategies to develop and enhance critical thinking outcomes in students is presented in the QEP Implementation Pathways section of the proposal. Intended Learning Outcomes Norfolk State University graduates will be able to R.E.A.S.O.N.: Reflect on information presented in diverse media and diverse frames of reference to identify main ideas, themes, and assumptions and make comparative judgments from data. 33

Evaluate the validity and limitations of assumptions in relation to evidence and identify limitations and contradictions in an event. Argue to effectively advocate ideas and alternative solutions; identify, develop, and evaluate arguments and issues. Solve problems in creative, efficient, and effective ways to demonstrate creative problem-solving skills. Obtain desired goals or outcomes by assessing potential deviations from such outcomes; evaluate and implement a plan to work towards a goal or conclusion. Network to communicate ideas, alternative solutions, and desired outcomes in a variety of media and in diverse frames of reference; communicate the results, findings, and recommendations in a variety of media. In addition, building on solid critical thinking skills, students also will demonstrate competence in related core skills such as scientific reasoning, quantitative reasoning, information literacy, and written and oral communication. Anticipated Benefits from the Quality Enhancement Plan Anticipated benefits to NSU, the faculty, and students from the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) include: 1. A revised and enhanced general education core program focused on developing and improving critical thinking skills in undergraduate students. a. evised UNI 101 (Introduction to University Life), a required course for all undergraduate students, and orientation activities to prepare incoming students to develop and improve critical thinking skills. Academic credit for UNI 101. b. Addition of a required critical thinking course for all undergraduate students. c. Increase in stated learning outcomes in general education core courses focusing on critical thinking skills. d. Increase in integrative learning activities in general education core courses. e. Increase in collaborations between curricular and co-curricular activities to support student achievement of critical thinking outcomes 34

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. (e.g., service-learning embedded in general education core courses, increase in student engagement in service-learning activities, greater emphasis on learning and acquiring critical thinking skills as a result of applying critical thinking skills to practical situations, etc.). An increase in student pre-test and post-test scores on direct measures of critical thinking skills. An increase in student achievement of educational and professional goals. For example, improved passing rates on professional certification and licensure examinations and an increase in graduate and professional school enrollment is expected. An increase in scholarly and creative activities by faculty and students focused on enhancing critical thinking outcomes. For example, an a. b. c. Increase in involvement of undergraduate students in research. Increase in faculty and student collaboration in research. Increase in faculty and staff research, presentations, and publications related to advancing the critical thinking knowledge-base. An NSU Critical Thinking Website to support faculty communities of practice in sharing innovative pedagogies, practices, tools, teaching and learning strategies, assessment practices, training and workshop materials, and program effectiveness information. A Critical Thinking Resource and Information Room for use by faculty, staff, and students and supported by the University Library and the Office of Quality Enhancement and Critical Thinking Studies. A critical thinking teaching and learning database to build and identify a cadre of faculty trained in effective teaching, learning, and assessment strategies to serve in consultative, training, research, and tutoring roles. An increase in faculty confidence and expertise with reference to teaching, developing, and assessing critical thinking skills in undergraduate students. Background Related to the Quality Enhancement Plan Organizing the campus to respond, broad-based involvement, and development of baseline indicators and initiatives are described in this section of the proposal. 35

Organizing to Respond In order to organize staff and institutional resources to prepare a proposal for the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Committee was formed in spring 2005. The charge for the QEP Committee was to become familiar with requirements and expectations related to the QEP, to engage the campus community in identifying a theme for the QEP, to oversee the development of the QEP, to ensure a clear focus for the QEP, to keep the campus community informed of progress with reference to the development of the QEP, and to ensure compliance with SACS Core Requirement 2.12. As a new component in the SACS reaffirmation of accreditation processes, the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) was introduced to the NSU community by the Vice President for Academic Affairs during the Fall 2003 Faculty and Staff Opening Conference. As co-chair of the QEP Committee and SACS accreditation liaison, the Vice President for Academic Affairs discussed the QEP at subsequent faculty and staff opening conferences through spring 2008. Opening and closing conferences are held each fall and spring term. Also, since fall 2003, the QEP has been presented frequently in meetings of the Executive Cabinet, Board of Visitors, the Student Government Association, Academic Council, University Curriculum Committee, as well as in divisions, schools, and departments from 2003 through spring 2008. During the 2003-2004 closing meeting in May 2004, the Vice President for Academic Affairs announced an annual summer reading program and distributed the first summer reading list for faculty and staff. The purpose of the faculty and staff summer reading program was to provide a foundation for assisting the campus community in understanding the increasing calls for accountability in higher education, increasing emphasis on continuous quality enhancement and information-based decision-making, and the reaffirmation process. The summer reading program continues each summer. The readings are available to the campus community on a password-protected website with permission of the publishers. The 2004 (Appendix A) and 2005 (Appendix A) Summer Readings provided the foundation for organizing ideas from the preliminary proposals and for developing the initial QEP framework. 36

Broad-Based Involvement: Identification of the QEP Theme In spring 2005, the QEP Committee was formed by the SACS Leadership Team. The QEP Committee began its work to study requirements related to the QEP and to ensure development of a viable QEP proposal. A university-wide call for QEP preliminary proposals (Appendix B) was issued in February 2005. Twelve preliminary proposals were submitted by faculty and staff from a variety of units and disciplines by the March 4, 2005 deadline. The QEP Pre-Proposal Review Committee (Appendix C) reviewed the preliminary proposals, found common themes across the preliminary proposals, and made the following observations during its meeting on May 6, 2005: 1. 2. 3. The QEP outcomes identified by most of the preliminary proposals focused on critical thinking skills or on the competencies or co-curricular activities that require application of such skills (e.g., writing, information literacy, civic responsibilities). The general education core was the curriculum domain identified as the most appropriate component of the undergraduate experience where students should develop the outcomes and where the outcomes should be assessed. Active and collaborative pedagogies were most often identified as the most appropriate processes to employ in order to achieve the desired learning outcomes. Given the common themes across the preliminary proposals, the QEP Pre- Proposal Review Committee recommended critical thinking as the focus for the QEP and Creating Coherent Pathways for Developing Higher Order Reasoning Skills in Students as the theme for the QEP at its May 6, 2005 meeting. The SACS Leadership Team approved the theme on August 10, 2005. A campuswide call for QEP Proposals (Appendix. D) was issued by the Leadership Team in August 2005. The deadline for submissions was October 21, 2005. Also, the interest in higher-order reasoning, specifically critical thinking, as the theme for the QEP was consistent with previous departmental and school-based initiatives to use pedagogies and learning activities to improve critical thinking 37

skills in students. For example, in 2001, the School of Liberal Arts revised the critical thinking course, Logical and Critical Thinking (LOG 210) (Appendix E), to emphasize basic analytic and evaluation skills and to emphasize logical reasoning that is consistent with the traditional goals of a liberal arts education. A common exit examination for the course was developed. Assessment results for the course continue to be used to improve the course and continue to support a university-wide focus on improving critical thinking skills in students. Components of the initial framework for the QEP were: 1) critical thinking skills are developed through active and collaborative pedagogies focused on stimulating student reflections and developing abilities to integrate seemingly disparate information, 2) the pedagogies should be embedded in the curriculum of the general education core, and 3) the design of the general education core is grounded in the principles of curricular intentionality and coherency. These general principles provided a context for guiding additional study and discussions leading to the selection of a QEP theme and subsequent development of the QEP. Broad-Based Involvement: Development of the QEP In July 2005, an eight-member team of NSU students, faculty, and staff attended the Summer Academy sponsored by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) and the Alliance for Equity in Higher Education as a part of the Building Engagement and Attainment of Minority Students (BEAMS) project. The primary task of the team was to review the initial QEP theme and to become immersed in the relevant literature and best practices related to developing and assessing higher-order reasoning skills in undergraduate students. The team reviewed a comprehensive set of relevant literature, assessment data, and feedback reports from the QEP Pre-Proposal Review Committee. With the assistance of a nationally-recognized consultant (provided as part of the Summer Academy experience), the team agreed to recommend the following QEP theme revision: Creating Coherent Pathways for Developing Critical Thinking Skills in Students. 38

The Summer Academy team presented its work to the campus community in the Fall 2005 Opening Conference, as well as the QEP Committee and the Leadership Team in August 2005. The Summer Academy team proposed three sets of strategies or pathways to develop critical thinking skills in students throughout the undergraduate curricular and co-curricular experience. In Pathway One, Curricular Enhancement, curricular structures and practices will provide students with opportunities to become familiar with and acquire critical thinking skills. In Pathway Two, Co-Curricular Activities, students practice and apply acquired critical thinking skills in a variety of contexts. In Pathway Three, Student and Faculty Engagement, faculty learn pedagogical practices leading to the development of intentional learners and teachers who actively engage in learning opportunities. The Leadership Team reviewed and approved the pathways and the revised QEP theme, Creating Coherent Pathways for Developing Critical Thinking Skills in Students, on August 10, 2005 as presented by the 2005 Summer Academy team. The Leadership Team also requested that proposals address the pathways for developing critical thinking. This request was included in the proposal requirements and evaluation criteria for the Fall 2005 Call for QEP Proposals (Appendix D). A comprehensive review of critical thinking literature conducted by the Summer Academy team and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment (on behalf of the QEP Committee) also was presented at the August 2005 Leadership Team meeting. The Leadership Team agreed to emphasize integration of best practices and strategies identified by the 2005 Summer Academy team among the criteria included in the Fall 2005 Call for Proposals. The university-wide Call for QEP Proposals was announced during the Fall 2005 Opening Conference and through university-wide e-mail announcements from August through October 2005. An October 21, 2005 deadline was included in the announcement. The purpose of the Call for Proposals (Appendix D) was to invite faculty, students, staff, and alumni to participate in the process to identify viable strategies for use in developing a QEP. Also, beginning in September 2005, university-wide information sessions were conducted by the QEP Committee to inform the campus about the QEP Call for Proposals and to address questions. A summary of the literature and a collection of relevant articles and books were available to campus constituents as part of the Call for QEP Proposals in order to familiarize faculty and staff with the current research and best practices in developing critical thinking skills in students. In response to the Call for QEP Proposals, several proposals were submitted by the established deadline. An initial analysis of the proposals revealed that the 39

initiatives outlined in the proposals were closely aligned. As a result, several faculty and staff decided to collaborate and to combine individual proposals, form a QEP Proposal Working Team, and, with permission from the QEP Committee, collaborate to develop a comprehensive QEP proposal during the 2005-2006 academic year. The proposal was reviewed by the QEP Committee and the Leadership Team. Recommendations for revision were made by the Leadership Team. In fall 2006, the QEP Proposal Working Team recommended development of a small-scale QEP pilot project to assess the feasibility of the proposed strategies. This recommendation was approved by the Leadership Team on March 8, 2007. The QEP Committee and QEP Proposal Writing Group continued development of the QEP through summer and fall 2007. A draft of the proposal was completed in October 2007. The QEP Writing Group presented the proposal to the General Education Council in November 2007. The Vice President for Academic Affairs presented the proposal draft to the Deans Council in November 2007. The deans recommended limiting the scope of the QEP to the general education core in order to maximize limited resources, ensure institutional capacity to implement and sustain the QEP given available resources, and to increase the opportunity to demonstrate impact on student learning. The draft was reviewed by the NSU Leadership Team on December 5, 2007 and presented to the Board of Visitors on December 7, 2007 as an information item. The proposal was presented to the campus community at the Spring 2008 Opening Session on January 3, 2008. Feedback was used to restructure and finalize the proposal by January 18, 2008. Developing Baseline Indicators and Initiatives for the QEP From 2005-2007, several institutional assessment activities focused on gathering baseline critical thinking data. For example, secondary analyses of ongoing assessment activities, such as the Examination of Writing Competency (EWC) and the Graduating Student Exit Survey (GSES), provided rich information and insights for developing the final draft of the proposed QEP. In addition to the EWC and GSES, other measures that informed a baseline assessment of critical thinking skills possessed by students included: 40

1. 2. 3. 4. locally-developed, course-embedded critical thinking multiple-choice items, curriculum mapping and alignment of courses in the general education core with general education learning outcomes, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), and nationally-normed critical thinking measures such as the ETS Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) and the ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP). Highlights and lessons learned from baseline results are described below. The measures included standardized and locally-developed direct and indirect measures. Baseline Indicators Highlights and lessons learned from assessment activities to gather baseline critical thinking data are described below. The results were used to inform the early stages of development for the QEP. Graduating Student Exit Survey (GSES) The Graduating Student Exit Survey (GSES) is a comprehensive, locallydeveloped survey that is administered to each graduating class. GSES results for spring 2006 show that, of the 639 graduates who responded, more than four-fifths (82.4%, n=527) perceive a great deal of growth in critical thinking skills as a result of their academic experience at Norfolk State University. Specifically, NSU graduates report a great deal of growth on the following seven dimensions of critical thinking: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Identify main ideas and themes (76%, n=496). Make comparative judgments from data (77%, n=489). Determine the validity and implications of a supposition (72%, n=458). Identify limitations and contradictions in an event (72.2%, n=460). Analyze and evaluate arguments and issues (76%, n=484). Demonstrate creative problem-solving skills (78%, n=494). Implement and evaluate a plan to work towards a goal or conclusion (82%, n=517). 41

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) According to the 2006 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) results (N=669), freshmen and seniors at Norfolk State report higher growth and development in the ability to think critically and analytically compared to NSU peer groups and NSSE national averages. In addition, NSU seniors report higher levels of engagement in higher-order thinking processes, such as analyzing, synthesizing, making judgments, and applying theories, than students in NSU peer institutions and the 2006 NSSE sample in general. Although, NSU students generally report higher or equal levels of engagement in higher-order learning activities than the national averages, a substantial number of students (approximately a quarter) indicate that their courses never or only sometimes involved synthesis and making judgments. Similarly, NSU students report higher levels of engagement in integrative learning activities than the national average. However, a substantial number of students report relatively low levels of engagement in interdisciplinary activities and in integrative learning activities outside the classroom. Finally, although NSU students report higher levels of engagement in reflective learning activities than the national average, a substantial number of students (approximately a third) indicate they never or only sometimes engage in reflective learning activities (Appendix F). Locally-Developed, Course-Embedded Multiple-Choice Test Items In 2005-2006, a multiple-choice test was developed by an interdisciplinary group of NSU faculty members. Test items were embedded in course examinations and administered to 154 students in Spring 2006. Seventyone percent of the sample achieved an overall score of 60% or higher on a five-dimension, course-embedded measure. That is, 71% of the students demonstrated competence in at least three of the five critical thinking dimensions. Students tended to achieve lower scores on the following two dimensions, making comparative judgments from data and determining the validity and implications of a supposition. Students tended to perform better on the following two dimensions, identifying limitations and contradictions in an event and analyzing and evaluating arguments and issues. Surprisingly, given relatively high levels of self-reported engagement in 42

learning activities focused on developing higher-order reasoning skills, students demonstrate very modest results on locally-developed core competency assessments of critical thinking skills. For example, only 71% of students achieved a relatively low cut-off score of 60% on three of five core critical thinking competency dimensions. Two conclusions may explain the apparent contradiction. First, NSU students generally perceive significant growth in cognitive skills, but many of them fail to meet critical thinking performance standards set by NSU faculty. For this reason, it is important for faculty to continually challenge and support students in developing higher-order reasoning skills. Second, the need for systematically administered, value-added direct assessments measuring student development with reference to critical thinking skills cannot be overstated. MAPP, CAAP, and the California Critical Thinking Skills Test In order to address the value-added and direct assessment issue, nationallynormed critical thinking tests were pilot-tested to identify a measure to complement and triangulate data from locally-developed assessments. For example, in spring 2007, the ETS Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) Critical Thinking Skills Test, the California Critical Thinking Skills Test, and the ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) Critical Thinking Test were administered to more than 400 students in undergraduate courses with stated critical thinking learning outcomes. Preliminary results suggest a closer alignment between the core competencies measured by locallydeveloped assessments and the core skill areas measured by MAPP. Locally-Developed, High-Stakes Examination The Examination of Writing Competency (EWC), a three-hour proctored essay examination, is administered to undergraduate students after completion of the general core English composition requirement (English 101 and 102) and before graduation. The EWC assesses written communication skills, one of the six core competencies assessed systematically. The EWC is a locally-developed, high-stakes examination. Undergraduate students are required to pass the EWC before graduation. 43

In a recent EWC examination, one of the writing prompts asked students to respond to the following question: Discuss three ways in which classes in your particular program of study (i.e., your major) have helped you to think critically. Members of the QEP Committee conducted a secondary analysis of student essay responses in the EWC essays. The purpose for reviewing the essays was to capture student perspectives of current University practices to develop critical thinking skills. Preliminary results indicate that, in general, students are not able to articulate critical thinking in terms of a definition or the specific knowledge, skills, and abilities acquired as a result of progressing through a course of study at the baccalaureate level. Also, preliminary results indicate that definitions and approaches to developing and assessing critical thinking skills in students vary by discipline. Members of the QEP Committee recommended that learning strategies should be embedded in the QEP to ensure that students know, understand, and value the critical thinking definition and intended learning outcomes adopted by the University. Also, the Committee recommended the development of institutional structures and processes, such as faculty communities of practice, to develop and share pedagogical and assessment practices among faculty members across disciplines and majors. Baseline Initiatives Highlights and lessons learned from initiatives to explore the feasibility of recommendations and proposed strategies are described below. The results were used to inform the early stages of development for the QEP. Mapping the General Education Curriculum In 2006, the General Education Council mapped (Appendix G) the University general education curriculum with general education learning outcomes. The map revealed gaps and inconsistencies in developing critical thinking in the general education core. An analysis of the maps demonstrated that critical thinking needs to be integrated in the general education core in a more intentional and logical way. In roundtable discussions, best practices were shared with reference to developing critical thinking skills in students in variety of contexts and disciplines. As a result of these discussions, the Council recommended that critical thinking skills need to be reinforced and then applied in coursework beyond the general education core. 44

Pilot Project In Spring 2006, NSU received a mini-grant from the Southern Education Foundation (SEF) to conduct a small-scale QEP pilot project. The purpose of the pilot project was to test the feasibility of restructuring existing courses to embed critical thinking content and to embed active pedagogies and integrative learning techniques. The SEF funding was used to provide stipends to a group of faculty members to redesign selected sections of five courses. Selected sections of Computer Concepts and Applications (CSC 150), Communication Skills II (ENG 102), and Contemporary Mathematics (MTH 103) were selected to test enhancement of critical thinking skills in the general education core. Logical and Critical Thinking (LOG 210), a required course in the Schools of Business, Liberal Arts, and Social Work, was selected for revision as a critical thinking intensive course in the major. Finally, a senior-level Management Information Systems course, Senior Development Project (ISM 499), was selected to test the feasibility of restructuring capstone courses. Enhanced sections of the courses were offered in fall 2007. The active pedagogies incorporated in the enhanced courses focused on listening, reading, writing, and reflecting in the coursework. Integrative learning activities such as small group projects, case studies, problem solving tasks, service learning assignments and journal writing were included in the enhanced courses. The required textbook for LOG 210 is Writing Logically, Thinking Critically (Cooper & Patton, 2006). The enhanced section of LOG 210 required an additional book, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools (Paul & Elder, 2004). Also, several innovative methods (e.g., process journals, interpretive and reflective essays) were used to stimulate and facilitate students active and reflective learning. Preliminary results from an 18-item, locally-developed pre-test and a posttest was administered to students in the enhanced section of LOG 210. Little difference was observed between the pre-test and post-test scores. The average pre-test passing rate was approximately 48% and 49% on the post-test. Students tended to perform well on the four items related to identifying main ideas or themes. Most students did not perform well on items related to making comparative judgments from data. Almost all students answered the abstraction question incorrectly. Lower scoring students did not appear to follow basic directions for the tests. 45

Preliminary findings from the pilot project appears to support revision and enhancement of general education courses to focus on embedding critical thinking outcomes across general education courses and not in a single course, incorporating active pedagogies and integrative learning strategies to support the development of critical thinking skills in students, and developing of an ongoing, comprehensive faculty development program to ensure consistent and comparable application of active pedagogies and integrative learning strategies. A final report from the pilot project is expected in spring 2008. Course Syllabus Review In spring 2007, course syllabi were collected and reviewed by the Office of Academic Affairs. The primary purposes of the review were to conduct an inventory of stated learning outcomes, to develop a baseline indicator of learning outcomes addressing critical thinking and integrative learning strategies utilized in existing courses, and to develop a course syllabus database for faculty and departmental use. The review also included an inventory of stated learning outcomes addressing the six core competencies 2. Program and Course Audits In fall 2007, the School of Liberal Arts conducted a baseline audit of critical thinking teaching and learning strategies across all programs and courses offered in the school and compiled an inventory of critical thinking teaching and learning strategies. The purpose of this initiative was to develop critical thinking practice briefs to highlight and share best approaches for developing critical thinking skills in students. In the opening meeting for fall of 2007, the departments and programs were organized into three groups and were asked to address a set of nine (9) questions to identify how students are taught to think critically. The groups reconvened in a school-wide meeting and group reports (Appendix H) were summarized. Departments were asked to conduct similar discussions in departmental meetings throughout the semester and to prepare critical thinking briefs (Appendix I). A sample of findings across departments included: 1. Engaging students in questioning the motivations of writers and speakers, 2 The core competencies include written communication, oral communication, information technology literacy, quantitative reasoning, scientific reasoning, and critical thinking. Assessment of these six core competencies are mandated by the Commonwealth of Virginia. 46

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. noting the mentioned and unmentioned, and emphasizing the context and importance of primary source documents. (History) Placing emphasis on the fundamentals of reading, and applying critical thinking skills to real-life and real-world situations. (Interdisciplinary Studies) Emphasizing oral and written communication skills, and recognizing and analyzing stylistic characteristics and performance approaches among classical and leading contemporary composers. (Music) Emphasizing thinking about a way of thinking, and intentional applications of Bloom s Taxonomy with reference to rigor throughout the curriculum. (Political Science) Emphasizing the research process to examine problems and issues and engaging students in systematically examining the sources of beliefs and facts. (Psychology) Challenging students to be clear, precise, and relevant, and to reflect more depth and breadth in the use of logic. (Sociology) Analysis of results from the baseline initiatives and indicators (e.g., student essays, initial assessment results, QEP pilot mini-project, course syllabi, and departmental critical thinking practice briefs as well as General Education Council recommendations) provided additional information that was utilized by the QEP Committee and the QEP Proposal Working Team to prepare a final draft of the QEP proposal. The proposal was finalized on January 18, 2008. 47

48

Review of the Literature 3 49

50

Review of the Literature A summary of the literature guiding the development of the Quality Enhancement Plan and the assumptions underlying the approach for developing critical thinking skills in students is presented in this section. Theoretical Framework Supporting the Quality Enhancement Plan A student-centered institution takes an R. Buckminster Fuller s view of students: Human beings are born geniuses and designed for success. If they fail to display their genius or fail to succeed, it is because their design function is being thwarted (Barr & Tagg, 1995, p. 23; Tagg, 2003). From this perspective, institutional strategies to develop critical thinking skills in students must be based on an understanding of patterns of student intellectual development throughout the college experience. Only with this understanding can faculty and staff successfully facilitate the student design function for developing critical thinking skills. The proposed QEP is designed to facilitate student cognitive development. Perry s theory of student intellectual and ethical development is used as 51

the conceptual foundation for the sequential developmental design of the QEP. Knefelkamp and Widick s Developmental Instruction model, built upon Perry s theory, identifies the contextual variables that frame the QEP. Finally, Nelson s adaptation of Perry s theory is utilized to guide development and implementation of the QEP at the curricular and co-curricular levels. Perry s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development Based on an analysis of interviews in which students discussed experiences and development over the college years, William Perry (1970, 1981) developed a comprehensive model of student cognitive progression. The model has been widely recognized as a useful conceptual framework for developing critical thinking skills in college students and adult learners (Mezirow and Associates, 1990; Moore, 1994; Nelson, 1998). Knowledge and use of Perry s theory and DI model can assist faculty and students in hearing each other s voices and, consequently, can result in increased satisfaction and success for both students and faculty (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). According to Perry, the primary purpose of a college education is to facilitate student development of complex higher-order thinking and reasoning skills that would enable graduates to act as informed and responsible citizens by affirming personal commitments in a world of contingent knowledge and relative values (Perry, 1968, p.3; Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998) or to become productive citizens who continuously contribute to a global and rapidly changing society (NSU Mission Statement). Perry identified a progression of nine stages, or positions, through which students develop cognitive complexity. The nine stages ((Appendix J) are characterized in terms of student attitudes towards knowledge and are grouped into four categories or modes dualism, multiplicity, contextual relativism, and commitment within relativism (Perry, 1981; King, 1978). Perry (1970) held that this progression or sequence manifests a logical order an order in which one form leads to another through differentiations and reorganizations required for the meaningful interpretation of increasingly complex experience (p. 3). Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998, pp. 131-132) summarized Perry s model in four modes: 52

Dualism represents a mode of thinking that tends to view the world dichotomously: good-bad, right-wrong, black-white. Learning essentially is information exchange because knowledge is seen as facts and instructors are seen as experts who have and dispense the right answers. Multiplicity is characterized as honoring diverse views when the right answers are not yet known. All opinions are equally valid, from a multiplistic perspective, in such instances. Relativism is demonstrated when students recognize the need to support opinions. All opinions no longer appear to be equally valid. Knowledge is contextually defined, based on evidence and supporting Mode 4: arguments. Commitment Commitment to relativism involves explicit incorporation of ethical Transition C: dimensions in making choices, decisions, and affirmations. Joining Values and Analysis Mode 3: Contextual A student-centered, developmental approach to enhance critical thinking Relativism skills in students requires a two-dimensional learning environment. The Transition B : first dimension focuses on the processes of student intellectual development Opinion as Insufficient in reasoning dispositions, or modes of cognitive complexity and student Mode 2: progression, from Mode 1 to Mode 4. The second dimension focuses on Multiplicity reasoning skills, specifically student achievement of critical thinking learning Transition A: outcomes. Figure 1 and illustrates the two-dimensional developmental perspective Uncertainty Ambiguity of student acquisition of intended critical thinking outcomes. It should be Mode 1: Dualismthat, although the relationship between the modes and the dimensions of noted critical thinking is obvious, the relationship is not a linear. Adapted from Toma (1993) FIGURE 1. DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE OF STUDENT ACQUISITION OF INTENDED CRITICAL THINKING OUTCOMES Mode 4: Commitment Mode 3: Contextual Relativism Mode 2: Multiplicity R.E.O.A.S.N Communicate the results Evaluate and implement a plan Demonstrate creative problem-solving Develop and evaluate arguments Identify limitations in an event Determine the validity of a supposition Make comparative judgments Identify main ideas Mode 1: Dualism 53

Knefelkamp and Widick s Developmental Instruction Model Knefelkamp and Widick (Knefelkamp, 1984) advanced Perry s theory by developing a model for instructional design that adapts Perry s model for classroom and co-curricular contexts. The overall purpose of the model was to understand the underlying characteristics of the student-as-learner so that we could design instructional environments that were characterized by a balance of intellectual challenges and supports (Knefelkamp, 1998). The Developmental Instruction (DI) model is built on four contextual variables of challenge and support that facilitate student development of critical thinking structure, diversity, experiential learning, and personalism. Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998, p. 138) succinctly summarized the four variables of challenge and support. Structure refers to the framework and direction provided to students. The continuum represents the movement from a high degree to a low degree of structure. Students in early developmental positions in Perry s model will value structure as a support. Students in more advanced developmental positions may consider structure limiting and may prefer a more open-ended approach that provides greater latitude. Diversity refers to alternatives and perspectives that are presented and encouraged. Two dimensions characterize diversity: quantity and quality. Quantity refers to amount, and quality to complexity. The two-dimensional continuum of the diversity variable encompasses a range from a few simple pieces of information to many highly complex concepts or tasks. Experiential or Active Learning refers to the concreteness, directness, and involvement contained in learning activities. Methods include case studies, role plays, and exercises that facilitate reflection on and application of the material. Personalism3 refers to the creation of a safe environment where risk taking is encouraged. Personalism is manifested in an interactive environment that demonstrates enthusiasm about the content, instructor availability, and comprehensive feedback. For the purposes of the QEP and for the remainder of the proposal, the term cohesion will replace the term personalism. The original definition will be retained in its entirety. 3 Faculty representatives on the QEP Committee and QEP Proposal Working Group strongly objected to the term personalism and recommended use of the term cohesion for the QEP. From Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998), personalism refers to the creation of a safe environment where risk taking is encouraged and is manifested in an interactive environment that demonstrates enthusiasm about the content, instructor availability, and comprehensive feedback. For the purposes of the QEP, this definition is retained for the term cohesion. 54

By drawing on these four challenge and support variables, both faculty and student affairs practitioners can create learning activities and environments that can connect with where students are in the cognitive development process and also support their potential to develop further (Evans, Forney, and Guido- DiBrito, 1998). Nelson s Classroom Teaching Strategies to Facilitate Student Cognitive Development Craig Nelson (1998) advanced Perry s model further by focusing on the nature of transitions between the modes. Nelson (1998) emphasized that learning to think critically requires a student to go through several transitions or incremental series of major reorganizations in our students views of knowledge and knowing (p. 168). Specifically, Nelson identified three major transitions that move a college student from Mode 1 Dualism to Mode 4 Contextually Appropriate Decisions. Transition A requires that students recognize the inevitability of important uncertainty on many questions. Transition B requires the recognition that despite this uncertainty, justified choices can be made. Transition C requires that learners recognize and appreciate the values inherent in practice and application of disciplines and fields, the limits of fields, and the consequences that follow from applying them. Thoma (1993) pointed out that Nelson s adaptation of Perry s model is especially useful for generating specific classroom teaching strategies designed to facilitate student transitions to more advanced modes of thinking. Nelson s version of Perry s model serves as a foundation for the curricular interventions proposed in the QEP. For the QEP, the application of the model is organized into three pathways and is described further in the next section of the proposal. Figure 2 presents Nelson s (1998; Thoma, 1993) interpretation of Perry s model. 55

FIGURE 2. NELSON S VARIANT OF THE PERRY MODEL Mode 4: Commitment Transition C: Joining Values and Analysis Mode 3: Contextual Relativism Transition B : Opinion as Insufficient Mode 2: Multiplicity Transition A: Uncertainty and Ambiguity Mode 1: Dualism Adopted from Toma (1993) Adapted from Toma (1993) Guiding Principles for the Quality Enhancement Plan Mode 4: Commitment Based Mode on 3:the operational definition of critical thinking, conceptual framework, Contextual Relativism and analysis of relevant literature, the QEP Committee developed six principles.o.n.a.s Mode 2: R.E Multiplicity to guide the development and implementation of the QEP. 56 Communicate the results Evaluate and implement a plan Demonstrate creative problem-solving Develop and evaluate arguments Identify limitations in an event Determine the validity of a supposition Make comparative judgments Principle 1 Developmental Perspective. The QEP is designed to develop critical thinking skills in students and must be based upon and aligned with the model of general student intellectual development. In other words, student achievement of intended learning outcomes is predicated on student progression in the development of cognitive complexity. Principle 2 Curriculum Centrality. Curricular structures and classroom pedagogies are the two primary means to stimulate, facilitate, and monitor student development of critical thinking skills in college settings. Structured classroom experiences provide focus and direction in the complex process of critical thinking skills development. Principle 3 Metacognition. Students abilities to effectively develop and apply critical thinking skills in disciplines is inextricably related to metacognitive abilities, or the way in which students conceptualize and articulate critical thinking. In addition, it is important for students to recognize and understand the underlying steps and processes required for competence in critical thinking. Identify main ideas Mode 1: Dualism

Principle 4 Information Literacy. When engaging in critical thinking, students must find appropriate, reasonable, supportive evidence to support ideas and positions. Students need to learn how to seek and evaluate multiple sources of information and multiple perspectives and to approach problems from multiple points of view. Principle 5 Co-Curricular Reinforcement. Curricular structures and classroom pedagogies designed to develop critical thinking skills in students must be supported by co-curricular enriching educational experiences. Such activities will provide the scaffolding that will facilitate learners progression in developing and appreciating cognitive complexity beyond the classroom environment. Principle 6 Faculty and Staff Engagement. To develop intentional learners, faculty and staff must be intentional teachers, facilitators, and mentors. Successful implementation of the QEP is, first and foremost, predicated on faculty buy-in or the faculty s clear understanding of the purposes of the QEP, faculty understanding of and agreement to the operational definition of critical thinking, and faculty knowledge of and motivation to use critical thinking pedagogies in the classroom. Based on these guiding principles, the QEP Committee designed three pathways to develop and enhance critical thinking skills in undergraduate students. The overall goal for developing critical thinkers and the contextual support variables of structure, active learning, diversity, and cohesion are discussed above in previous sections of the proposal. The next section, Implementation Pathways, presents the three pathways for implementing the QEP. Subsequent sections of the proposal present the assessment and evaluation plan to determine the effectiveness of implementation and program impact. Finally, resources necessary to implement and sustain the QEP are presented in the Implementation Support section. 57

58

Implementation Pathways 4 59

60

Implementation Pathways The habits of thinking are to be formed, by long continued and close application..much more does the training of the powers of the mind demand vigorous, and steady, and systematic effort. (The Yale Report, 1828, p. 7) Introduction Regional and disciplinary accreditation agencies, and professional associations (e.g., AAC&U), increasingly call for institutions and programs to ensure, document, and demonstrate that curricula embody coherent courses of study that reflect statements of intended learning outcomes. Similarly, federal commissions (e.g., Spellings Commission) and state coordinating agencies (e.g., the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia), concerned with growing costs of higher education, increasingly require institutions to ensure that courses and programs effectively and efficiently address intended learning outcomes. Research also indicates that students demonstrate higher levels of achievement when provided with multiple (diverse) curricular and cocurricular opportunities to build on previous learning, receive feedback, and reflect on progress towards explicitly stated learning outcomes (e.g., Gaff, Ratcliff, & Associates, 1997; Huber & Hutchings, 2004). Frequently, however, the undergraduate experience can be a fragmented landscape of general education courses, preparation for the major, co-curricular activities, and the real world beyond the campus. But an emphasis on 61

integrative learning can help undergraduates put the pieces together and develop habits of mind that prepare them to make informed judgments in the conduct of personal, professional, and civic life (AAC&U, 2004 cited in Huber and Hutchings, 2004, p. 13). Norfolk State University proposes to improve critical thinking skills in undergraduate students by: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Implementing curricular revisions to embed critical thinking, teaching, learning, and assessment strategies across the general education core. Developing educationally-enriching co-curricular activities to reinforce and sustain students intellectual development outside of the classroom. Co-curricular activities will include living and learning communities, a peer mentoring program, and service-learning and civic engagement activities. Developing an ongoing, comprehensive annual faculty and staff development program to build expertise in developing and implementing critical thinking pedagogies and assessment strategies to support and sustain improvement of critical thinking learning outcomes in undergraduate students. The program will include faculty communities of practice organized by general education subject area. Monitoring program implementation and conducting ongoing research, assessment, and evaluation to evaluate program effectiveness and impact. Establishing a resource depository of critical thinking pedagogies, assessment strategies, and student development literature and practices for use by faculty, staff, and students. The proposed implementation pathways were designed to align curricular and co-curricular activities, to facilitate integrative learning, to ensure faculty and staff expertise in teaching and developing critical thinking skills in students, and to ensure overall coherence of the proposed plan. PATHWAY 1: Curricular Innovations [F]ew departments and institutions have developed curricula and pedagogies that incrementally foster and assess students skills in inquiry and innovation as they advance through a course of study. (AAC&U, 2007, p. 31) Pascarella and Terenzini (2005, p. 207) state that student development of critical thinking skills is significantly facilitated by a core curriculum that emphasizes, making explicit connections across courses, and among ideas and disciplines. 62

A proposed revision to the general education core organizes the curriculum in two tiers (Appendix K). Perry (1981) has shown that students typically are not able to progress through developmental modes in short periods of time, such as in one term or a single course. Facilitators of student cognitive development must plan for time to allow for lateral growth or development within a particular stage (horizontal decalage) (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p.133). For this reason, the proposed QEP includes a minimum of two course-level curricular interventions to facilitate student development at each of the three transitions between Perry s modes of cognitive complexity. Figure 3 presents the major structural components of Pathway 1, Curricular Innovations. The innovations are based on Nelson s (1998) and Thoma s (1993) interpretation of Perry s model and AAC&U s recommendations for developing purposeful pathways to help students achieve key learning outcomes (Leskes & Miller, 2006; AAC&U, 2007). The proposed sequence, or tiers, for introducing, reinforcing, and applying critical thinking skills throughout the general education core is adapted from a nationally-recognized program at the University of South Carolina4. FIGURE 3. STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF PATHWAY 1: CURRICULAR INNOVATIONS Mode 1: Dualism Transition A: Perceiving Uncertainty as Real UNI 101 General Education Courses Critical Thinking definition and dimensions Sources and extent of uncertainty Mode 2: Multiplicity Transition B: Perceiving Opinions as Insufficient General Education Courses Comparisons and criteria Decisions within disciplines Mode 3: Contextual Relativism Transition C: Joining Values and Analysis General Education Courses Intellectual empathy Hypothesis testing / paradigm choice Mode 4: Commitment The four variables of challenge and support identified by Knefelkamp (1984) as well teaching and learning strategies and tactics suggested by Thoma (1993) and Leskes and Miller (2006) are purposefully infused throughout the curriculum. 4 http://www.sc.edu/univ101/aboutus/index.html 63

Transition A: Perceiving Uncertainty as Real The purpose of transition A is to assist students in progressing from dualistic thinking and a dualistic view of the world to multiplistic perspectives (Mode 2). In other words, the goal of this transition is for learners to accept... a plurality of answers, points of view, or evaluations, with reference to similar topics or problems. This plurality is perceived as an aggregate of discretes without internal structure or external relation, in the sense, Anyone has a right to his own opinion, with the implication that no judgments among opinions can be made. (Perry, 1999, p. 287) A primary challenge for critical thinking instruction at this stage is that many students view the world dualistically as almost exclusively right or wrong where valid questions have certain answers. Nelson (1998) notes that, in the minds of dualistic students, teachers should serve as gigantic, fluorescent yellow highlighters who emphasize the parts of the text that must be memorized. Alternatively, teachers should teach the unambiguous way (i.e., the equation) to find the right answer (p. 170). Essentially, Transition A requires students to recognize the inevitability of important uncertainty on many questions. The general goal of Transition A (Nelson, 1998; Evans, Forney, Guido-DiBrito, 1998; Thoma, 1993, p. 130) is to legitimize uncertainty, create cognitive dissonance, or to upset the equilibrium of dualism by making students aware of the uncertain nature of knowledge. The variables, structure and diversity, from the Developmental Instruction (DI) model, are especially important during this transition. Increasingly complex information must be presented to students in contexts that provide detailed explanations of assignments, specific examples that reflect students experiences, and opportunities to rehearse evaluation tasks. Introduction to University Life (UNI 101): Critical Thinking Definition and Dimensions UNI 101 is a required course for undergraduate students. The course is designed to help first-year students adjust to university life, to develop a better understanding of the college environment, and to acquire essential skills for academic success. Common themes include orientation to campus 64

services, NSU s mission and history, students rights and responsibilities and an appreciation for social responsibility and civic engagement. Students gain an overview of their learning styles, skills, and strengths and weaknesses. Students also learn to build upon their learning styles to accomplish educational goals. For the QEP, introduction to critical thinking and information literacy skills are proposed to be explicitly integrated and enhanced in UNI 101 teaching, learning, and assessment activities. Rationale Paul and Elder (2005) state that many freshmen are... unaware of what highly skilled thinking looks like. UNI 101 will discuss critical thinking skills as an important outcome of college by defining critical thinking, highlighting disciplinary differences in conceptualization and application of critical thinking skills, and demonstrating application of critical thinking in a variety of academic contexts. In order to facilitate the transition from Mode 1 to Mode 2, students must be exposed to diverse sources and types of information. Paul (1995) states that one of essential skills for critical thinkers is the ability to effectively and efficiently locate and gather information. When engaging in critical thinking, students must find reasonable, supportive evidence to support their ideas and positions (Vesely & Sherlock, 2005). Students need to learn how to seek multiple sources of information, multiple perspectives, and how to approach problems from multiple points of view (Brown & Freeman, 2000; Goad, 2002). Whether in a curricular or co-curricular setting, students need opportunities to gather information on their own in order to minimize dependence upon others for information. Thus, the... role of the academic library should be to support and reinforce the development of critical thinking among students. Bibliographic instruction provides an appropriate structure in which to address critical thinking (Bodi, 1988, p. 151). Goals and Intended Critical Thinking Outcomes The primary goal of the critical thinking component of UNI 101 is to clarify the concept of critical thinking for incoming freshmen and to help students 65

connect to different dimensions of critical thinking within individual goals and areas of study. Specifically, freshmen will be able to 1) articulate the definition of critical thinking, 2) define the dimensions of critical thinking, and 3) understand why critical thinking skills are important and how they are applied in academic and work settings and in students own lives. Students will be informed early in their college career of the expectation to demonstrate a high level of critical thinking skills. As students work with advisors and mentors to plan a course of study, they will seek out, rather than avoid, courses and educational experiences in which application of critical thinking skills are explicitly required. The second goal of the critical thinking component of UNI 101 is to enable entering students to identify, procure, and make efficient and effective use of information resources through structured bibliographic instruction sessions. Bibliographic instruction sessions in UNI 101 will focus on evaluating information sources using criteria such as familiarity with the source and understanding the source (Fink, 2001). Specifically, bibliographic instruction sessions will assist students to 1) recognize both the library and the library staff as key sources of information resources, 2) know how collections of information sources are physically organized and accessed, 3) know how information sources are intellectually organized and accessed, 4) understand the differences between various types of information, and 5) know how to plan and implement an efficient strategy to search collections to meet an information need (ACRL, 1987). Sample Teaching and Learning Strategies and Techniques A Critical Thinking Mini-Guide and Glossary will be developed by the QEP staff in collaboration with a group of lead faculty who had attended the Critical Thinking Institute. The Mini-Guide and Glossary will be distributed to incoming undergraduate students (freshmen as well as transfer students) and reviewed in UNI 101 sessions. The guide will define and explain major terms used in the definition of critical thinking and its dimensions. Also, the Guide will outline UNI 101 and the general education core courses and will explain how the general education core supports the framework for student intellectual development. Traditional UNI 101 topics such as time management, budget planning and financial responsibility, test taking, and interpersonal relationships will be 66

presented with a critical thinking perspective. Students will be asked to analyze structured case studies from everyday university life and to recognize the instances of effective and ineffective applications of critical thinking skills. Customized editions of Pearson s text, Critical Thinking Skills in College, will be used to facilitate presentation and discussion of the material. Weiler (2005) advised librarians and instructors to use Perry s theory of cognitive development as an important reference point in developing critical thinking skills in students through library instruction. Before students are asked to evaluate information, they need to know how to assess information, what information is available, and to understand differences among various types of sources. UNI 101 students will be introduced to NSU information resources through online interactive library tutorial and dedicated bibliographic instruction sessions. The current online library tutorial will be redesigned by the university library staff to incorporate interactive capabilities as well as to integrate student self-assessment tools. The Texas Information Literacy Tutorial5 will serve as model for developing the NSU Library and Information Literacy Tutorial. The tutorial will include a general introduction to library resources and three modules selecting, searching, and evaluating sources. Each module includes a lesson about the topic, interactive exercises, and a quiz. UNI 101 students will be required to complete the Selecting and Searching modules. In addition, students will be engaged in a classroom activity requiring them to demonstrate basic information literacy skills. Daragan and Stevens (1996) and Herro (2000) described a method to introduce critical thinking while teaching specialized reference works. Given a broad research topic, students in small groups examined selected reference works, while determining the author, title, publication year, content of information, and evaluation of work s help pages (indices, table of content, etc.). The small groups reconvened in class and reported to the full class. During the presentations, the librarian records the titles of the works and summarizes comments made by each group. Studentconstructed bibliographies are distributed. Source Analysis, described by D Angelo (2001), is another example of UNI 101-level activity designed to develop student abilities to reflect on different types of information sources and to make comparative judgments from data. Henninger and Hurlbert (1996) describe a similar assignment that is designed to help students determine the distinctions between trade, popular, and academic journals. 5 http://tilt.lib.utsystem.edu/ 67

General Education Core Courses: Sources and Extent of Uncertainty A major goal of the general education program is to develop lifelong learners who... possess a rational open-mindedness that leads to analytical and critical patterns of thought (2007-2008 Undergraduate Catalog, p. 37). To effectively address this goal, critical thinking must be intentionally, explicitly, and systematically infused throughout general education courses. Tier 1 (Appendix K) general education courses are the focus of learning in Transition A. Rationale Knefelkamp (1981, 1999) found that most college courses, especially broad general education survey courses, have a richness of diversity, but need to be appropriately sequenced and presented so that students can understand the diversity. The quantity dimension of diversity refers to the variety in readings, points of view, and assignments in diverse general education courses. The quality dimension of diversity, or complexity of materials and tasks, refers to the hierarchical process tasks needed by students in order to perform basic evaluation tasks in the course. Goals and Intended Critical Thinking Outcomes A goal of critical thinking instruction in Tier 1 general education courses is to develop awareness in students that knowledge is not absolute and that different points of view exist among experts. Students will be able to reflect on the information presented in diverse media and diverse frames of reference to 1) identify main ideas, themes, and assumptions, and 2) make comparative judgments from data. Sample Teaching and Learning Strategies and Techniques General education core courses will introduce basic critical thinking skills through common guided course assignments. Identifying main ideas and assumptions requires focus and analysis of the text, issue, or problem from multiple perspectives and, frequently, at several attempts. Indeed, Knefelkamp (1980) and Nelson (1998) emphasize the importance of multiple rehearsals in teaching critical thinking. Angelo and Cross s (1993) compilation of classroom 68

assessment techniques is an excellent resource for manageable and effective methods of providing students with multiple opportunities for rehearsing important ideas. In order to introduce students to the importance of comparing alternatives in comprehending information, instructors will provide guiding questions, prompts, models, and theoretical frameworks from a variety of sources, including web-based sources, to facilitate discussions. Reading and analyzing summaries of paired readings or summaries of selected readings representing opposing points of view pertinent to issues related to the content of the course is an excellent pedagogical tool that will be utilized to help freshmen recognize and appreciate uncertainty and ambiguity in knowledge and thinking. Another useful pedagogical strategy is mini-research projects that ask sophomore students to choose a problem related to the course content and to summarize the different points of view. Finally, including historical perspectives in the introduction of the course content effectively helps students in general education survey courses recognize that knowledge in the given subject is not absolute or immutable (Thoma, 1993). In addition, information literacy will be embedded and emphasized throughout general education courses. Students will be required to document the use of learning resources provided by the university s library. In fall 2007, the Lyman Beecher Brooks Library acquired a trial subscription to Gale s Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center and the Opposing Viewpoints Center s Critical Thinking Module. This online database provides access to full text information related to controversial issues. Full text resources include newspapers, magazines, journals, government and organization statistics, and reference articles. The Critical Thinking Module includes learning and writing activities as well as MP3 audio files. Transition B: Perceiving Opinions as Insufficient The purpose of Transition B is for learners to develop a relativistic view of the world (Mode 3) or to accept... a plurality of points of view, interpretations, frames of reference, value systems, and contingencies in which the structural properties of contexts and forms allow various sorts of analysis, comparison, and evaluation in multiplicity (Perry, 1999, p. 287). In other words, having reached Mode 3, learners will be able to use appropriate criteria to select actions or make plans, despite inherent uncertainty (Nelson, 1998). Transition 69

B requires a recognition that, despite uncertainty, rational decisions or choices can be made. During Transition B, learners shift the conception of the role of the student from that of one who learns how to learn and works hard to one who learns to think more independently (Evans, Forney, Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p. 131). The primary challenge of Transition B is for students to learn how to sort out good sources of evidence with supporting evidence and which are not. In this Transition, faculty and staff are perceived by learners as sources of process of thinking. Faculty model the use of supporting evidence i.e., faculty model the way they want us to think and model research methods used to inform good practice in teaching, assessment, and advising (Knefelkamp, 1999). The main teaching strategy at this stage is to make comparisons and criteria explicit (Nelson, 1998). The Developmental Instruction (DI) model variables of cohesion and active learning are especially important at this stage of student cognitive development. In Transition B, students make transitions toward confidence in the legitimacy of their own opinions when instructors are approachable, available, and encourage student participation. Fundamentals of Critical Thinking: Comparisons and Criteria Tobolowsky, Cox, and Serven (2007) note that... many sophomores seem to drift through their second year of college (Gardner), overwhelmed, unengaged, and seemingly uninterested in their academic pursuits. These difficulties and feelings are hallmarks of the sophomore slump, a time in which students struggle to establish themselves as individuals, find their passions and develop a personal worldview, determine what they want to get out of college, and establish short- and long-term goals (pp. ix-x). The purpose of the second tier of the general education core is to emphasize and reinforce the fundamental principles and processes of inquiry underlying effective reasoning. In Tier 2 of the general education core (Appendix k), students will be asked to identify a problem or issue, to evaluate the validity and credibility of related suppositions, and to use an inferential ladder to articulate and analyze assumptions underlying decisions and proposed solutions to problems or issues. 70

Rationale Drawing on cognitive science, van Gelder (2005) argued that beyond a certain point, improvement in critical thinking demands acquiring the underlying theory. The lesson from cognitive science is that if we want students to substantially improve their skills, we must at some point help them develop theoretical understanding as a complement to the crucial hands-on know-how (p. 44). Students need to be introduced to theories of critical thinking by describing and discussing the basic concepts of informal logic. Informal logic is devoted to analysis of the concepts used in argument interpretation and evaluation. It critically elaborates and defends the norms appropriate to these two practical activities (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Henkemans, p. 164). In fact, Johnson and Blair (1991) argued that one candidate for inclusion in the critical thinking syllabus among many is the theory and skills set of informal logic (p. 50). Transitioning from Mode 2 to Mode 3, students must find relevant evidence to support their ideas and positions. In today s information age and informationbased societies, students need to acquire more complex skills than how to locate and gather information in a quick and efficient way. They must be able to meaningfully process the information obtained, evaluate it critically, store it appropriately and use it as needed. In Transition B, students will build on the bibliographic instruction received in UNI 101 and further enhance information evaluation skills. Goals and Intended Critical Thinking Outcomes The primary goal of Transition B is to introduce students to informal logic through basic skills of argumentation. Students will learn how to better appraise information that leads them to believe or to accept conclusions of others, to better express and justify conclusions and causal reasoning, and to determine the grounds under which conclusions and/or actions are weak or strong relative to the standards or norms of good reasoning (Sobocan, 2003). Upon completion of the course, students will be able to 1) determine the validity and limitations of a supposition, 2) identify limitations and contradictions in an event, and 3) identify or develop and evaluate arguments and issues. The second goal of Transition B is to address the third and fourth measures related to evaluating an information source analysis of the item and assessment of the source (Fink, 2001). Bibliographic instruction sessions in second tier general education core courses will develop student abilities to 71

answer: 1) analytical questions such as, How are the data presented? What are the author s frame of reference and intentions? Are the authors biases evident? Are the author s sources current and reliable? Do conclusions flow from the data? and 2) evaluation questions such as What is the overall quality of the source? What are the user s biases and expectations of the source? Did the author fulfill his or her stated objectives? Does the item contribute to the knowledge base in its field and to the user s research? (Herro, 2000). Sample Teaching and Learning Strategies and Techniques Instructors will design common writing assignments and oral presentations that will ask students to identify a problem or issue and to evaluate the validity and credibility of related suppositions. Professors will provide the guidelines and format. Techniques might include journals, brainstorming, and teamwork. Crisis Decision Simulation exercises, suggested by Brookfield (1995), are an example of an activity for second tier general education core courses that facilitates Transition B. In small teams, students discuss how to resolve a fictional crisis in a short time. In subsequent class discussions, each team articulates and analyzes the assumptions underlying its decision and attempts to uncover and scrutinize its inferential ladder (Brookfield, 2005, p. 56). Students enrolled in second tier general education courses will be required to complete the Evaluating Sources module of the redesigned Library and Information Literacy Tutorial. In addition, students will be engaged in a series of bibliographic instruction activities. Herro (2000, p. 557) described a bibliographic instruction activity that focuses on the use of annotated bibliography as a critical thinking exercise (Engeldinger, 1998). Students receive a journal article, book chapter, or website related to their discipline and are asked to write a critical annotation of the source. The annotation must summarize the item and comment on the value and validity of the article. In addition, students must identify the author and his or her background, describe the intended audience of the author, the author s bias, the methods used in the study, and the author s conclusion. Finally, students report findings to peers via class presentations or by posting findings in Blackboard. Transition C: Joining Values and Analysis The purpose of Transition C is to present students with conflicting and equally plausible conclusions and to provide opportunities for students to learn how to use information to make appropriate decisions or commitments that are 72

consonant with students values and assumptions given specific contexts or circumstances (Nelson, 1998). Mode 4, Commitment (see Figure 3, p. 63), is characterized by an affirmation of personal values or choice in Relativism. A conscious act or realization of identity and responsibility. A process of orientation of self in a relative world (Perry, 1999, p. 287). The primary challenge for students in Transition C is in making informed choices or commitments. The learner frequently is faced with a question such as, How to choose between equally good alternatives? In this Transition, faculty and staff are perceived by learners as sources of expertise. Faculty take on the role of expert-guide-consultant within the framework of rules of adequacy and within contexts (Knefelkamp, 1999). Two primary teaching strategies during this transition are to: 1) emphasize the central role of specific and diverse contexts and values in solving problems and designing plans of actions, and 2) show how decisions combine or integrate analyses of evidence, contexts, and values (Nelson, 1998). Inquiry through Service: Intellectual Empathy The QEP proposes establishment of educationally-enriching experiences through co-curricular activities, such as Inquiry through Service. The focus of Transition C in Tier 2 general education core courses (Appendix K) is integration and application of critical thinking skills to service. Rationale Knefelkamp (1981) pointed out that, since most college teaching is vicarious in nature, students often have a difficult time making connections between their learning and their own lives. Developing cognitive complexity requires that students are engaged in direct and concrete educational experiences outside the classroom in order to cement their learning. Similarly, Nelson (1998) and Thoma (1993) noted that having acquired basic knowledge and skills in a discipline, many students see the methods and evaluation criteria of their majors as a game to be played or a behavior to mimic in order to pass the course. In other words, having learned discipline-specific methodologies in the context of formal classes, students frequently do not realize the practical relevance of those approaches. Students who master the games of various disciplines may do quite well academically but still may be unable to think critically outside of the academic context or in different academic disciplines (Thoma, 1993, p. 132). 73

Goals and Intended Critical Thinking Outcomes The overall intention of Transition C in Tier 2 general education core courses is to provide an opportunity for students to develop foundations of intellectual empathy or to assist learners to articulate and appreciate an understanding of the nature of value-laden choices made when solving real-life problems. The goals are to provide opportunities for students to: 1) realize that concepts and methodologies learned can and must be used as a basis for mature choices among real-world alternatives in a world of uncertainty, and 2) develop student awareness of disciplinary values in the real-world contexts as well as recognition that both values and analysis must be used in making choices (Thoma, 1993). Students completing Transition C in Tier 2 general education core courses will be able to: 1) articulate their own values in the contexts of a discipline and service experience, 2) identify and describe awareness about personal assumptions, beliefs, and/or values that have been reinforced, changed, or modified by reflection on the service experience, 3) recognize and describe concepts in a discipline in the context of the service-learning project, 4) apply concepts in a discipline in the context of the service-learning project, 5) analyze concepts in a discipline in light of the service experience, and 6) synthesize and evaluate disciplinary concepts in light of the service experience. Ash and Clayton (2004) provide useful guidance for articulating similar service learning outcomes in teaching, learning, and assessment activities. Sample Teaching and Learning Strategies and Techniques Eyler (2001) argued that if the objectives of service-learning include such cognitive goals as deeper understanding of subject matter, critical thinking, and perspective transformation, intensive and continuous reflection is necessary (p. 35). Eyler (2001) outlined several teaching and learning approaches to stimulate student reflection before, during, and after service in a variety of contexts for reflection alone, with the class or group, and with a community partner. Reflection maps will be used as learning and assessment tools to integrate service-learning activities in Tier 2 general education core courses. Reflective journals and essays as well as learning narratives have been identified as one of the most common and effective tools to link the action (doing) with meaning (thinking) in service-learning courses (Oates & Leavitt, 2003). Moon (2002) defined reflection as a form of mental processing with a purpose and/or 74

anticipated outcome that is applied to relatively complex or unstructured ideas for which there is not an obvious solution (p. 23). Moon further described reflection as a form of cognitive housekeeping that facilitates the reorganization of ideas that occurs in deep but not surface learning (p. 26). Reflective journal writing, therefore, is a process that is specifically designed to bring current and new thoughts or information to bear on an issue or event in order to evoke learning or at least to move on current ideas (p. 36). Moon (2002) designed an approach to assist students to develop reflective journals and essays and to help faculty members to assess journals by providing practical guidelines and informative examples. Oates and Levitt (2003) provide specific guidance on the ways to adapt reflective essays in service learning courses. In addition, in order to make service-learning projects both useful and manageable for students and instructors, use of technology and online means of communication will be developed to support learning in Tier 2 general education core courses. AAC&U (2007) strongly recommends utilizing the Internet and other communication technologies when developing student critical thinking skills. Communication technologies facilitate student engagement... in problem solving with partners outside of the classroom, e.g., community agencies, arts organizations, corporations, schools, and people in other parts of the world. Technology-assisted inquiry should be carefully woven into the expected academic experiences (p. 31). Canada (2001), for example, described two interesting ways to incorporate technology and information literacy in service-learning projects, e.g., designing selected web pages for community agencies and creating Internet clearinghouses of information that both agencies and clients can use. PATHWAY 2: Enriching Co-Curricular Activities Although curricular interventions are the primary strategy of the proposed QEP, students are not potted plants to be watered in some academic hothouse (Perry quoted in Knefelkamp, 1999, p. xiii). A substantial portion of student learning and development takes place outside of the classroom. Huang and Chang (2004) found that co-curricular activities promote the intellectual development of students independent of the cognitive development stage. Designing a plan that focuses on developing critical thinking skills is essential to identifying programs and activities that help students to see links between classroom and co-curricular experiences. 75

The QEP proposes 1) significant enhancement of service-learning activities, 2) development of living and learning communities, and 3) enrichment of peer mentoring programs. The implementation of such programs will provide students with opportunities to practice and assess their abilities to think critically. Enriching educational experiences will facilitate the development of intentional learners or integrative thinkers who can see connections in seemingly disparate information and draw on a wide range of knowledge to make decisions. They adapt the skills learned in one situation to problems encountered in another.... As a result, intentional learners succeed even when instability is the only constant (AAC&U Greater Expectations National Panel, 2002, pp. 21-22). Service-Learning and Civic Engagement Program The QEP proposes significant enhancement of existing service-learning and civic engagement activities. In the first year of QEP implementation, faculty and QEP staff will collaborate in communities of practice to develop strategies and to plan activities to embed service-learning activities in Tier 2 general education courses and to enhance service-learning activities as an enriching cocurricular experience. Reflection maps and rubrics will be developed to assess reflection journals and essays from service-learning activities. Rationale After conducting a comprehensive review of studies related to college student cognitive skills and intellectual growth, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) concluded that student involvement in service learning has a unique, positive impact on dimensions of general cognitive development such as critical thinking, analytic competencies, and thinking complexity (p. 209). Effective service-learning programs... integrate service experiences with course content, provide for reflection about the service experience, and permit the student to apply subject matter learning to the service experience and vice versa (p. 209). Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, and Yee (2000) found that coursebased service has a positive effect on academic outcomes, including critical thinking skills (p. 17). 76

Living and Learning Communities Living and learning communities are an important component of enriching educational experiences. Through the QEP, Norfolk State University proposes to expand and enhance existing living and learning communities as one of the co-curricular components contributing to student development of critical thinking skills. Rationale A good education should provide multiple opportunities for students to engage in inquiry-based learning, both independently and in collaborative teams (AAC&U, p. 30). Research findings consistently demonstrate that cooperative learning has a moderate to large positive effect on student cognitive skills and intellectual growth (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Brookfield (2005), analyzing students experiences of learning to think critically, pointed out that... [a]s learners speak of their own critical process, they also attest to the importance of their belonging to an emotionally sustaining peer learning community a group of colleagues who are also experiencing dissonance, reinterpreting their practice, challenging old assumptions, and falling afoul of conservative forces (p. 52). Regarding living and learning communities, Pasque & Murphy (2005) found that living-learning programs are predictors of students intellectual engagement. Terenzini, Pascarella, and Blimling (1996) found that academically based living-learning programs facilitate strong cognitive gains among participants. Similarly, Zhao and Kuh (2004) found that residential learning communities, or living and learning communities,... can be especially influential as they tend to be associated with greater social interaction with peers and extracurricular involvement, higher persistence and graduation rates, and greater gains in critical thinking and reading comprehension (p. 118). Goals The goals of the proposed living and learning communities are to 1) provide an opportunity for students to interact with other students outside the classroom, 2) improve students academic skills such critical thinking, speaking before a group, using technology and library resources, studying, and taking tests, 3) 77

help students balance the freedoms and responsibilities of college life, 4) create an environment in which students can ask questions and discuss issues that concern them, and 5) facilitate interaction among students and program faculty members (Redmond, 2004). The goal of the critical thinking component of proposed living and learning communities is to create co-curricular learning environments that will expose students to complex, diverse perspectives and stimulate the development of richer, complex ways of thinking. Living and learning communities will be intentionally designed to facilitate Transition A, i.e., to help students to progress from Mode 1 to Mode 2. Zhao and Kuh (2004) pointed out that interaction with peers from different backgrounds is one way to introduce disequilibrium thus setting the stage for students to appreciate diversity of opinions and to progress from a dualistic to a multiplistic understanding of reality. Strategies Residence Life and Housing staff has been working collaboratively with academic units to review living and learning community models, and to identify a model that would fit the QEP framework and would serve the needs of students at NSU. Brower and Dettinger s (1998) seven characteristics of a comprehensive model of effective learning communities served as a foundation to compile an inventory of existing programs and services providing learning community experiences and to guide recommendations for developing a living and learning model at NSU. Brower and Dettinger s seven characteristics are to: 1) develop a sense of group identity in which participants are neither solely independent nor dependent, 2) provide facilities or spaces to engage in transformative learning activities, 3) create a supportive environment that engages students in the life of the institution, 4) develop a seamless student experience that integrates social and academic experiences, 5) develop conditions among disciplines, recognizing that although ways of knowing may be discipline-specific, knowledge and concepts are not, 6) provide a context for developing complex thinking skills at a deeper level than simply receiving information, and 7) continually evaluate the process and outcomes and make modifications as necessary. The following learning communities currently exist at NSU and will form a starting point from which expansion and enhancement of living and learning communities will evolve as one of the co-curricular components of the proposed QEP: 78

First Year Experience. This community assists students in adjusting to college life, encourages involvement in campus events and organizations, expose students to campus resources and support services to enhance academic excellence and increase retention. Residence Hall Locations: Rosa Alexander Hall (females) and Samuel Scott Hall (males). DNIMAS. This community fosters learning and educational development of students majoring in engineering, mathematics, and the natural and physical sciences. Residence Hall Location: Lee Smith Hall. Science & Technology. This community fosters learning and educational development of students majoring in math, science, engineering and technology-related disciplines (non-dnimas students). Residence Hall Location: Lee Smith Hall. The Honors Program. This community is designed to provide programming and resources to enhance classroom learning, to explore leadership and academic opportunities beyond their undergraduate education, offer career and personal development growth as well. The Honors Program is a collaborative effort between the Honors College and the Office of Residence Life & Housing. Residence Hall Location: Lee Smith Hall. Spartan Leadership Institute/Emerging Leaders Program. This community is designed to enhance the leadership skills of community residents while assisting them with resources to become more diversified leaders within the community. Residence Hall Location: Spartan Suites. Nursing. This community promotes excellence in nursing through core study groups and programming. The programming and resources provided to nursing majors living within the community are a collaborative effort between the Department of Nursing, the School of Health, Physical Education & Exercise Science, and the Office of Residence Life & Housing. Residence Hall Location: Mid-Rise Hall. King s (1994, 1998, 2002) model of Transactive Peer Tutoring (TPT) The ASK to THINK-TEL WHY will be implemented as the primary QEP activity in the proposed living and learning communities. The model is designed as a transactive learning process to facilitate development of higher-order thinking skills by same ability, same-age students. The model is based on Guided Peer Questioning a peer mediated approach to critical thinking in which peers are trained to ask each other thought-provoking questions and to respond with elaborated explanations (King, 1998, p. 63). The essence of the model is its use of guided inquiry with five types of questions: review questions, thinking questions, probing questions, hint questions, and metacognitive questions 79

that the tutoring partner uses to prompt the other partner to make corresponding responses (King, 1998, p. 65). Sample questions for guided reciprocal peer questioning and a typical question-answering sequence for the model were identified as a starting point for QEP implementation working teams (Appendix L). King indicates that the model has proved to be effective in assisting students to comprehend new course material and to develop learning or metacognitive skills. Because this model can be used for learning new subject-matter that the learning pair encounters for the first time, neither partner is expected to have expertise in the content. However, although not expert in the content to be learned, both partners can become experts at the process of learning. They can be trained in skills for making meaning from content and building on each other s understanding of that content to negotiate and construct new knowledge (King, 1998, p. 63). Focusing on the processes of learning how to learn, implementation of the TPT model in the proposed living and learning communities can effectively foreshadow the introduction to informal logic in Tier 2 general education core courses and, then, present excellent opportunities to practice and enhance skills in argument development, interpretation, and evaluation. Expansion, enhancement, and implementation of the living and learning communities will be conducted by a collaborative effort between the QEP director, General Education Council, and the Office of Residential Life within the context of Perry s model. Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998) identified several effective applications of the Perry s theory and the developmental instruction (DI) model in the residence halls. Stonewater (1988), for example, described strategies providing challenge and support using diversity, direct experience, and structure for the students who are at dualistic, multiplistic, and relativistic stages of cognitive development. In another example, Ricci, Porterfield, and Piper (1987) suggested effective ways to develop and supervise residence hall staff members at different stages of Perry s model in terms of knowledge, authority, the learning process, peer acceptance, and evaluation. Peer Mentoring The QEP director will work with the General Education Council, the Office of First Year Experience, the Office of Student Activities, and academic units to embed peer mentoring in co-curricular experiences to facilitate student cognitive development and acquisition of critical thinking skills. 80

Rationale Cosgrove (1987) discussed and described applicability of Perry s model to support student advisement and mentoring. Saidla (1990) discusses Perry s theory in the context of understanding group dynamics among students. Also, student interactions with peers have the potential to reinforce academic experiences and expose students to diverse perspectives which are shown to have a positive impact on the development of critical thinking skills in students. Goal The goal of the peer mentoring component is to involve students in applying critical thinking skills to assist peers in making routine academic and personal decisions, to discover self potential, and to succeed in university life. Strategies A structured peer mentoring program will be a cornerstone of co-curricular activities related to the QEP. The proposed peer mentoring component is based on the concept of plus-one staging. Plus-one staging refers to the idea that individuals can typically understand and even be attracted to reasoning that is slightly more advanced than their own (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p. 139). It is expected that students at higher stages of Perry s model, i.e., upper-class mentors, will have the potential to have an impact on students in the early stages of cognitive development as a result of the plus-one staging processes. Good, Halpin, & Halpin (2001) reported that peer mentoring experiences positively affect cognitive development and retention for both protégés and mentors. Mentoring has been defined as an intensive, one-to-one form of teaching in which the wise and experienced guide inducts the aspiring protégé into a particular, usually professional, way of life (Parkay, 1988, p. 196). Lower-division students will be matched either individually or in a group with an upper-class mentor in the same or related major or career interest. The mentor must meet peer mentor criteria (e.g., minimum GPA, satisfactory standing in the major, etc.), and have completed peer mentoring training. The roles and responsibilities of peer mentors will include 1) introducing protégés to professional norms and values in the discipline, field, or area of study, 2) highlighting important issues, problems, controversies, discoveries, and technologies in the discipline, field, or area of study, 3) encouraging protégés to incorporate good study and time management skills into their learning, and 4) guiding protégés with advice regarding how to approach questions related to career choice and preparation. When possible, peer mentors will be supported at 81

the work-study pay rate by the QEP program and, depending upon completion of mentorship service in good standing, will receive a Certificate of Excellence. Peer mentoring program activities might include structured, weekly, shared conversation sessions; weekly performance and progress meetings; monthly problem-solving workshops designed to define and analyze problems and issues related to social and/or academic concerns; informal study sessions; and extracurricular off-campus activities, such as attending cultural and sports events, sharing meals, etc. PATHWAY 3: Faculty and Staff Development and Engagement A fundamental belief in students is more important than anything else. This fundamental belief is not a sentimental matter: it is a very demanding matter of realistically conceiving the student where he is or she is, and at the same time never losing sight of where he or she can be. (Perry, 1970, p. 215) Do you see yourself teaching subject matter, or do you see yourself teaching students? (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p. 140) This section of the QEP describes the processes by which faculty and staff will acquire the knowledge and refine the skills needed to develop, assess, and support student achievement of critical thinking learning outcomes in a variety of contexts and applications. Elder (2005), one of the leading critical thinking experts, noted that researchers found a significant gap between what faculty think they know about critical thinking and what classroom practices actually reveal about what they know (p. 44). Browne and Freeman (2000) found that deference to critical thinking as an educational objective is certainly more common than the actual encouragement of critical thinking in university classrooms (p. 121). For these reasons, a significant component of the Quality Enhancement Plan is devoted to developing faculty and staff expertise in pedagogical, co-curricular, and assessment practices focused on improving student achievement of critical thinking learning outcomes. Pathway 3 focuses on activities from a developmental perspective of education that emphasizes the connection between a student s ability to learn and to achieve recognized cognitive development levels (Malx & Reybold, 2005, p. 296) such as Perry s sequential model of student cognitive and ethical development. Faculty and staff understanding of the developmental perspective of education in general and a 82

developmental perspective of critical thinking in particular is especially crucial for the institutions, such as NSU, with a historical mission to provide access to higher education for traditionally underserved populations. As for many HBCUs, a primary challenge for the faculty and staff at NSU is not to take diamonds in the rough and make them more brilliant, as Harvard and Stanford do [But] to take [an apparent] lump of coal and turn it into a diamond (Gray, 1997). It is a difficult task and some faculty members and administrators lament the quality of incoming students. Such a perspective has a potential to affect pedagogical choices negatively as well as to limit student development of higher-order reasoning skills. Nelson (1998) argued that if we do not teach for sophistication, then we harm all of the students, and if we do, then we might occasionally cause more stress than we intended (p. 177). Tsui (2003 and 2001) and Malx & Reybold (2005) found that at some nonselective colleges and universities, critical thinking development is little pursued in part because faculty assume it is beyond the grasp of what they view as a largely ill-prepared student body (p. 326). To counter the potential for this fatalistic perspective, the QEP proposes to design a faculty development program that would allow faculty to explore the possible biases and collaborate with colleagues in designing effective strategies to facilitate cognitive growth and mastery of higher order reasoning skills among students by providing appropriate challenge and support. Five Principles Guiding Faculty and Staff Development Plans The following five principles will guide the development and implementation of proposed plans and activities for faculty and staff development in Pathway 3: 1. 2. 3. Faculty and staff will develop a comprehensive understanding of the conceptual framework underlying the QEP and will be able to integrate curricular and co-curricular critical thinking outcomes across general education core courses and other collegiate experiences. Faculty and staff will become familiar with and will be able to apply researchbased practices to develop and assess critical thinking skills in students in a variety of curricular and co-curricular contexts. Communities of practice will be formed among faculty and staff to ensure continuity and sustainability of curricular and co-curricular activities. Faculty will engage in developing innovative instructional and assessment methods related to critical thinking learning outcomes and will use assessment information to improve student learning outcomes in critical thinking. Staff 83

4. 5. from selected co-curricular programs will collaborate with faculty to design and implement co-curricular activities to support student achievement of critical thinking skills and to provide opportunities for students to apply critical thinking skills. All general education core courses will be enhanced to embed critical thinking outcomes in a coherent manner and to align critical thinking outcomes with general education core goals. The general education core will be reviewed and revised in order to embed critical thinking outcomes across the general education core, to ensure coherence and alignment, and to identify a critical thinking and reasoning course that could become a general education requirement for all undergraduate students. Faculty and Staff Development Program The four major components comprising the faculty and staff development program for the QEP are represented below in Figure 4. As the central focus of the QEP, critical thinking outcomes (R.E.A.S.O.N.) are at the center of all activities. The circles around R.E.A.S.O.N. are the faculty and staff development components of professional development workshops, communities of practice, faculty stipends, and conferences and summer institutes. The overall purpose of the faculty and staff development program is to ensure continuity and sustainability of the critical thinking activities and to ensure that faculty and staff develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to implement and enhance the four dimensions of challenge and support suggested by Knefelkamp and Widick s Developmental Instruction (DI) model content, active and experiential learning, diversity, and cohesion thus facilitating student intellectual development and acquisition of critical thinking skills. Professional Development Workshops Cohesion Critical Thinking Community of Practice Structure R.E.A.S.O.N. Active Learning Mini-Grants Program Diversity Conferences and Summer Institutes FIGURE 4. STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF PATHWAY 3: FACULTY AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND ENGAGEMENT 84

Faculty and Staff Development Workshops The single most useful thing a teacher can do is to take at least one well-designed college course in critical thinking, in which the teacher s own thinking skills are analyzed and nurtured in numerous ways. In other words, teachers need a solid foundation in critical thinking skills before they can teach them. ( Paul, 1993, p. 218) The QEP director, in collaboration with the General Education Council will design, oversee, and assess a comprehensive faculty and staff development program through 2013. The annual faculty and staff development program will include a two-day faculty and staff training session in the fall conducted by external consultants, a one-day faculty and staff training session in the spring conducted by external consultants, a one-day training session for lead faculty conducted by external consultants in the fall, at least four follow-up training and information sessions (a minimum of two per semester) organized by general education core subject area and conducted by lead faculty, and one review and feedback session for faculty and key staff at the end of each academic year conducted by the QEP director. Researchers at the Foundation for Critical Thinking have found that effective campus-based faculty and staff development programs focused on introducing and building critical thinking pedagogical, assessment, and co-curricular skills are conducted by experts in the field and are ongoing, long-term programs. According to the Elder (2005, pp. 41-42), These workshops should be systematically conducted with a clear design in mind and should continue throughout a five-to-seven-year period. The proposed faculty and staff development program for the QEP is consistent with the guidelines established by the Foundation for Critical Thinking. The program is designed to provide continuity and sustainability for the pedagogical and co-curricular activities related to the QEP. Critical thinking training sessions will be conducted by external consultants each fall and spring term from fall 2008 through 2013. These sessions will focus on: (a) the foundations of critical thinking, specifically the dimensions of NSU definition of critical thinking, (b) an introduction to Perry s theory of intellectual development, Knefelkamp and Widick s Developmental Instruction model, and Nelson s classroom application of Perry s model, (c) the relationship between critical thinking and information literacy, and (d) a discussion of strategies to avoid common barriers related to developing critical thinking skills in students. In addition, the consultant will be expected to provide feedback to the faculty and key staff with respect to the assessment plans, curriculum maps, and related issues from an external perspective. 85

Two-day training sessions will be conducted by an external consultant each fall semester for full-time, adjunct, and new faculty teaching general education core courses and will include key staff from selected co-curricular programs. The overall purpose of the fall training sessions is to provide an overview of the QEP framework and related general education core goals. Day One will focus on providing an overview of the QEP framework and providing training in and a comprehensive review of critical thinking pedagogies, co-curricular strategies, and assessment practices needed to ensure student achievement of intended critical thinking learning outcomes. Day Two will focus on a comprehensive review of the general education core curriculum map with an emphasis on how and at what level (i.e., introduced, reinforced, emphasized, and applied) critical thinking outcomes are embedded throughout core courses. General education core course syllabi will be reviewed in detail and embedded critical thinking learning outcomes, assignments, and test and assessment items will be highlighted. Faculty and key staff will work in small clusters organized by general education core subject area, led by a lead core faculty member, to discuss questions and issues related to the embedded critical thinking outcomes. In addition, faculty and key staff will participate in a proctored comprehensive review of a critical thinking assessment measure that may be administered to students (e.g., MAPP, CAAP, California Critical Thinking Test, core competency assessment etc.). The purpose of the proctored review is to provide an appreciation for the level of achievement students will be expected to demonstrate and to assist faculty in determining the extent to which the critical thinking learning outcomes and general education courses are aligned with the assessment measures. A different assessment measure will be reviewed each fall semester. Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment staff will conduct the proctored review which will conform to testing standards established by the publishers of the assessment measures (e.g., faculty and staff will be required to sign a confidentiality agreement; the review will be conducted under standardized testing conditions; copies of the measures, items, tests will not be permitted; discussion of the measures or items will not be permitted, etc.). After the first year of implementation, the fall training sessions also will include an overview of student feedback from general education course evaluations, a review of general education core assessment data focused on student achievement of intended critical thinking learning outcomes, and revisions or updates related to the QEP program or activities. The evaluation and assessment 86

results will be presented and discussed for the purpose of identifying and specifying actions for improving program and student outcomes. Training session topics for years 2-5 may include pedagogies such as Socratic questioning, undergraduate research techniques, close reading, substantive writing, core texts and world classics, scientific / historical / mathematical reasoning, mentoring and advising strategies, development and evaluation of rubrics, course-embedded assessment strategies, and assessment/test specifications and item analyses. Following the two-day training session for faculty, a one-day training session for lead faculty will be conducted by the same consultant each fall semester. The lead faculty will be comprised of faculty and staff who have participated in the summer institutes and related workshops from summer 2004 through summer 2007 and will have assisted in the development of the proposed QEP. The lead faculty also will serve as community of practice leaders, members of the General Education Council, and also may teach general education core courses. Faculty and key staff will form communities of practice organized by general education subject area (e.g., communications, humanities, natural sciences, etc.). Lead faculty will be expected to work with the communities of practice (faculty and key staff) on a five-year process to embed and assess critical thinking skills in the general education core and related co-curricular experiences (e.g., first year experience, service-learning, civic engagement, peer mentoring, living and learning communities, etc.). The primary purpose of the training session for lead faculty will be to review lessons learned from the twoday training session in preparation for organizing and leading the communities of practice throughout each academic year and to plan a series of follow-up and assessment sessions for the year. The external consultant will assist the lead faculty in identifying topics and skills for the yearlong series of follow-up discussion, training, and feedback sessions. A one- or two-day training session will be conducted by an external consultant each spring semester for full-time, adjunct, and new faculty teaching general education core courses and will include key staff from selected co-curricular programs. These training sessions will focus on applying the foundations of critical thinking within general education core subject areas and in cocurricular activities. The primary purpose of the spring training sessions will be to provide an overview of the QEP framework and general education core goals related to critical thinking outcomes; to review and highlight pedagogical, assessment, and co-curricular critical thinking practices related to the QEP; and to review 87

the general education core curriculum map. The training sessions also will address questions and concerns related to course-embedded critical thinking outcomes, will review assessment and feedback information from fall semester, and discuss recommendations for revision of courses, assignments or outcomes as appropriate. Special attention will be devoted to a comprehensive review of the general education core curriculum map to: 1) confirm the alignment of critical thinking outcomes with general education core courses and goals, 2) confirm the level at which critical thinking outcomes are embedded in courses, and 3) identify gaps and discuss how the gaps will be addressed. In addition to providing critical thinking training, the external consultant will be expected to provide feedback and suggestions with reference to the general education core curriculum map. Follow-up Training Sessions A minimum of four follow up training and information sessions (at least two per semester) will be conducted by lead faculty each year. The training and information sessions will be organized by general education core subject area. Faculty teaching general education core courses and key staff for co-curricular areas will be expected to attend the sessions. The QEP director will conduct at least one review and feedback session at the end of each academic year. The review and feedback sessions will provide an overview of progress towards implementation of the QEP, will review assessment and evaluation information, and will provide information and a preliminary timeline with reference to plans for the upcoming year. The QEP director will meet frequently (at least monthly) with lead faculty and the General Education Council to ensure continuity, sustainability, to monitor progress with reference to the QEP program, and to gather feedback to inform mid-year corrections or revisions as necessary. The QEP director and lead faculty will conduct a half-day critical thinking orientation seminar each semester for new faculty, new key staff, and current faculty accepting a new assignment to teach a general education course. New faculty and faculty accepting a new general education teaching assignment will be expected to attend the orientation seminar. The orientation sessions will provide an overview of 1) the foundations of critical thinking as defined in the QEP, 2) an introduction to Perry s theory of intellectual development, Knefelkamp and Widick s Developmental Instruction model, and Nelson s 88

classroom application of Perry s model, 3) the relationship between critical thinking and information literacy, and 4) strategies to avoid common barriers related to developing critical thinking skills in students. Summer Planning and Assessment Retreat Each summer, the QEP director will lead a planning and assessment retreat. The General Education Council and lead faculty will be expected to participate in the summer retreat. Topics discussed will include a QEP implementation status report, lessons learned from QEP activities for the year, a review of student learning outcomes assessment data, a review of course and other evaluation data, a review and discussion with reference to interpreting the general education curriculum maps, recommendations for revision of outcomes, courses or the general education core, a report and lessons learned from the summer institute, plans and timelines for the upcoming academic year, and final preparation for the fall training sessions. Communities of Practice Focused on Critical Thinking Faculty, like their students, learn by reading, experiencing, reflecting, and collaborating with others. (Fulton & Licklider, 1998, p. 55) Communities of Practice will be organized by general education subject area (e.g., communications, humanities, natural sciences, etc.) to form a learning network focused on embedding pedagogical and co-curricular strategies to develop and assess student attainment of the critical thinking skills and outcomes. A community of practice refers to a learning network or community in which a process of social learning occurs. Members of the community share a common interest and collaborate to share ideas, find solutions, and build innovations. Cox (2004) defines faculty learning communities as a crossdisciplinary group (recommended size is 8-12 members) engaging in an active, collaborative, yearlong program with a curriculum about enhancing teaching and learning and with frequent seminars and activities that provide learning, development, interdisciplinarity, the scholarship of teaching and learning, and community building. The primary purpose of the communities of practice for the QEP will be to provide continuity, sustainability, and a forum to embed critical thinking outcomes in general education courses. 89

Lead faculty will serve as facilitators for the faculty and key staff forming the communities of practice. Communities of practice will meet a minimum of two times per semester for follow-up faculty and staff training and information sessions. A review and feedback session will be conducted at least once per year (at the end of the academic year) and will be led by the QEP director. The Director and lead faculty will provide an overview of progress towards implementation of the QEP, will review assessment and evaluation information, and will provide information and a preliminary timeline with reference to plans for the upcoming year. The overall purpose of the communities of practice is to enhance faculty collaborations and to focus on 1) identifying and implementing best practices for embedding critical thinking outcomes in general education courses and developing critical thinking skills in students, 2) using current research findings in developing effective pedagogies and assessment measures, and 3) sharing best pedagogical and assessment practices to promote the scholarship of teaching and learning. In addition, communities of practice will assist in developing a campus culture of inquiry focused on improving critical thinking learning outcomes in students. Middendorf s (2004) seven principles for facilitating a faculty community of practice will provide the general framework for forming communities of practice. Specifically, the Decoding the Disciplines model of faculty learning communities (Middendorf & Pace, 2004) will be utilized to design learning community activities. Using the model, faculty members who are frequently deeply ingrained in their disciplinary research collaboratively answer a series of questions to understand and articulate how students think and learn in the general education core and in their fields of study. This helps faculty develop strategies for introducing students to the culture of thinking within the general education core and as a foundation for study in a specified discipline. In the process, faculty share and discuss best practices for teaching critical thinking that can be applied across the general education core and in disciplines. Faculty communities of practice will be supported by an online Critical Thinking Teaching and Learning Commons, which will be a central component of QEP website. The commons will create a virtual space where students, faculty, academic administrators, and student life professionals can come together across disciplinary lines to create a culture of critical thinking, to audit the extent to which the campus educational environment is successfully advancing intended critical thinking outcomes for all groups of undergraduate students, and to benefit from existing and new efforts to foster student 90

engagement in critical inquiry and interpretation (Hutchings & Huber, 2005; AAC&U, 2007, p. 43). Lead faculty (Appendix. M) will be selected from the faculty and staff who participated in summer institutes and related workshops from summer 2004 through summer 2007 and will have assisted in the development of the proposed QEP. In summer 2008, lead faculty and the QEP director will develop a curriculum and timeline for the communities of practice. The curriculum for the first year may include orientation and training for lead faculty ( training the trainers ), identifying activities and a focus for initiating the communities, developing an interactive website to support online discussions and information sharing, selection of common texts and reading lists, development of teaching and learning topics related to critical thinking outcomes, development of common class assignments or projects, mid-year and end-of-year evaluations, and an end-of-year joint meeting to share experiences and successful practices among and across the groups. Conferences and Summer Institutes Based on the needs of the QEP, a team of approximately five faculty, key staff, and student government representatives will be selected by the QEP director and the General Education Council to attend a summer institute or other summer training institute or conference. The purpose for investing in a team to attend a the summer institute or conference annually will be to review the status of QEP implementation, review goals and outcomes for the QEP, take advantage of external consultation and advice frequently provided as part of the summer institute experience, continue to build expertise and continuity among the key faculty, staff, and students involved in the QEP program, review assessment and evaluation data for the purpose of planning activities for the upcoming year, finalize plans for the summer retreat, and identify a pool of potential external consultants for faculty and staff developing training sessions. The summer institutes and conferences to be considered include the: International Conference on Critical Thinking facilitated by The Foundation for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique and the Foundation for Critical Thinking. This conference is considered to be the first or among the first to focus exclusively on critical thinking teaching and learning principles. The conference is designed to provide a comprehensive, basic background with reference to critical thinking principles and to enrich a core concept of critical thinking with practical teaching and learning strategies. 91

Institute on Quality Enhancement and Accreditation sponsored by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). The Institute features numerous workshops and concurrent sessions on best practices in pedagogy, scholarship of teaching and learning, and assessment and also includes a focus on compliance requirements related to the QEP. National Summer Institute on Learning Communities facilitated by the Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education. The Institute is designed to help campuses start or strengthen learning community programs. It draws on the wisdom of experienced learning community practitioners as well as the growing research on what makes learning communities an effective institutional change strategy aimed at improving student learning, persistence, and graduation. Summer Institute for First-Year Assessment facilitated by the National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. The Institute s purpose is to provide a comprehensive introduction to the theory and practice of first-year assessment. Throughout the Institute, participants are engaged in sessions and workshops that highlight specific skills and processes vital to quality assessment. Exploring both quantitative and qualitative assessment practices, concurrent sessions allow participants to gain a breadth of knowledge while several longer workshops allow an in-depth examination of major issues. Summer Academy facilitated by the Institute for Higher Education Policy. The Summer Academy is an annual gathering of college and university teams who work collaboratively to create institution-specific action plans. Teams prepare for the event by identifying the vision and goals for their campus project. During the Summer Academy, team members engage in intense work to refine their projects for successful campus implementation. Project activities include one-on-one consultation by national higher education leaders, such as senior staff from the National Survey of Student Engagement. Greater Expectations Institute facilitated by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). The Greater Expectations Institute is a five-day, intensive program designed for campus leadership teams working on ways to increase student engagement, inclusion, and high achievement. The Institute assists campus teams to align institutional purposes, structures, and practices as well as to advance and to assess the kinds of practical liberal education outcomes outlined in AAC&U s signature reports, Greater 92

Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College and College Learning for the New Global Century. The practical liberal education outcomes include critical inquiry, intercultural competence, and integrative learning, etc. Faculty Stipends Active participation in QEP-related activities will represent a significant commitment in time, study, preparation, and service over and above the routine duties of participating faculty. In recognition of the work and time required of faculty in order to realize the goals and outcomes of the QEP, modest faculty stipends will be offered in the amount of $1,000 per year for QEP-related duties and may include participation in a limited number of QEP-related planning sessions or faculty development institutes during summer months. Eligibility for a faculty stipend includes: 1. 2. 3. 4. Full-time, part-time, and adjunct faculty status during the term for the stipend. Participation in training sessions, community of practice training and information sessions, and related working sessions (e.g., course syllabi review, course revision, general education core review, curriculum mapping, assessment designs and plans, etc.). Participation in co-curricular activities related to critical thinking outcomes embedded in general education courses taught. Participation in related duties as determined by the QEP director, General Education Council, or lead faculty (e.g., course syllabi revision, design of assignments or assessments to be embedded in courses, etc.). Twelve-month administrative and classified staff members are not eligible for stipends. 93

94

Assessment of the QEP 5 95

96

Assessment and Impact of the Quality Enhancement Plan I believe that every action, activity, and program should be strategic and intentional, as well as should add value to the University and all of her stakeholders. (NSU President, Dr. Carolyn W. Meyers, October 2006, First 100 Days Open Letter) Overview This statement by the University President captures the essence of the culture of assessment, accountability, and scholarly approaches to teaching and learning at Norfolk State University. In keeping with existing University practices, assessment and evaluation of outcomes, processes, and program impact are a significant part of the QEP. In this section of the proposal, the QEP assessment strategies and measures will be described by approach and by pathway. First, the relevant internal and external measures and systems for evaluating the QEP and monitoring its progress will be described. Second, the formative assessment and process evaluation strategies will be presented. Third, the summative assessment strategies will be described by QEP pathway. Summative assessment strategies to evaluate program impact also will be described. Finally, an assessment map, including a timeline, is presented. 97

Formative and summative assessment measures, including process evaluation measures, will be used to assess implementation, sustainability, achievement of intended learning outcomes, and impact of the assessment plan. The measures will be used to assess learning and program outcomes, processes, and program impact. Multiple measures, locally and externally developed as well as direct and indirect measures, also will be described. For the purposes of the QEP, Introduction to University Life (UNI 101) and Logical and Critical Thinking (LOG 210) are included in the review, assessment, and evaluation of general education courses. Because the scope of the QEP is focused on the general education core (40 of 120 required semester hours to meet baccalaureate degree requirements), it is important for the assessment and evaluation plan to be comprehensive and for the set of multiple measures to be coordinated, high-quality, manageable within the context of available financial and personnel resources, and efficient with respect to collection of data. In summer of 2008, the QEP director, General Education Council, and Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment will review the proposed plans and will finalize plans for a comprehensive assessment and evaluation program. This review will include specification of direct and indirect measures as well as the locally-developed and external measures to be used, frequency with which each measure will be assessed, and a timeline and reporting requirements. Pretests and post-tests of critical thinking skills as direct measures of cognitive development also will be administered as well as locally-developed courseembedded assessments, common course assignments and projects across general education subject areas, annual curriculum mapping and alignment reviews, course syllabus reviews, and general education course audits by subject area. The timeline and cycle for administration of the assessment measures will begin in fall of 2008 and will continue through 2013. A preliminary Assessment Map and Timeline for QEP outcomes and activities has been developed and is included in the proposal. The QEP director will review and update the map and timeline of QEP assessment activities routinely. The purpose of the assessment and evaluation plan will be to assess achievement of QEP program goals including the impact of curricular and cocurricular interventions on student outcomes, assess student achievement of critical thinking outcomes, evaluate success of the QEP implementation, and evaluate program impact. It is expected that the assessment and evaluation plan will incorporate existing university-wide assessment activities as appropriate (e.g., annual core competency assessment, NSSE, BCSSE, FSSE, Graduating Student Exit Survey, etc.). 98

Relevant Internal and External Measures to Evaluate the QEP The assessment and evaluation plan will incorporate direct measures of student achievement of core competency and program learning outcomes. The critical thinking subtests of the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) and the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) will be administered as pre-tests and post-tests to assess student progression in achieving critical thinking and reasoning skills. The Scale of Intellectual Development (SID) and the Measure of Epistemological Reflection (MER) will be used to assess student progression in cognitive and intellectual development along the dimensions of Perry s model of intellectual and cognitive development. Common course test items, and common course projects and assignments, will be developed by the faculty. The tests, projects, and assignments will be embedded in general education courses to evaluate the effectiveness of critical thinking pedagogies and learning strategies to improve student achievement of critical thinking outcomes and to assess student achievement of intended learning outcomes. Course syllabus reviews and curriculum mapping will be conducted on an annual basis in order to assess and document the extent to which critical thinking learning outcomes have become saturated across the general education curriculum. The syllabus reviews and curriculum maps also will be used to identify gaps in the curriculum and to identify areas to target for faculty and staff development programs. Course evaluations will be conducted in accordance with University policies and procedures to assess and monitor the effectiveness of the general education courses as critical thinking pedagogies and learning strategies are embedded throughout the core program. Ongoing evaluations of faculty and staff development activities and co-curricular activities will be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the faculty development and co-curricular pathways. Process and program impact evaluations will be conducted by external consultants to evaluate implementation of QEP activities and interventions, and faculty, staff, and student engagement in QEP activities. Indirect assessment measures will be administered on a systematic basis. The measures include the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE), and the Graduating Student Exit Survey (GSES). Surveys and assessment measures for service-learning activities, student living and learning communities, peer mentoring activities, and faculty communities of practice will be developed to provide feedback for planning, program development, and program effectiveness. 99

Management, Oversight, and Means for Assessing Success of the QEP Norfolk State University has an established, ongoing, comprehensive universitywide institutional effectiveness and assessment process (www.nsu.edu/iea) with a focus on developing manageable assessment tools and processes, developing faculty and staff expertise in using assessment tools and processes, and promoting assessment as scholarship and learning. The assessment and evaluation processes for the QEP will be aligned with University processes. The QEP director will have primary responsibility for ensuring ongoing ssessment and evaluation of all components of the QEP and ensuring results are used for planning, improvement, and decision-making. The QEP director will be expected to work closely with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment (IEA) with respect to developing a comprehensive assessment and evaluation plan; adhering to University assessment and evaluation policies, including reporting requirements; and seeking assistance in the identification and development of appropriate assessment and evaluation measures. In addition, IEA will be expected to serve as internal assessment and evaluation consultants with reference to all aspects of the QEP program and to collaborate with the QEP director in administering, collecting, analyzing, reporting, and disseminating information for use in planning, improvement, and decision-making. The QEP director will become a member of the University Assessment Advisory Committee, the General Education Council, and the QEP Committee. The purpose of the assessment and evaluation plan will be to assess achievement of QEP program goals including the impact of curricular and cocurricular interventions on student outcomes, student achievement of critical thinking outcomes, success of the QEP implementation plan, and program impact. Internal System for Evaluating the QEP and Monitoring its Progress The administrative and operational systems and processes for the QEP will be evaluated and monitored in accordance with routine University policies and procedures for systematic review of programs. QEP staff and administrator performance will be conducted annually, in accordance with University policies and procedures. Budget reviews and related procedural and process reviews will be conducted on an annual basis. In addition, process evaluation surveys will be administered to evaluate and monitor implementation and progress 100

of the QEP. Data will be collected to identify and evaluate engagement, participation, and satisfaction with the curricular review and revision processes, faculty and staff development programs, and co-curricular activities. Results will be used to inform planning and decision-making to ensure successful implementation and sustainability of the Quality Enhancement Plan. How Results of the Evaluation will be Used to Improve Student Learning The results from the assessment and evaluation plan will be used on an ongoing basis by the QEP Committee, General Education Council, the University Curriculum Committee, Academic Council, Executive Cabinet, and the QEP director to inform plans for curriculum review and revision, enhancement of pedagogical and learning strategies in critical thinking, faculty and staff development, and enhancement of educationally-enriching co-curricular activities. Ultimately, the value derived from a comprehensive assessment of student learning outcomes and a comprehensive evaluation of program impact is: 1) enhanced, focused, and effective general education core program, 2) improved student outcomes in critical thinking skills and competencies, 3) improved student outcomes in complementary skills such as communication, technology, problem-solving, and reasoning skills, 4) an ability to report meaningful student learning outcomes, 5) documentation of the value-added as a result of the curricular and co-curricular interventions, and 6) documentation of student readiness for more advanced study in the chosen major. The results will be used on an ongoing basis to monitor implementation of the QEP; progress towards achievement of QEP goals, objectives, and outcomes; and program impact and effectiveness with respect to student achievement in completing programs of study and pursuing post-graduation plans, improvement of the general education core, infusion of critical thinking throughout the general education core and co-curricular experiences, and faculty expertise in developing critical thinking skills in students. Formative Assessment and Process Evaluation Formative assessment and process evaluation measures will include assessment of entry-level critical thinking skills possessed by undergraduate students, pre-tests and post-tests of critical thinking skills, measures of cognitive 101

development, locally-developed course-embedded assessments, common course assignments and projects across general education subject areas, annual curriculum mapping and alignment reviews, course syllabus review, and general education course audits by subject area. The assessment measures will be administered periodically. The timeline and cycle for administration of the assessment measures are provided in the Assessment Map and Timeline section of the proposal. The timeline and cycle will be reviewed and revised, if needed, by the QEP director and General Education Council in summer 2008. The QEP director will update and maintain the map and timeline of QEP assessment activities. Assessment of Entry-Level Critical Thinking Skills including Pre-Tests and Post-Tests The Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) will be administered as a pretest to entering freshmen at fall matriculation (during orientation week) and as a post-test before graduation in spring terms. The CLA is designed to provide an assessment of students reasoning and communication skills and an institution s contribution to student learning. Fall results are compared to a nationallynormed group. After testing the students as seniors, the CLA provides an assessment of the value-added as a result of students collegiate experiences. The CLA may be administered annually in order to test for changes attributable to curricular or pedagogical interventions. The results will be used to identify students entry-level critical thinking skills in a variety of contexts (e.g., information processing, digital technology, and communication skills) and to identify curricular and co-curricular interventions needed to ensure appropriate opportunities for students to acquire the skills needed for collegiate success. For the purposes of the QEP, the focus of the interventions will be to develop critical thinking skills in students. Assessment of Student Progression in Cognitive Development Two primary assessment tools are proposed to assess student progression in cognitive development the Scale of Intellectual Development and the Measure of Epistemological Reflection. Both tools were developed based on Perry s theory of student cognitive and intellectual development (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). 102

The Scale of Intellectual Development (SID) was developed by Erwin (1983; DeMars & Erwin, 2003) to measure Perry s stages of dualism, relativism, and commitment as well as a later stage of empathy theorized by Erwin. The SID consists of 119 statements to which students respond on a four-point Likerttype scale. Students are placed in one of Perry s developmental stages based on obtained scores. Erwin (1983) reported acceptable internal consistency coefficients for the scales representing stages of development: dualism (.81), relativism (.7), commitment (.76), and empathy (.73). The Measure of Epistemological Reflection (MER) was developed by Baxter Magolda and Porterfield (1988; Baxter Magolda, 1987) to measure the first five positions of the Perry scheme (basic duality; multiplicity prelegitmate, multiplicity legitimate but subordinate, multiplicity coordinate/relativism subordinate, and relativism). MER focuses on six domains of the learning process decision making, the role of the learner, the role of the instructor, the role of peers, evaluation, and the nature of truth. The domains are examined via a series of short-answer essay questions. In addition, follow-up questions probing for rationales are included for each domain. A rating manual is provided to guide scoring. Baxter Magolda and Porterfield (1985) reported a moderate to high correlation coefficient of.8 for interrater reliability. Further, analysis of variance revealed differences in MER results by level of education at the.01 level of significance, thereby supporting the validity of MER scores to measure levels of intellectual development (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). The Scale of Intellectual Development (SID) and the Measure of Epistemological Reflection (MER) will be administered to entering freshmen each fall and to seniors in capstone courses or internship seminars each spring semester. Common Course Assignments, Projects, and Locally-Developed Course-Embedded Assessments In spring of 2009, the common components and course-embedded assessments will be pilot-tested in selected general education courses for implementation in the fall of 2009. Once fully implemented, the common components and course-embedded assessments will be evaluated twice per term. The purpose of the first iteration of evaluation is to provide feedback to students and to 103

grade student performance in the course. The purpose of the second iteration is to aggregate the information for use by the faculty communities of practice, the General Education Council, and the QEP director to assess the effectiveness of the embedded critical thinking outcomes (process/formative assessment), achievement of intended learning outcomes (summative assessment), and to assess program impact on an ongoing basis (process/formative assessment). Course Syllabus Review In fall of 2008, the General Education Council will review general education course syllabi and will map general education goals, course goals and outcomes, and critical thinking outcomes. The purpose of the syllabus review will be to establish baseline data with reference to explicit statements of critical thinking learning outcomes and the level at which the outcomes appear to be addressed (i.e., introduced, reinforced, emphasized, or applied). Maps will be reviewed and updated annually. Maps will be examined to document changes in statements of critical thinking learning outcomes and integrative learning strategies. Maps will be reviewed and updated annually. Curriculum Mapping and Alignment In summer of 2008, the QEP School Coordinators, Lead Faculty, and the QEP director will review the general education curriculum maps that have been completed by the General Education Council from 2005 2007. In fall 2008, by general education core subject area, lead faculty will complete and review curriculum maps with the respective community of practice (i.e., faculty teaching general education courses in the respective subject areas). During the faculty and staff development training sessions in spring of 2009, the general education curriculum maps will be examined, interpreted, and assessed with assistance as needed from an external training consultant. Results from the consultation will be used: 1) by the General Education Council and faculty communities of practice to re-examine and re-design how critical thinking outcomes are mapped across the general education core, 2) to inform a review and revision of the general education core in order to ensure that critical thinking outcomes are embedded in appropriate courses and at the appropriate level, 3) to guide course syllabi revision for implementation in fall of 2009, and 4) to assist in designing common assignments, test items and projects, and course-embedded critical thinking assessment measures (locally-developed). 104

From spring of 2009, faculty communities of practice will map general education goals, course goals, and critical thinking outcomes each spring term. The maps will be compared to the baseline map (fall 2008) by the communities of practice, the General Education Council, and the QEP director. Interpretations of the maps will be documented for use as one component of the program impact evaluation. Along with other formative and summative assessment information, the maps also will be used to determine the extent to which 1) critical thinking outcomes are embedded in a coherent and cohesive manner, 2) the general education courses and critical thinking outcomes are aligned with the general education goals, 3) students are achieving critical thinking learning outcomes, and 4) expected outcomes are being achieved as designed in the curriculum. General Education Course Audits by Subject Area In 2009-2010, the General Education Council will review and recertify general education courses (Allen, 2007, pp. 115-119). The purpose of the review will be to 1) ensure the six core competencies, including critical thinking, are explicitly addressed in general education courses, 2) ensure critical thinking outcomes are embedded as designed, 3) identify gaps, and 4) provide feedback to academic units and faculty regarding the extent to which student achievement of critical thinking outcomes provides evidence that the outcomes are embedded as designed. The results also will be used by the General Education Council and the QEP director to inform plans for faculty and staff training. Beginning 2010-2011, the audit and recertification process will become an annual process in which general education courses will be reviewed by the General Education Council on a five-year cycle by subject area. The General Education Council will determine how to group the eight subject areas and how the areas will cycle through the five-year review. For example, the subject grouping could be 1) communications and UNI 101, 2) digital/computer and telecommunications, health and P.E., 3) humanities and LOG 210, 4) natural sciences and mathematics, and 5) social sciences and the cultural elective. Results from the general education course review will be included in the dataset that will be analyzed for the five-year impact assessment. 105

Process Evaluation A process evaluation model will be used, along with other measures, to evaluate implementation of the QEP. Process evaluation is the use of empirical data to assess the delivery of programs....[p]rocess evaluation verifies what the program is, and whether or not it is delivered as intended to the targeted recipients and in the intended dosage (Schreirer, 1994). Data will be collected to evaluate 1) use of the programs, activities, or services by students, faculty, and staff, and 2) satisfaction with services provided. Summative Assessment The purpose of the summative assessments will be to gather data to inform ongoing internal assessments of implementation of the QEP, attainment of QEP outcomes, and internal evaluation of program effectiveness. Internal assessment and evaluation processes will be conducted by the QEP director in consultation with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment and the University Assessment Advisory Committee. Results from the internal assessments and evaluations will be reviewed by the General Education Council, the faculty communities of practice, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The summative assessments also will be available for external consultants to evaluate the impact of the QEP, whether students have achieved intended critical thinking outcomes, whether QEP goals are being met, and whether implementation of the QEP is proceeding as planned. In summer of 2008, the QEP director, in consultation with the General Education Council and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment, will review the assessment and evaluation plan and will make modifications as appropriate. The assessment plan will identify the measures to be used, the frequency with which each measure will be administered or data gathered, and a timeline for all components of the assessment plan. The assessment measures will be administered periodically. The timeline and cycle for administration of the assessment measures will be determined by the QEP director and General Education Council in summer 2008. The QEP director will complete and maintain the map of QEP assessment activities. The summative assessment and evaluation information will include results from direct measures (described in the formative assessment section) such as critical thinking course-embedded assessments, course-embedded critical 106

thinking core competency assessment data, pre-tests and post-tests, and externally developed measures6, as well as results from indirect measures such as National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE), Graduating Student Exit Survey (GSES locally-developed and administered consistently since 2000), and feedback results from the faculty communities of practice, student living and learning communities, service-learning and peer mentoring co-curricular experiences. A brief description of the direct and indirect measures that may be included in the assessment plan is provided below. Many of the measures or strategies are part of the ongoing universitywide assessment activities (e.g., NSSE, BCSSE, Graduating Student Exit Survey, curriculum mapping, course audits, etc.). For the purposes of the QEP, results from existing activities will be analyzed independently and within the context of the purpose and goals of the QEP. Assessment in Pathway 1 Assessment of the Student Achievement of Critical Thinking Skills Student achievement of critical thinking skills will be assessed by a set of direct and indirect measures. Direct measures include assessment of critical thinking as a core competency (a locally-developed course-embedded measure), assessment of common assignments, common test items, and common projects, and results from externallydeveloped, standardized measures, the Collegiate Learning Assessment and the ETS Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP). Indirect measures include assessment of reflective projects from service-learning and peer mentoring activities, feedback and assessment of activities from living and learning communities, National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) results, and the Graduating Student Exit Survey (GSES). The results will be used to determine the extent to which 1) students have achieved intended critical thinking outcomes, 2) curricular and cocurricular interventions have produced intended results, and 3) students perceive that collegiate experiences have resulted in an improvement in core skills, especially critical thinking skills. Curriculum Maps and Curriculum Alignment Also, the general education curriculum maps from spring of 2009 through spring of 2013 will be evaluated and compared to the fall 2008 baseline maps to evaluate the extent to which: 1) critical thinking outcomes are embedded throughout the general 6The Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) and the ETS Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) will be administered as a pretest for a sample of freshmen at matriculation and as a post-test for a sample of seniors prior to graduation. 107

education core, 2) the general education courses and the critical thinking outcomes are cohesive, coherent, and aligned with the general education goals, and 3) whether assessment results provide evidence that the general education curriculum supports student achievement of critical thinking outcomes. Course Evaluations Effective spring of 2008, end-of-term course evaluations will be revised. Students will be asked to reflect and comment on the following two questions: What factors about this class contributed the most to your learning? and What aspects of this class helped you to learn to think critically? Student feedback from general education core courses will be summarized and included with the data to be analyzed for program evaluation, feedback for program improvement purposes, and to provide feedback and recommendations to the academic units responsible for the general education courses. Assessment in Pathway 2 Assessment of Critical Thinking Implementation in Living-Learning Communities Two primary measures will be used to assess implementation of the critical thinking component in living and learning communities engagement/ participation and satisfaction. The overall number of students participating in living and learning communities as well as classification of participants by level and major will be tracked. Also, the number of students attending and completing Transactive Peer Tutoring training course will be tracked. Focus groups will be used to gauge satisfaction levels of living and learning community participants and to gather program feedback. The focus groups will be facilitated by faculty or doctoral students in Social Work or Psychology trained in focus group methodology. Focus group protocols will be structured around such themes as quality of integrating academic curriculum in residence hall programming, helpfulness of student-faculty interactions outside the classroom, usefulness of peer tutoring sessions, quality of facilities. In addition, focus groups will explore student perceptions of the impact living and learning communities have had with reference to progress towards achieving learning outcomes such as the ability to articulate and communicate one s position; understanding tolerance, and appreciation of diverse perspectives and opinions; and learning how to learn. 108

Peer Mentoring Program Content analyses of peer mentor journals will be used to assess the effectiveness of the peer mentoring program. The model developed by Good, Halpin, and Halpin (2001) will be used to structure and guide the content analyses. This model has been shown to be an effective approach for evaluating peer mentoring programs. Mentors respond to weekly prompts that focus on issues of program organization, protégés growth and development, and mentor s personal development. Mentors will be asked to reflect on the development of protégés and their own development in the following areas: improved critical thinking skills and problem solving, improved understanding of concepts and issues related to the club s discipline or organization s theme, mastery of effective study skills, development of responsibility and leadership skills, and ease of social interaction and communication (Good, Halpin, & Halpin, 2001). Service-Learning In discussing assessment of service-learning projects, Eyler (2000) states, what is needed are measures that allow students to show us, rather than tell us, that they have attained greater understanding, ability to apply their knowledge, problemsolving skills and cognitive development (p. 11). A rubric will be developed to assist students in demonstrating achievement of critical thinking outcomes attributable to service-learning activities. The rubric will guide students in developing outcomes-focused reflection essays and will assist faculty members in providing students with summative assessment feedback. The Articulated Learning (AL) model described by Ash and Clayton (2004) provides a useful example of how to incorporate critical thinking development and assessment in service-learning projects. Assessment in Pathway 3 Faculty and Staff Professional Development Program To evaluate implementation of the faculty and staff professional development program, three primary measures will be used resources, participation, and satisfaction. Specific indicators will include costs of facilitating workshops (money spent), faculty and staff time, number of faculty and staff participants, ranks of participants, and disciplines represented by participants. Also, at the end of each workshop, participants will be asked to record feedback on an evaluation form and rate their satisfaction with the workshop and training programs and activities. 109

To assess the effectiveness of the professional development program, the model developed by Notarianni-Girard (1999) and Way, Carlson, and Piliero (2002) will be adapted. The model is based on the concept of transfer of training or the degree to which faculty members and staff apply the knowledge and skills learned in the context of a workshop to routine teaching and advising activities. The model involves surveying workshop participants between one and six months after participating in the workshop. The survey will consist of two parts. The items in the first part measures the usefulness and helpfulness of knowledge and skills gained during the workshop to everyday work. The second part of the survey measures whether conditions are present in daily work that would encourage transfer of the workshop experience to teaching and advising practices. Such conditions include support from departmental colleagues and department chairs, information and technological resources, class schedules, etc. Faculty Communities of Practice Similar to the assessment of the professional development program, implementation of communities of practice will be assessed along three dimensions resources, participation, and satisfaction. Specific indicators will include costs of facilitating communities of practice, faculty and staff time, number of faculty participants, ranks of participants, number of students taught by participants, disciplines represented by participants, participants ratings and satisfaction with community of practice activities, etc. (Middendorf, 2004). To assess the effectiveness of communities of practice, a survey following Cox s (2001, 2004) model will be developed. The survey will ask participants of communities of practice to report: 1) critical thinking classroom intervention(s) designed as result of participation in the community of practice, 2) critical thinking dimensions targeted by the intervention(s), 3) how and the degree to which student learning in the course or courses changed as a result of participation in the community of practice, 4) evidence or examples of improvements in student learning, and 5) the specific processes or approaches that resulted in increased learning. Summative Evaluation of Program Impact The evaluation of program impact will be conducted by two external consultants at the end of year two and at the end of year four of the QEP. 110

The consultants will be expected to evaluate 1) success with reference to QEP implementation, 2) whether QEP goals have been achieved, 3) the impact of curricular and co-curricular interventions on student achievement of critical thinking outcomes, 4) whether assessment and evaluation results have been used to improve program and student outcomes, and 5) whether the QEP has resulted in an ability to document value-added as a result of curricular and co-curricular interventions and an ability to report meaningful student learning outcomes. The external evaluation at the end of year two is expected to provide recommendations and suggestions for improvement and for mid-course revision or adjustment. The external evaluation at the end of year four is expected to provide additional recommendations for program improvement and to provide the foundation for preparation of the five-year impact report. The consultants will be expected to review, analyze, and evaluate: 1) the direct and indirect measures administered in the program, 2) data and information generated from the formative and summative assessments, and 3) results from the work of the QEP director, General Education Council, University Assessment Advisory Committee, faculty communities of practice, curricular and cocurricular interventions and assessments, and other sources as appropriate. Also, the consultants may gather information for evaluative purposes independently (e.g., conduct focus groups, interview constituent groups, review and audit records and documents, etc.). Assessment Map and Timeline Norfolk State University has an established, ongoing, comprehensive universitywide institutional effectiveness and assessment process. The assessment and evaluation processes and reporting requirements for the QEP will be aligned with University processes. In consultation with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment and the General Education Council, the QEP director will complete and maintain a map and timeline of QEP assessment activities. The map and timeline will be reviewed and updated in summer planning meetings and will be presented to faculty and staff in fall and spring meetings. The map and timeline are presented below. 111

Map and Timeline of QEP Assessment Activities: Direct Assessment Measures Measure of Epistemological Reflection (MER) Scale of Intellectual Development (SID) CriticalThinking & Logic Tests (locally-developed, course-embedded) Critical Thinking Core Competency Assessment Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Measure of Academic Proficiency & Progress (MAPP) Service Learning Reflective Journal Term / Year Pre-Test (entering freshmen) Post-Test (seniors) Pre-Test (entering freshmen) Post-Test (seniors) Post-Test (GE Courses) Post-Test (GE Courses) Locally-developed, Course-embedded Pre-test (sample of entering freshmen) Post-test (sample of seniors) Pre-test (sample of entering freshmen) Post-test (sample of seniors) (Review and Assessment) Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Fall 2012 Spring 2013 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Map and Timeline of QEP Assessment Activities: Direct Assessment Measures National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) Graduating Student Exit Survey (GSES) Beginning College Student Survey of Engagement (BCSSE) Living & Learning Community Survey GE Course Audits GE Course Syllabus Review and Curriculum Mapping Peer Mentoring Survey Faculty Communities of Practice Survey Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Fall 2012 Spring 2013 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 112

Institutional Capacity 6 113

114

Institutional Capacity to Initiate and Sustain the QEP In order to ensure objectives are met and to ensure continuity, sustainability, coordination, and appropriate oversight for the various components of the QEP, an effective administrative structure is required. Administrative Coordination and Support Structure Through the Quality Enhancement Plan, Norfolk State University proposes to improve critical thinking outcomes in undergraduate students by embedding critical thinking pedagogies and assessment strategies across the general education curriculum, in selected undergraduate courses and in selected co-curricular experiences. A comprehensive, ongoing faculty and staff development program will provide the training needed to ensure common understanding of the goals and purposes of the QEP and to ensure faculty and staff possess the knowledge and skills needed to impact student achievement of critical thinking outcomes. Communities of practice will be organized among faculty and key staff to ensure continuity and consistency as critical thinking outcomes and assessment measures are embedded in general education courses and in co-curricular experiences. Learning communities for students will be organized to provide continuity and support for curricular and co-curricular learning among undergraduate students. 115

In order to ensure the QEP goals are met and to ensure continuity, sustainability, coordination, and appropriate oversight for the various components of the QEP, an effective administrative structure is required. The Office of Quality Enhancement and Critical Thinking Studies will be established in the summer of 2008 to support implementation and oversight of the QEP. The office will be staffed by a full-time director and a full-time administrative support specialist. Two faculty coordinators, each on a one course release each semester, also will support the QEP. Office of Quality Enhancement and Critical Thinking Studies The Office of Quality Enhancement and Critical Thinking Studies will provide a central location from which the QEP activities will be coordinated, monitored, and assessed. The purpose of the office is to ensure complete and successful implementation of the QEP, to ensure the goals and outcomes are met, and to ensure continuity, sustainability, viability, and appropriate oversight for the various components of the QEP. The office will be staffed by a full-time director, a full-time administrative support specialist, and two faculty coordinators, each on a one course release each semester. The office will be housed in the Academic Affairs Annex which is a central location on campus in close proximity to the Lyman Beecher Brooks Library, academic units, classrooms, and residence halls. The Academic Affairs Annex, an open 7,000 square foot space with modular workstations and few hardwall offices, was designed to support collaborations between and among University offices as well as collaborative projects between faculty and staff. The Annex currently houses Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment, the Academy for Teaching and Learning Research, and Graduate Studies. An organization chart for the QEP is presented below in Figure 5. The QEP Implementation Timeline is presented in the Implementation Support section of the proposal. 116

FIGURE 5. QEP ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE Vice President for Academic Affairs* Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs (curriculum management) QEP Director QEP ADMIN ASSISTANT General Education COUNCIL Pedagogies Subcommittee Assessment Subcommittee Co-Curricular Subcommittee School of Liberal Arts QEP Coordinator (1 COURSE RELEASE) School of Science & Technology QEP Faculty Coordinator (1 COURSE RELEASE) *Effective July 1, 2008 the university will implement a provost model Administrative Infrastructure, Collaborations, and Roles and Responsibilities The QEP director (Appendix N) will report to the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Responsibilities (App. N) for successful implementation of all components of the QEP, communicating information about the QEP to the University community including progress towards program goals and outcomes, overseeing the daily operations of the office, ensuring responsible and competent stewardship of QEP resources, ensuring assessment of all aspects of the QEP, and coordinating assessment components with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment. The primary function of the office is to ensure that learning and program outcomes are met and to ensure ongoing assessment and review processes inform program planning, decision-making, and improvement of student learning outcomes. The office also is responsible for effective faculty and staff development activities and programs in curricular and co-curricular strategies to support student achievement of critical thinking skills. The QEP director also will ensure faculty communities of practice and student learning communities are formed and sustained, will plan and conduct orientation sessions for new faculty and current faculty accepting new assignments to teach general education core courses, will ensure faculty development activities are planned and conducted as designed and appropriate, and will ensure appropriate learning resource materials are accessible to program participants (i.e., faculty, staff, and students). 117

The director will supervise the administrative support specialist and will work closely with the QEP faculty coordinators, lead faculty for the communities of practice, the General Education Council, the Office of Residential Life, the Office of First Year Experience and ACCESS (academic support services for students), the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment, and the Lyman Beecher Brooks Library. A search for the QEP director will begin in spring of 2008. The academic support specialist will be responsible for providing clerical and administrative support for the activities of the office, the director, and other duties as assigned. Also, the administrative support specialist will be responsible for scheduling the training sessions and communities of practice meetings, ensuring appropriate records are maintained with regard to the training sessions and activities related to the QEP. The primary responsibility of the faculty coordinators is to ensure a strong connection and coordination between the academic units that are responsible for the general education courses and executing QEP activities. For example, responsibilities for faculty coordinators will include active participation on the General Education Council, communicating the QEP goals and intended outcomes in school and departmental curriculum and faculty meetings, ensuring faculty teaching general education courses attend the QEP training sessions and participate in a community of practice, ensure critical thinking outcomes are embedded in courses as designed and course syllabi are revised as appropriate, ensure critical thinking assignments and assessments are administered in courses as designed and assessment data are gathered and submitted in a timely manner, and ensure course evaluation and feedback data are reported in a timely manner. Collaborative Networks In addition to a strong and effective administrative infrastructure devoted to the activities of the QEP, successful implementation of the QEP also depends on effective and ongoing collaborations with existing offices and support structures provided by the university. For this reason, the QEP director also will be responsible for collaborating and coordinating QEP activities with the academic units responsible for the curriculum and for staffing the general education courses. Also, the QEP director will be responsible for collaborating and coordinating with the General Education Council, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment, the Lyman Beecher Brooks Library, the Office of First Year Experience and ACCESS (academic support services), the Office 118

of Residential Life, the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs, the Academy for Teaching, Learning and Research, the Office of Information Technology, and other offices as appropriate. Roles and Responsibilities The primary roles and responsibilities of the offices and support structures related to implementation and viability of the QEP have been developed to assist the interim director with start-up activities (Appendix O). During summer of 2008, the QEP director, in collaboration with the General Education Council, will develop a comprehensive set of job descriptions including roles and responsibilities for key positions and collaborative offices. The Vice Presidents serving on Executive Cabinet are responsible for ensuring full and complete cooperation and collaboration between and among the respective offices and administrators with QEP-related responsibilities. The QEP director will be responsible for initiating and sustaining effective collaborative endeavors and for reporting progress and feedback to the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs with respect to the effectiveness and viability the network of collaborations. Implementation Timeline and Action Steps by Pathway The table below presents a two-part implementation timeline and action steps for the QEP. The first part of the table outlines initial implementation steps, key performance indicators, and documentation of completion dates and notes with reference to status of the action step and recommended next steps. The second part of the table outlines action steps by academic year and pathway (i.e., curricular, co-curricular, and faculty and staff development). The QEP director, QEP faculty coordinators, and the General Education Council will develop detailed timelines and action steps for each pathway during planning retreats and meetings. The initial due date, action steps, and key performance indicators will be specified. The completion dates and status notes will be documented as the objectives and goals are accomplished. The QEP director will be responsible for developing and maintaining the implementation timeline and action steps. The General Education Council will be responsible for reviewing the timelines and action steps as well as serving in a advisory role and providing recommendations to the QEP director. 119

QEP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND ACTION PLANS Part 1 Institutional Capacity (cont d) QEP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND ACTION PLANS Part 1 Completion Date and Status Notes Objective Action Step Performance Indicator Initiation Date 120 QEP Start Up Identify an interim director to oversee initial implementation steps. An interim director will be appointed by February 1, 2008. Revise the charge and membership for the General Education Council by April 4, 2008. Temporary administrative support will be identified by April 4, 2008. Office set up will begin by April 14, 2008. Establish the Office April 2008 Initial Implementation Steps Form the General Education Council Review the QEP implementation plan. QEP director position will be announced by April 11, 2008. QEP director will be hired by May 12, 2008. April 2008 QEP Faculty Coordinators will be appointed by schools in collaboration with the QEP director by April 21, 2008. The Faculty Coordinators will identify a cadre of faculty who teach general education core courses by April 30, 2008. Identify QEP Faculty Coordinators and identify a cadre of general education core faculty April 2008 A list of QEP Lead Faculty will be identified with input by the QEP director by the General Education Council by April 11, 2008. Meeting schedule and fall 2008 agenda/curriculum for communities of practice will be developed by June 6, 2008. Identify Lead Faculty and conduct initial orientation and planning session April 2008 Hire QEP administrative support specialist Administrative support specialist will be hired by June 9, 2008. May/June 2008 A consultant for the fall 2008 faculty and staff training will be identified and scheduled by April 30, 2008. A consultant for the spring 2009 faculty and staff training will be identified and scheduled by June 2, 2008. Identify consultant for fall 2008 and spring 2009 faculty and staff training April-June 2008 Details and logistics related to the fall 2008 faculty and staff training will be completed by July 1, 2008. Details and logistics related to the spring 2009 faculty and staff training will be completed by September 1, 2008. Plan fall 2008 and spring 2009 faculty and staff development, organize resource materials, schedule room(s) and related logistics, send announcements / invitations to instructors of record for general education core courses April- September 2008 Details and logistics related to fall 2008 co-curricular activities will be completed by July 1, 2008. Details and logistics related to spring 2009 co-curricular activities will be completed by September 1, 2008. Plan fall 2008 and spring 2009 co-curricular activities April- September Develop a marketing plan and initial marketing steps The QEP director and General Education Council will launch initial QEP promotions by August 11, 2008. April- August Launch the QEP website QEP website will be launched by August 30, 2008. Establish and set up a location for a critical thinking resource room by September 1, 2008. Collaborate with library staff to plan and establish a resource room, organize current materials, develop a database and inventory of current materials, and identify additional materials and a timeline for acquiring the materials. 2008 April- August 2008 April- August 2008 Administer baseline and diagnostic assessment Baseline and diagnostic assessment measures will be administered to entering undergraduate students by September 12, 2008. September 2008 Quality Enhancement Plan 59

QEP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND ACTION PLANS Part 2 Institutional Capacity (cont d) QEP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND ACTION PLANS Part 2 Institutional Support Objectives Pathway 3: Faculty and Staff Development Objectives Pathway 2: Enriching Educational Experiences Objectives Pathway 1: Curricular Innovations Objectives Date Restructure General Education Council Hire QEP director Identify QEP faculty coordinators and lead faculty Equip QEP Office Plan and administer diagnostic/baseline assessment Launch QEP website Establish resource and information room Conduct regular meetings for progress reports, implementation oversight, and planning Conduct annual program assessment and interim / internal program impact evaluations; develop recommendations for next steps, improvement, and planning Conduct faculty and staff training sessions and workshops Establish faculty communities of practice groups; assign lead faculty Establish Critical Thinking Information Resource Center Launch newsletter R.E.A.S.O.N. Launch an annual critical thinking forum on best practices in developing and assessing critical thinking Develop and begin populating a database of effective critical thinking teaching and learning strategies Review current Living and Learning activities; plan and develop enhanced activities to support critical thinking Develop Peer Mentoring Training Module and Peer Mentoring Handbook; plan and schedule activities (e.g., problem-solving workshops, progress and performance review meetings, structured meetings, structured study sessions, extra-curricular activities, etc.) Review existing co-curricular programs (e.g., first year experience, DNIMAS, the Honors Program, etc.) and revise/enhance as appropriate Develop assessment / feedback surveys for cocurricular activities (learning & learning communities, peer mentoring, service-learning, etc.); pilot test surveys Customize reflection maps and rubrics to assess reflective journals and essays for use in co-curricular activities; pilot test maps and rubrics Conduct syllabus review and audit to identify existing critical thinking outcomes and identify gaps Map general education goals, course outcomes, and intended critical thinking outcomes; Develop database of critical thinking outcomes and related critical thinking teaching and learning strategies Develop a Critical Thinking Mini- Guide for faculty, staff, and students Review and develop recommendations to revise the general education core Review and revise UNI 101 Review and revise, as needed, LOG 210 Develop common writing assignments, oral presentations, and critical thinking projects Develop reflection maps and rubrics to assess reflective journals and essays for use in courses 2008-2009 Review QEP Office status of implementation; evaluate effectiveness and efficiency Administer assessment and evaluation measures as scheduled Continue developing and enhancing the QEP website Continue developing and enhancing the resource and information room Conduct regular meetings for progress reports, implementation oversight, and planning Conduct annual program assessment and interim / internal program impact evaluations; develop recommendations for next steps, improvement, and planning Launch Critical Thinking Commons section on the QEP website Continue R.E.A.S.O.N. newsletter Continue developing a database of effective critical thinking teaching and learning strategies Conduct faculty and staff development workshops and training sessions in fall and spring Hold regular meetings of faculty communities of practice each semester Review assessment results and curriculum maps; make recommendations for improvement and planning Sponsor annual critical thinking forum on best practices in developing and assessing critical thinking Participate in summer retreat, planning, and assessment sessions Participate in summer institute or summer academy Develop Transactive Peer Tutoring Guide and training module Launch Peer Mentoring Program Implement pilot, enhanced living and learning communities, peer mentoring, and servicelearning programs Sponsor annual Critical Thinking Day Administer assessment / feedback surveys for co-curricular activities (learning & learning communities, peer mentoring, service-learning, etc.) Implement reflection maps and rubrics to assess reflective journals and essays in co-curricular activities 2009-2010 Implement enhanced UNI 101 Implement revised General Education core with critical thinking infused courses Implement required critical thinking course for all undergraduate students Review general education courses and course syllabi; complete curriculum maps Launch Interactive Library Tutorial Administer scheduled assessment measures 121 0 Norfolk State University

QEP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND ACTION PLANS Part 2 (Cont d) stitutional Capacity (cont d) QEP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND ACTION PLANS Part 2 122 Institutional Support Objectives Pathway 3: Faculty and Staff Development Objectives Pathway 2: Enriching Educational Experiences Objectives Pathway 1: Curricular Innovations Objectives Date Review QEP Office status of implementation; evaluate effectiveness and efficiency Administer assessment and evaluation measures as scheduled Continue developing and enhancing the QEP website Continue developing and enhancing the resource and information room Conduct regular meetings for progress reports, implementation oversight, and planning Conduct annual program assessment and interim / internal program impact evaluations; develop recommendations for next steps, improvement, and planning Continue to develop and maintain Critical Thinking Commons section on the QEP website Continue R.E.A.S.O.N. newsletter Continue developing a database of effective critical thinking teaching and learning strategies Conduct faculty and staff development workshops and training sessions in fall and spring Continue regular meetings of faculty communities of practice each semester Review assessment results and curriculum maps; make recommendations for improvement and planning Sponsor annual critical thinking forum on best practices in developing and assessing critical thinking Participate in summer retreat, planning, and assessment sessions Participate in summer institute or summer academy Continue to develop and maintain the Critical Thinking Information Resource Center Continue to develop and maintain Critical Thinking Commons section on the QEP website Launch Transactive Peer Tutoring Program Implement comprehensive, enhanced living and learning communities, peer mentoring, and service-learning programs Sponsor annual Critical Thinking Day Administer assessment / feedback surveys for co-curricular activities (learning & learning communities, peer mentoring, service-learning, etc.) Implement reflection maps and rubrics to assess reflective journals and essays in co-curricular activities 2010-2011 Review critical thinking strategies in general education core courses; make adjustments as needed Review general education courses and course syllabi; complete curriculum maps Administer scheduled assessment measures Review QEP Office status of implementation; evaluate effectiveness and efficiency Administer assessment and evaluation measures as scheduled Continue developing and enhancing the QEP website Continue developing and enhancing the resource and information room Conduct regular meetings for progress reports, implementation oversight, and planning Conduct annual program assessment and interim / internal program impact evaluations; develop recommendations for next steps, improvement, and planning Begin planning for five-year report and continuation of the QEP Continue to develop and maintain Critical Thinking Commons section on the QEP website Continue R.E.A.S.O.N. newsletter Continue developing a database of effective critical thinking teaching and learning strategies Conduct faculty and staff development workshops and training sessions in fall and spring Continue regular meetings of faculty communities of practice each semester Review assessment results and curriculum maps; make recommendations for improvement and planning Sponsor annual critical thinking forum on best practices in developing and assessing critical thinking Participate in summer retreat, planning, and assessment sessions Participate in summer institute or summer academy Continue to develop and maintain the Critical Thinking Information Resource Center Review and make adjustments as necessary to living and learning communities, peer mentoring, and service-learning programs Hold annual Critical Thinking Day Administer assessment / feedback surveys for co-curricular activities (learning & learning communities, peer mentoring, service-learning, etc.) Implement reflection maps and rubrics to assess reflective journals and essays in co-curricular activities 2011-2012 Review critical thinking strategies in general education core courses and make adjustments as needed Review general education courses and course syllabi; complete curriculum maps Administer scheduled assessment measures uality Enhancement Plan 61

QEP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND ACTION PLANS Part 2 (Cont d) Date Pathway 1: Curricular Innovations Objectives 2012-2013 Review general education courses and course syllabi; complete curriculum maps Administer scheduled assessment measures Implement QEP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND ACTION PLANS Part 2 Pathway 2: Enriching Educational Experiences Objectives Pathway 3: Faculty and Staff Development Objectives Review and make adjustments as necessary to living and learning communities, peer mentoring, and service-learning programs Hold annual CT Day Continue to develop and maintain Critical Thinking Commons section on the QEP website Continue R.E.A.S.O.N. newsletter Continue developing a database of effective critical thinking teaching and learning strategies Conduct faculty and staff development workshops and training sessions in fall and spring Continue regular meetings of faculty communities of practice each semester Review assessment results and curriculum maps; make recommendations for improvement and planning Sponsor annual critical thinking forum on best practices in developing and assessing critical thinking Participate in summer retreat, planning, and assessment sessions Participate in summer institute or summer academy Continue regular meetings of faculty communities of practice Continue to develop and maintain the Critical Thinking Information Resource Center Institutional Capacity (cont d) Institutional Support Objectives Review QEP Office status of implementation; evaluate effectiveness and efficiency Administer assessment and evaluation measures as scheduled Continue developing and enhancing the QEP website Continue developing and enhancing the resource and information room Conduct regular meetings for progress reports, implementation oversight, and planning Conduct annual program assessment and interim / internal program impact evaluations; develop recommendations for next steps, improvement, and planning Conduct external evaluation of the QEP impact Prepare five-year report Develop / Finalize plans for continuation 123

Budget As part of the annual University budget proposal and approval process in fall of 2007, an initial start-up budget of $383,733 was approved to establish and support implementation of the QEP and program activities in 2008-2009. In addition, a tentative budget for 2009-2013 was developed and was based on an annual average of approximately $373,000 with an allowance for five (5) percent increases annually. A five-year budget proposal is presented below. The budget supports salaries and benefits, staff, release-time for two faculty coordinators, and stipends for lead faculty. The budget also supports startup costs for year one, as well as ongoing supplies and equipment, assessment measures, resource materials, training and evaluation consultants, and faculty and staff development activities through 2013. Annual resource needs for the QEP will follow the University s annual process for budget requests, reviews, and approvals. A permanent cost center has been established for the QEP effective July 1, 2008 to institutionalize QEP operations and to formalize establishment of the QEP within the University structure and routine University policies and procedures. 124

Institutional Capacity (cont d) FIVE-YEAR PLAN BUDGET DESCRIPTION YEAR ONE YEAR TWO YEAR THREE YEAR FOUR YEAR FIVE TOTAL PERSONNEL* QEP Director (salary ($70,000 88,000) and fringes ($23,100 29,040)) $117,040 $119,966 $122,965 $126,039 $129,190 $ 615,201 Educational Support Specialist (salary ($30,000) and ($9,900) fringes) $ 39,900 $ 40,898 $ 41,920 $ 42,968 $ 44,042 $ 209,728 School QEP Coordinators (1 Liberal Arts; 1 Science and Technology) $ 9,293 $ 9,525 $ 9,763 $ 10,008 $ 10,258 $ 48,847 (facilitate infusion of critical thinking in general education program curricula; facilitate administration of critical thinking nationally normed tests; serve as liaison for course embedded critical thinking skills and assessment, oversee curricula innovations, etc.) Personnel Subtotal: $166,233 $170,389 $174,649 $179,015 $183,490 $ 873,775 OPERATING Computers (2) and Printers (2) $ 7,000 $ $ $ $ $ 7,000 Phones (2) $ 1,000 $ $ $ $ $ 1,000 LCD Projector $ 1,000 $ $ $ $ $ 1,000 Office Furniture / File and Supply Cabinets $ 1,000 $ $ $ $ $ 1,000 QEP Director Search $ 2,000 $ $ $ $ $ 2,000 Equipment Subtotal: $ 17,000 $ $ $ $ $ 17,000 Instructional Materials $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 25,000 Assessment Instruments (CLA, MAPP, MER, SID) $ 43,000 $ 43,000 $ 43,000 $ 43,000 $ 43,000 $ 215,000 Books, Subscriptions, and Software $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 75,000 Supplies / Workshop Materials $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ 35,000 Instructional Support Subtotal: $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 350,000 Operating Budget Subtotal: $ 87,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 367,000 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Travel (conferences and summer institutes) $ 18,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 98,000 Faculty Stipends (implement/embed innovative pedagogical approaches and assessment tools in general education courses) $ 94,000 $ 94,000 $ 94,000 $ 94,000 $ 94,000 $ 470,000 Workshop Facilitators (two annual workshops on critical thinking pedagogies facilitated by external consultants) $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 60,000 Workshop Facilitators (travel, lodging, miscellaneous) $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 17,500 Professional Development Subtotal: $127,500 $129,500 $129,500 $129,500 $129,500 $ 645,500 INTERNAL CHARGES (network drops, phone service, etc.) $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 15,000 TOTAL: $383,733 $372,889 $377,149 $381,515 $385,990 $ 1,901,275 63 Norfolk State University 125

Summary Norfolk State University proposes to improve critical thinking skills in undergraduate students by embedding critical thinking teaching, learning, and assessment strategies across the general education curriculum. Educationallyenriching co-curricular activities will be developed and implemented to reinforce and sustain student achievement of critical thinking outcomes. Co-curricular activities will include living and learning communities, a peer mentoring program, and service-learning activities. An ongoing, comprehensive faculty and staff development program will be developed to ensure consistent application of critical thinking pedagogies and assessment strategies. The program also will develop, support, and sustain improvement of critical thinking learning outcomes in undergraduate students. In addition to a comprehensive annual schedule of faculty and staff development sessions conducted by external and internal consultants, the program also will include faculty communities of practice organized by general education subject area. All activities related to implementation of the QEP will be administered and coordinated from the Office of Quality Enhancement and Critical Thinking Studies. The office will be administered by a full-time director who will be supported by a full-time administrative support specialist and two QEP Faculty Coordinators on a one course release. In addition, existing university offices and services will work with the director in collaborative networks (consistent with routine practice and the university culture) to provide assistance and internal consultation with reference to assessment and evaluation, faculty and staff development, learning resources, coordination and oversight for curricular components, and assistance in implementing and monitoring co-curricular experiences. Sustainability of the innovations and quality enhancements depends on the following three basic conditions: 1) interconnectedness, 2) the dynamic nature of a complex system, and 3) the importance of taking the long view (Bardaglio, 2005, p. 19). The proposed QEP follows the principle of interconnectedness by explicitly connecting and integrating student cognitive development, curriculum design, enriching co-curricular activities, faculty development, budget planning, assessment and evaluation, and institutional and management processes. In addition, the proposed QEP incorporates a robust implementation 126

analysis to monitor and, if needed, to correct the course of the QEP implementation thus addressing the sustainability principle of the dynamic nature of complex systems. Finally, the proposed QEP is based on a long-range perspective to ensure institutional infrastructures and processes. Also, the proposal ensures that a detailed implementation and monitoring plan is viable over a period of at least five years and beyond. 127

128

References 7 129

130

References ACRL (1987). Model statement of objectives for academic bibliographic instruction. College & Research Libraries News, 256-261. AAC&U (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision for learning as a nation goes to college, Association of American Colleges and Universities. AAC&U (2005). Liberal education outcomes: A Preliminary report on student achievement in college. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. AAC&U (2007). College learning for the new global century. A Report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education & America s Promise. Available at: www.aacu.org/advocacy. Allen, M. J. (2006). Alignment of general education programs. In Allen, M. J., Assessing general education programs. Boston: Anker Publishing Company, Inc., p. 91-120. Angelo, T. & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to guided reflection and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29 (2), 137-154. Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service learning affects students. Los Angeles: UCLA/HERI. Bardaglio, P. W. (2005). Sustainability thinking and entrepreneurship: A case study. Peer Review, 7(3), 18-20. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 13-25. Baxter Magnolda, M. B. (2004). Evolution of a constructivist conceptualization of epistemological reflection. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 31-42. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Baxter Magolda, M. B., & Porterfield, W. D. (1988). Assessing intellectual development: The link between theory and practice. Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association. Bodi, S. (1988). Critical thinking and bibliographic instruction: The relationship. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 14(3), 150-153. Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 131

Brookfield, S. D. (2005). The power of critical theory: Liberating adult learning and teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Brookfield, S. D. (2005). Overcoming impostorship, cultural suicide, and lost innocence: Implications for teaching critical thinking in the community college. In McMahon, C. M. (ed.), Critical thinking: Unfinished business. New Directions for Community Colleges, 130, 49-57. Brower, A. M., & Dettinger, K. M. (1998). What is a learning community. About Campus, 3(5), 15-21. Brown, M. N. & Freeman, K. (2000). Distinguishing features of critical thinking classrooms. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(3), 301-310. Canada, M. (2001). The internet in service learning. New Directions for Higher Education, 114, 45-50. Conrad, C. F. (Ed.) (1985). Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) Reader on Academic Programs in Colleges and Universities. Report: ED265779. Cooper, D. L., Healy, M. A., & Simpson, J. (1994). Student development through involvement: Specific changes over time. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 98-102. Cooper, S., & Patton, R. (2006). Writing logically, thinking critically, 5th edition. Pearson/Longman. Cosgrove, T. J. (1987). Understanding how college students think. Campus Activities Programming, 20(3), 56-60. Cox, M. D. (2001). Faculty learning communities: Change agents for transforming institutions into learning organizations. In: Lieberman, D., & Wehlburg, C. (Eds.), To Improve Academy, 19, 69-93. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Cox, M. D. (2004). Faculty Learning Community Program Director s Handbook and Facilitator s Handbook. Oxford, OH: Miami University. Cox, B. E., Serven, S., & Tobolowsky, B. F. (2005). Preliminary findings from the 2005 National Survey on Sophomore Initiatives. National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Available at: http://www.sc.edu/fye/events/presentation/soph.acpa.naspa.pdf. Cross, P. (1998 July-August). Why learning communities? Why now? About Campus, 4-11. D Angelo, B. J. (2001). Using source analysis to promote critical thinking. Research Strategies, 18(4), 303-309. Daragan, P. & Stevens, G. (1996). Developing lifelong learners: An integrative and developmental approach to information literacy. Research Strategies, 14, 68-81. DeMars, C. E. & Erwin, T. D. (2003). Revising the scale of intellectual development: Application of an unfolding model. Journal of College Student Development, 44(2), 168-184. 132

Eemeron, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoek Henkemens, F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Elder, L. (2005). Critical thinking as the key to learning college: A professional development model. In McMahon, C. M. (ed.), Critical thinking: unfinished business. New Directions for Community Colleges, 130, 39-48. Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2002). The miniature guide to the art of asking essential uestions. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2002). The miniature guide to the foundations of analytic thinking. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Engeldinger, E. A. (1988). Bibliographic instruction and critical thinking: The contribution of the annotated bibliography. Research Quarterly, 28, 195-202. Erwin, T. D. (1983). The scale of intellectual development: Measuring Perry s scheme. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(1), 6-12. Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc. Eyler, J. (2000). What do we most need to know about the impact of student learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11-17. Eyler, J. (2001). Reflection: Linking service and learning Linking students and communities. In Stukas, A. A., & Dunlap, M. R. (Eds.), Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 517-534. Boston, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Fink, K. D. (2001). Bibliographic instruction: A corporate trainer s take. College & Research Libraries News, 62(5), 526. Gaff, J. G., Ratcliff, J. L., and Associates. (1997). Handbook of undergraduate curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Gaff, J. G. (2004). What is a generally education person? Peer Review, 7(1), 4-7. Goad, T. (2002). Information literacy and workplace performance. New York: Quorum/Greenwood. Good, J., Halpin, G., & Halpin, G. (2001). Retaining black students in engineering: Do minority programs have a longitudinal impact? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 3(4), 351-364. Gray, W. H. (1997). On the superiority of black colleges. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1, 60-66. Henninger, E. A., & Hurlbert J. M. (1996). Critical thinking and information across the undergraduate business curriculum. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 2(1), 29-40. Herro, S. J. (2000). Bibliographic instruction and critical thinking. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(6), 554-558. Huang, Y., & Chang, S. (2004). Academic and co-curricular involvement: 133

Their relationship and the best combinations for student growth. Journal of College Student Development, 45(4), 391-406. Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Available at: http://carnegiefoundation.org/dynamic/publications/elibrary_pdf_636.pdf. Johnson, G.R., & Blair, J.A. (1991). Teaching tips for users of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning Project on Instructional Processes and Educational Outcomes. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED). Report: NCRIPTAL-91-B-005. ED338123. King, P. M. (1978). Lawrence Kohlberg s cognitive stage theory of the development of moral judgment. In Knefelkamp L., C. Widick C., & Parker, C. A., (Eds.), New Directions for Student Services: Applying New Developmental Findings. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1996). A developmental perspective on learning. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 163-173. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1998). The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of research on epistemic cognition. In Hofer, B. K. and Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Knefelkamp, L. L. (1978). A cognitive-developmental model of career development: An adaptation of the Perry scheme. In Parker, C. A. (Ed.), Encouraging Development in College Students. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 135-150. Knefelkamp, L. L. (1980). Integrating adult development theory with higher education practice. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Higher Education. Knefelkamp, L. L. (1980). Faculty and student development in the 80 s: Renewing the community of scholars. Current Issues in Higher Education, 5, 13-14. Knefelkamp, L. L. (1984). Advising for diversity. Keynote Address at the 8th National Conference on Academic Advising. In Proceedings of the National Conference of the National Academic Advising Association, Philadelphia, PA, October 14, 1984. Conference Theme: Academic Advising as a Form of Teaching. 134

Knefelkamp, L. L. (1998). Developmental instruction. In L. Knefelkamp & R. R. Golee (Eds.). A workbook for using the practice-to-theory-to-practice model. College Park, MD: University of Maryland at College Park. Knefelkamp, L. L. (1999). Introduction. In Perry, W. G (Ed.). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. (pp. xixxxviii). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Knefelkamp, L., Parker, C. A., & Widick, C. (1978). Jane Loevinger s milestones of development. In Knefelkamp L., Widick C., & Parker C. A. (Eds.), New Developmental Findings New Directions in Student Services, 4, 69-78. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Knefelkamp, L. L. & Widick, C. (1974). Measure of Intellectual Development. New York: Center for the Study of Intellectual Development. Knefelkamp, L. L., Widick, C., & Parker, C.A. (1979). Applying New Developmental Findings. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Lane, Jack C. (1987). The Yale report of 1828 and liberal education: A neorepublican manifesto. History of Education Quarterly, 27(3), 325-38. Leskes, A. (2004). Afterword: Implications and recommendations for faculty and accreditation. In AAC&U, Taking Responsibility for the Quality of the Baccalaureate Degree, pp. 25-28. Available at: http://www.aacu.org/ publications/pdfs/takingafterword.pdf. Leskes, A., & Miller, R. (2006). Purposeful pathways: Helping students achieve key learning outcomes. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities. Loomis, A., & Fink, D. (1993). Instruction: Gateway to the virtual library. In L. M. Saunders, (Ed.). The virtual library: visions and realities, 147-69. Westport, CT: Meckler. Malx, M. D., & Reybold, L. E. (2005). A pedagogy of force: Faculty perspectives of critical thinking capacity in undergraduate students. The Journal of General Education, 54(4), 293-315. Mezirow, J., & Associates (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipator learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Middendorf, J. (2004). Facilitating a faculty learning community using the decoding the discipline model. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 98, 95-107. Middendorf, J. (2004). Decoding the disciplines: A model for helping students learn disciplinary ways of thinking. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 98, 1-2. Moon, J. (2002). A practical resource for linking levels, learning outcomes, and assessment. The module and programme development handbook. London: Kogan Page. 135

Moore, W.S. (1994). The Perry schema of intellectual and ethical development: Student and faculty epistemology in the college classroom. In: Prichard, K., & Sawyer, R.M. (Eds.), Handbook on college teaching: Theory and applications. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Moore, W.S. (nd). My mind exploded: Intellectual development as a critical framework for understanding and assessing collaborative learning. Available at: http://www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/resources/acl/iia.html. Nelson, C. E. (1989). Skewered on the unicorn s horn: The illusion of a tragic trade-off between content and critical thinking in the teaching of science. In L. W. Crowe (Ed.). Enhancing Critical Thinking in the Sciences, pp. 17-27 Washington, D.C.: Society of College Science Teachers. National Science Teachers Association. Nelson, C. E. (1991). Skewered on the unicorn s horn: The illusion of tragic tradeoff between content and critical thinking in the teaching of science. Materials for Indiana University Bloomington Teaching Resources Center Workshop, February 4, 1991. Nelson, C. E. (1991). Fostering critical thinking and mature valuing across the curriculum: Comments & conversation. Materials for Indiana University Bloomington Teaching Resources Center Workshop, February 4, 1991. Nelson, C. E. (1994). Critical thinking and collaborative learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 59, 45-58. Nelson, C. E. (1998). On the persistence of unicorns: The trade-off between content and critical thinking revisited. In Pescosolido & Aminzade (Eds), The Social Worlds of Higher Education: Handbook for Teaching in a New Century, pp. 168-184. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Notarianni-Girard, D. (1999). Transfer of training in teaching assistant programs. Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 6(3), 199-147. Oates, K. K. & Leavitt, L. H. (2003). Service learning and learning communities: Tools for integration and assessment. Association for American Colleges and Universities, Report ED478035. Parkay, F. W. (1988). Reflections of a protégé. Theory into Practice, 27(3), 195-200. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affect students, vol. 2: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pasque, P., & Murphy, R. (2005). The intersections of living-learning programs and social identity as factors of academic achievement and intellectual engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 46(4), 429-441. Paul, R. W. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. 136

Paul, R. W. (2004). The state of critical thinking today: The need for a substantive concept of critical thinking. http://www.criticalthinking.org/ resources/articles/the-state-ct-today.shtml. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Paul, R. (2005). The state of critical thinking today. In McMahon, C. M. (Ed.)., Critical thinking: Unfinished business. New Directions for Community Colleges, 130, 27-48. Paul, R. W. & Binker, A. J. A. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University. Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2003). A miniature guide for those who teach on how to improve student learning: 30 practical ideas. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2003). The thinkers guide to how to read a paragraph and beyond: The art of close reading. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2003). The Thinkers guide to how to write a paragraph: The art of substantive writing. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2004). The Miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts and tools. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2004). The Thinkers guide to the nature and functions of critical and creative thought. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2005). Critical thinking competency standards. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: Identifying the targets. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. http://www.criticalthinking. org/articles/ct-identifying-targets.cfm#top. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). A miniature guide for students and faculty to scientific thinking. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. http:// www.criticalthinking.org/tgs_files/sam-scientificthinking.pdf. Perry, W. G. (1968). Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal arts college: A validation of a scheme. Final Report. Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, DC. Bureau of Research. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In: Chickering, A. & Assoc. (Eds.). The modern american college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, pp. 76-116. 137

Perry, W. G. (1998). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publisher. Redmond, A. (2004). The education living learning community. In: Hurd, S.N., & Stein, R.F. (Eds.), Building and sustaining learning communities: The Syracuse University experience, pp. 190-200. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Ricci, J. P., Porterfield, & Piper (1987). Using developmental theory in supervising residential staff members. NASPA Journal, 24(4), 32-41. Saidla, D. D. (1990). The construct validity of individual and interpersonal correlates of roommate relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(3), 311-330. Saidla, D. D. (1990). Competencies for entry-level staff identified by professionals in different positions in eight student affairs areas. The College Student Affairs Journal, 10(1), 4 14. Sobocan, J. (2003). Teaching informal logic and critical thinking. Available at: http://web2.uwindsor.ca. Stonewater, B. B. (1988). Informal developmental assessment in the residence halls: A theory to practice model. NASPA Journal, 25(4), 267-273. Tagg, J. (2003). A learning paradigm college aligns all of its activities around the mission of producing student learning. In Tagg, J. The learning paradigm college, pp. 280-306. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company. Tagg, J. (2003). The golden rule. In Tagg, J. The learning paradigm college. pp. 342-356 Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company Thoma, G.A. (1993). The Perry framework and tactics for teaching critical thinking in economics. Journal of Economic Education, 24(2), 128-136. Tobolowsky, B. F. (2007). Thinking visually: Using visual media in the college classroom. About Campus, 12(1), 21-24. Tobolowsky, B. F. (2007). Beyond demographics: Understanding the college experience through television. About Campus, 114, 17-26. Tobolowsky, B. F. (2006). Beyond demographics: Understanding the college experience through television. New Directions for Student Services, 114, 17-26. Tsui, L. (2000). Effects of campus culture on students critical thinking. Review of Higher Education, 23(4), 421-441. Tsui, L. (2001). Faculty attitudes and the development of students critical thinking. Journal of General Education, 50(1), 1-28. Tsui, L. (2003). Reproducing social inequalities through higher education: Critical thinking as valued capital. Journal of Negro Education, 72(3), 318-332. Van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53(1), 41-46. Vesely, P., & Sherlock, J. (2005). Pedagogical tools to develop critical thinking. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(4), 155-161. 138

Way, D., Carlson, V., & Piliero, S. (2002). Evaluating teaching workshops: Beyond the satisfaction survey. To Improve the Academy, 20, 94-106. Weiler, A. (2005). Information-seeking behavior in Generation Y students: Motivation, critical thinking, and learning theory. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(1), 46-53. Zhao, C. M. & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115-138. 139

140

Appendices 8 141

142

Appendices A. Summer Readings 144 B. Call for QEP Preliminary Proposals 152 C. QEP Preliminary Proposal Committee 154 D. Call for QEP Proposals 155 E. Liberal Arts Spring 2001 Newsletter Announcing Revision of LOG 210 157 F. Critical Thinking and Student Engagement: 2006 NSSE Data 158 G. General Education Curriculum Map 160 H. School of Liberal Arts Critical Thinking Group Discussions 161 I. Selected School of Liberal Arts Critical Thinking Briefs 166 J. Perry s Model of Cognitive and Ethical Development 175 K. General Education Core: Two Tiers 177 L. Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning 179 M. List of Potential QEP Lead Faculty 181 N. QEP Director Job Description and Qualifications 183 O. Summary of Roles and Responsibilities for Key Staff and Key Collaborative Relationships 184 143

Appendix A Summer Readings Brochures 2004 http://www.nsu.edu/iea/image/2004_summer_readings.pdf 144

145

Appendix A Summer Readings Brochures 2005 http://www.nsu.edu/iea/image/2005_summer_readings.pdf 146

D 147

148 Adapted from: Kinzie, J. (2005). Promoting Student Success: What Faculty Members Can Do. (Occasional Paper No.6). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. 9 Hold Students Accountable for Taking Their Share of the Responsibility for Their Learning Make Time for Students 8 Weave Diversity, Civic Engagement, and Service into the Curriculum Including Out-of-Class Assignments 7 Provide Meaningful Feedback to Students 6 Build on Students Knowledge, Abilities, and Talents 5 Use Engaging Pedagogical Approaches Appropriate for Course Intended Learning Outcomes and Students Abilities and Learning Styles 4 Clarify What Students Need to Succeed 3 Set and Maintain High Expectations for Student Performance 2 Embrace Students and Their Learning 1 What Faculty Members Can Do PROMOTING STUDENT SUCCESS and Staff Faculty, nsu Administrators, AttEntIon General Education Curriculum Review and QEP Development In Preparation for 2006 SUmmER READInGS Appendix A Summer Readings Brochures 2006 http://www.nsu.edu/iea/image/2006_summer_readings.pdf

Academic Affairs is pleased to announce the reading list for summer 2006. The readings are designed to engage the campus in conversations focused on creating and sustaining an environment that supports and enhances student learning. The purpose of The readings for summer 2006 is To provide an update on current issues in higher education and to provide a foundation for participation in: 1. evaluating and documenting curriculum coherence and alignment in the general education core in 2006-2007; and 2. developing the nsu Quality enhancement plan (Qep) in 2006-2007. The Qep theme is Creating Coherent Pathways to Develop Critical Thinking Skills in Students. The readings described below are on reserve in the Lyman Beecher Brooks Library and are available online at www.nsu.edu/iea/. The password is: nsu readings Association of American Colleges and Universities (2005). Liberal Education Outcomes: A Preliminary Report on Student Achievement in College. Washington, d.c.: association of american Colleges and universities. student achievement of liberal education outcomes that are valued by the academy and employers are examined in this report (e.g., critical thinking, quantitative literacy, communication skills, ethical reasoning, civic engagement). The report finds that these outcomes have not been sufficiently addressed by colleges and universities in terms of documenting student learning and achievement. a set of learning outcomes is presented for consideration in cultivating and assessing student achievement of liberal education outcomes throughout the undergraduate experience. Miller, C. & Malandra, G. (2006). Accountability/Assessment. second issue paper. a national dialogue: The secretary of education s Commission on the future of higher education. Washington, d.c. Accountability/Assessment is the second in a series of papers issued by the Commission on the future of higher education. The Commission was established by the u.s. department of education to study key issues and to make recommendations by august 2006 that will lead to a comprehensive strategy for reform in higher education. This issue paper discusses key challenges faced in higher education today, including erosion in the quality and outcomes of the collegiate experience. promising practices also are presented. additional information about the Commission and the issue papers may be found at: http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture. Meacham, J. (1994). Assessing General Education: A Questionnaire to Initiate Campus Conversations. Washington, d.c.: association of american Colleges and universities. Assessing General Education is a well-established questionnaire that is designed to help campuses initiate conversations about general education, reflect on the core curriculum, and begin a process of assessing the adequacy of the curriculum in terms of ensuring that students achieve the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes needed. faculty and academic administrators are asked to rate the general education core program on twenty-eight dimensions such as clarity of student learning goals, coherence of the curriculum, and evidence of effectiveness. results are used to focus attention on dimensions where there is much disagreement among faculty or on those dimensions with high or low scores. Campus discussions of the results should lead to an informed approach for conducting a comprehensive review of the general education core. NSU teaching faculty, department chairs, and deans are asked to complete the survey no later than August 1, 2006. The survey is available at www.nsu.edu/iea/. Password is: nsu Benander, R. & Lightner, R. (2005). Promoting Transfer of Learning: Connecting General Education Courses. The Journal of general education, 54(3), 199-208. Benander and Lightner present a practical approach to addressing curriculum coherence and alignment through effective teaching practices in the general education core. The authors also discuss how an interdisciplinary team of faculty developed strategies to promote transfer of learning across the general education core and improved teaching as well as coherence and alignment in the general education core. This faculty-led learning community focused on understanding how the pieces of the core curriculum fit together and how faculty can work together to strengthen the connections and relationships between and among the core courses. recommendations for teaching to promote transfer learning are presented (e.g., explicit expectations and outcomes, advising, course design, modeling for example, math professors invited to discuss statistical analysis in an introductory psychology course). The purpose of the reading is to stimulate faculty to think of creative ways to build curriculum coherence and alignment in teaching and learning and to provide a context for reviewing and assessing the general education core curriculum. Facione, P.A. (2006). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. insight assessment, California academic press, 2006 update, 1-22. in this essay, the author provides a practical and approachable discussion of how to define, assess, and teach critical thinking. facione contrasts a set of critical thinking skills needed by educated persons against good thinking and other myths from the popular culture. van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching Critical Thinking. College Teaching, 53(1), 41-46. almost everyone in the academy agrees that one of the primary goals of education is to help students develop critical thinking skills. almost everyone also agrees that students do not acquire these skills as much as they could and should. The difficult part is in knowing what to do about it. in this article, the author presents six key lessons from cognitive science for teachers of critical thinking. The lessons are about critical thinking, how critical thinking skills are acquired, and how critical thinking is taught best. The article also provides guidelines for teaching practice in light of the lessons. Malx, M.D. & Reybold, L. E. (2005). A Pedagogy of Force: Faculty Perspectives of Critical Thinking Capacity in Undergraduate Students. The Journal of general education, 54(4), 293-315. malx and reybold explore faculty perceptions of critical thinking and preparation for developing critical thinking skills in students. a literature review focusing on faculty perceptions of critical thinking and pedagogical applications is presented. a case study, findings, and recommendations for teaching and learning practices also are discussed. Summer Readings are on reserve in the Lyman Beecher Brooks Library and are posted on the Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment website. The URL is: www.nsu.edu/iea/. The password is: nsu 149

Appendix A Summer Readings Brochures 2007 http://www.nsu.edu/iea/image/2007_summer_readings.pdf LEAP LIBErAL EDUCATION AND AMErICA S PrOMISE ESSENTIAL LEArNING OUTCOMES Beginning in school, and continuing at succesively higher levels across their college studies, students should prepare for twenty-first century challenges by developing the following learning outcomes: KNOWLEDGE OF HUMAN CULTUrES AND THE NATUrAL WOrLD grounded in the study of the sciences and mathematics, social sciences, humanities, histories, languages, and the arts actively acquired through engagement with big questions, both contemporary and enduring INTELLECTUAL AND PrACTICAL SKILLS inquiry, critical and creative thinking written and oral communication quantitative literacy information literacy teamwork and problem solving PErSONAL AND SOCIAL responsibilities civic knowledge and engagement local and global intercultural knowledge and competence ethical reasoning and action foundation and skills for lifelong learning INTEGrATIVE LEArNING synthesis and advanced accomplishment across general and specialized studies demonstrated capacity to adapt knowledge, skills, and responsibilities to new settings and questions http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/index.cfm 2007 summer readings In Preparation for General Education Curriculum Review and QEP Development attention NSU Administrators, Faculty, and Staff 150

2007 SUMMEr readings AcAdemic AffAirs is pleased to announce the reading list for summer 2007. The readings are designed to engage the campus in conversations focused on enhancing and sustaining an environment that supports student achievement of learning outcomes. The purpose of the readings for summer 2007 is to provide an update on current issues in higher education and to provide a foundation for participation in: 1. 2. 3. reviewing the NsU general education program; developing the NsU Quality enhancement Plan (QeP) in 2007-2008 (the QeP theme is Creating Coherent Pathways to Develop Critical Thinking Skills in Students); and enhancing the quality of student learning outcomes. Allen, M. J. (2006). Alignment of General Education Programs. In: Allen, M.J., Assessing General Education Programs, pp. 91-120. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Alignment is a key concept in the design and assessment of general education curricula. University faculty have the responsibility to offer a cohesive curriculum that systematically and intentionally fosters the agreed-upon general education learning outcomes. Alignment strategies allow faculty to examine curricular pathways students take and determine the effectiveness of curricular designs in achieving outcomes, thus providing information for curricular reviews and improvements. American Association of State Colleges and Universities (2006). Value-Added Assessment: Accountability s New Frontier. Perspectives, 2. Amid increasing pressure to document student learning outcomes, this report argues that public colleges and universities, working with states and accreditors, should lead the movement toward value-added assessment. in the interest of promoting a better understanding of the value college adds, such a model would advocate use of standardized instruments to measure student achievement of core outcomes, focus on achievement and measurement of general intellectual skills, and employ a multi-faceted approach to determine the value an institution adds to student success. Association of American Colleges and Universities (2007). College Learning for the New Global Century. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. This report, part of the Liberal education and America s Promise (LeAP) initiative, highlights the essential aims, learning outcomes, and guiding principles for advancing and strengthening college education in the 21st century. Liberal education develops habits of study and thought and builds a broad knowledge base, transferable skills, and a strong sense of value, ethics, and civic engagement. The essential learning outcomes described in this report apply to professional and occupational majors as well as traditional liberal arts education. This publication focuses on the promises America makes and needs to keep for all who seek a college education and for the community that depends on the economic creativity and democratic vitality that results. Moore, W.S. (nd). My Mind Exploded : Intellectual Development as a Critical Framework for Understanding and Assessing Collaborative Learning. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/resources/ acl/iia.html This chapter demonstrates how William Perry s model of intellectual and ethical development can be utilized both for assessing and for understanding collaborative learning. collaborative learning environments promote a wide range of cognitive and affective student learning outcomes. Perry s model of intellectual and ethical development represents a broad, multidimensional indicator of student progress that can be utilized to assess collaborative learning approaches. This model provides a strategy for developing parsimonious and meaningful measures of academic performance and success to complement more readily accessible measures such as GPA and persistence rates to understand student development and success. The framework for the QeP is grounded in Perry s model. Twigg, C.A. (2005). Increasing Success for Underserved Students: Redesigning Introductory Courses. Saratoga Springs, NY: National Center for Academic Transformation. The National center for Academic Transformation s (NcAT) project on course redesign is the most extensive demonstration to date of the effectiveness of infusing instructional technology and reconceptualized instructional practices. This report examines the impact of redesigned instructional techniques on the success of adult learners, students of color, and low-income students. U.S. Department of Education (2006). A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Department of Education. This ground-breaking report of the National commission on the future of Higher education presents a series of findings across four key areas: access, affordability, quality, and accountability. The findings led to far-reaching recommendations aimed at 1) improving access to and affordability of higher education; 2) strengthening educational quality and encouraging an environment of innovation; and 3) making college and university processes and outcomes more publicly transparent and accountable. The readings described are on reserve in the Lyman Beecher Brooks Library and are available online at www.nsu.edu/iea. The password is: nsu. 151

Appendix B Call for Preliminary Proposals http://www.nsu.edu/iea/image/quality.pdf 152

Norfolk State University invites faculty, students, staff, and alumni to participate in the process to identify a viable topic for the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). Preliminary proposals will be accepted through March 4, 2005. Up to eight preliminary proposals may be selected for further development as full proposals and for subsequent consideration as the QEP topic. The NSU QEP Planning Team, comprised of faculty members, administrators, students, staff members, and alumni from throughout the university, has been charged with identifying viable QEP topics, one of which will be selected by the NSU SACS Leadership Team in early Fall 2005. A Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is required by Core Requirement 2.12 as a critical part of the reaffirmation of accreditation by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), the regional accrediting body for Norfolk State University. The QEP is The QEP will be the focus of the SACS on-site review and will cover a planning horizon of approximately five-seven years. The extent to which the QEP has affected specific outcomes related to student learning, as well as its long-term influence on how NSU organizes for success in educating students, will be reported to the SACS in the Impact Report five years after the on-site visit. The QEP must: relate to the enhancement of student learning, identify specific student learning outcomes, and identify objectives and assessment strategies that are clearly and directly linked to improving the quality of student learning. Examples of possible QEP topics include, but are not limited to, strengthening the general education curriculum, enhancing critical thinking skills, developing creative approaches to service learning, and exploring imaginative ways to use technology in the curriculum. The preliminary proposal must identify a topic that is directly related to improving student learning. The preliminary proposal should include a general description of the proposed topic and a rationale addressing the following requirements. The proposed topic: is very important for NSU and reflects one or more university strategic directions as identified in 2004-2009 NSU Strategic Plan, has the potential to have a significant impact on improving specific student learning outcomes, will affect a well-defined and large group of students, identifies potential actions that may lead to improved student learning in the identified content, competency, or skill area, is either a new endeavor or a significant extension of ongoing efforts, and can be developed into a viable plan given current human and fiscal resources. The preliminary proposal should not exceed two pages, excluding the submittal section and references. The preliminary proposal format includes: 1. Submittal section a. Name(s) of the proposer(s) b. Position title(s) c. Department(s) / unit(s) / student organization(s) d. E-mail address(es) 2. Rationale (not to exceed two pages) a. Topic (e.g., Enhancing critical thinking skills ) b. Description of the specific student learning outcomes addressed c. Justification 3. Bibliography / References (if appropriate). Preliminary proposals will be evaluated by the QEP Planning Team. In addition to the requirements specified above, the evaluation will be guided by the following questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. How well did the proposer(s) identify a topic that is focused on student learning yet has broad interest and relevance to the NSU campus community? Did the proposer(s) identify specific student learning outcomes associated with the proposed topic? Is the proposed topic potentially viable with respect to the likelihood of adequate resources? Is the proposed topic potentially viable with respect to overall campus acceptance as being very important? 153

Appendix C QEP Preliminary Proposal Committee Appendix C QEP Preliminary Proposal Committee Dr. Amelia Ross-Hammond Committee Chair / Music, School of Liberal Arts and Coordinator, Service-Learning Ms. Twanya D. Brown Service-Learning Dr. Norma Brumage Secondary Education / School of Education Dr. Raj Chaudhury Physics, School of Science and Technology Dr. Desideria Hacker Psychology, School of Liberal Arts Ms. C. Lynne Harrison Library Ms. B. Angela Holley First Year Experience / ACCESS Dr. Ronald C. Jones Allied Health, School of Science and Technology (formerly English and Foreign Languages, School of Liberal Arts) Dr. Curtis Greaves Director, Counseling Center Mr. Dwayne Littlejohn Student Representative / Student Government Association Dr. Alexei Matveev Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment Dr. Annie Perkins English and Foreign Languages / School of Liberal Arts Dr. Michael Parker Mathematics, School of Science and Technology Dr. Jannie Robinson Division of Student Affairs / Judicial Affairs Ms. Carrie Waites Social Work Quality Enhancement Plan A17 154

'PS NPSF JOGPSNBUJPO DPOUBDU /PSGPML 4UBUF 6OJWFSTJUZ ] 0ċDF PG UIF 7JDF 1SFTJEFOU GPS "DBEFNJD "ĊBJST )BSSJTPO # 8JMTPO #VJMEJOH 4VJUF ] 1BSL "WFOVF ] /PSGPML 7JSHJOJB QIPOF ] GBY ] XXX OTV FEV *O +VMZ BO /46 UFBN PG TUVEFOUT GBDVMUZ BOE TUBĊ BUUFOEFE UIF 4VNNFS "DBEFNZ TQPOTPSFE CZ UIF *OTUJUVUF GPS )JHIFS &EVDBUJPO 1PMJDZ BOE UIF "MMJBODF GPS &RVJUZ JO )JHIFS &EVDBUJPO BT B QBSU PG UIF #VJMEJOH &OHBHFNFOU BOE "UUBJONFOU PG.JOPSJUZ 4UVEFOUT #&".4 QSPKFDU ɨf QSJNBSZ UBTL PG UIF /46 UFBN XBT UP EFWFMPQ B 2&1 UIFNF GPS SFDPNNFOEBUJPO UP UIF /46 4"$4 -FBEFSTIJQ 5FBN ɨf /46 UFBN SFWJFXFE B DPNQSFIFOTJWF TFU PG SFMFWBOU MJUFSBUVSF EBUB BOE UIF SFQPSUT GSPN UIF 2&1 1SF 1MBOOJOH $PNNJUUFF 8JUI UIF BTTJTUBODF PG B OBUJPOBMMZ LOPXO DPOTVMUBOU QSPWJEFE BT QBSU PG UIF 4VNNFS "DBEFNZ FYQFSJFODF UIF /46 UFBN SFDPNNFOEFE UIF UIFNF i$sfbujoh $PIFSFOU 1BUIXBZT GPS %FWFMPQJOH $SJUJDBM ɨjoljoh 4LJMMT JO 4UVEFOUT w ɨf UIFNF XBT QSFTFOUFE UP BOE BQQSPWFE CZ /46 4"$4 -FBEFSTIJQ 5FBN PO "VHVTU *EFOUJmDBUJPO PG UIF 2&1 ɨfnf (JWFO UIF DPNNPO UIFNFT BDSPTT UIF QSF QSPQPTBMT UIF SFWJFXFST SFDPNNFOEFE EFWFMPQNFOU PG POF NPEFM CZ JOUFHSBUJOH UIF CFTU QSBDUJDFT BOE QSPQPTFE TUSBUF HJFT GSPN BMM QSF QSPQPTBMT ɨf BOE 4VNNFS 3FBEJOHT XFSF VTFE BT B GPVOEBUJPO GPS PSHBOJ[JOH JEFBT GSPN UIF QSF QSPQPTBMT BOE GPS EFWFMPQJOH UIF NPEFM ɨf DPNQPOFOUT BOE BTTVNQUJPOT PG UIF NPEFM BSF J DSJUJDBM UIJOLJOH TLJMMT BSF EFWFMPQFE UISPVHI BDUJWF BOE DPMMBCPSBUJWF QFEBHPHJFT BJNFE UP TUJNVMBUF TUVEFOUT SFnFDUJPOT BOE EFWFMPQ BCJMJUJFT UP JOUFHSBUF TFFNJOHMZ EJTQBSBUF JOGPSNBUJPO JJ UIF QFEBHPHJFT TIPVME CF FNCFEEFE JO UIF DVSSJDVMVN PG UIF HFOFSBM FEVDBUJPO DPSF BOE JJJ UIF EFTJHO PG UIF HFOFSBM FEVDBUJPO DPSF JT HSPVOEFE JO UIF QSJODJQMFT PG DVSSJDVMBS JOUFOUJPOBMJUZ BOE DPIFSFODZ ɨf JNNFEJBUF BOE MPOH UFSN QVSQPTF PG UIF NPEFM JT UP QSPWJEF B DPOUFYU GPS HVJEJOH BEEJUJPOBM TUVEZ BOE EJTDVTTJPOT MFBEJOH UP UIF TFMFD UJPO PG B 2&1 UIFNF BOE TVCTFRVFOU EFWFMPQNFOU PG UIF 2&1 QSJBUF QSPDFTTFT UP FNQMPZ JO PSEFS UP BDIJFWF UIF EFTJSFE MFBSOJOH PVUDPNFT "DUJWF BOE DPMMBCPSBUJWF QFEBHPHJFT XFSF JEFOUJmFE NPTU PGUFO BT UIF NPTU BQQSP QSPQSJBUF DPNQPOFOU PG UIF VOEFSHSBEVBUF DVSSJDVMVN XIFSF UIF PVUDPNFT TIPVME CF EFWFMPQFE BOE BTTFTTFE ɨf HFOFSBM FEVDBUJPO DPSF XBT UIF DVSSJDVMVN EPNBJO JEFOUJmFE BT UIF NPTU BQ UIJOLJOH TLJMMT PS PO UIF DPNQFUFODJFT PS DP DVSSJDVMBS BDUJWJUJFT UIBU SFRVJSF BQ QMJDBUJPO PG TVDI TLJMMT F H XSJUJOH JOGPSNBUJPO MJUFSBDZ TUVEFOU DJWJD SFTQPOTJCJMJ UJFT ɨf 2&1 PVUDPNFT JEFOUJmFE CZ NPTU PG UIF QSF QSPQPTBMT GPDVTFE PO DSJUJDBM /46 JTTVFE B DBMM GPS 2&1 QSF QSPQPTBMT JO 'FCSVBSZ 5XFMWF QSF QSPQPTBMT XFSF TVCNJUUFE CZ GBDVMUZ BOE TUBĊ JO.BSDI ɨf 2&1 1SF 1MBOOJOH $PNNJUUFF SF WJFXFE UIF QSF QSPQPTBMT XFSF QMFBTFE UP moe DPNNPO UIFNFT BDSPTT UIF QSF QSPQPT BMT BOE NBEF UIF GPMMPXJOH PCTFSWBUJPOT %FWFMPQNFOU PG UIF 2&1 ɨfnf $"-- '03 130104"-4 $SJUJDBM ǰJOLJOH 4LJMMT $SFBUJOH $PIFSFOU 1BUIXBZT GPS %FWFMPQJOH &/)"/$&.&/5 1-"/ 26"-*5: /46 '"$6-5: 456%&/54 45"'' "/% "-6./* "55&/5*0/ Appendix D Call for QEP Proposals 155 3OUTHERN,ANE $ECATUR '! 3!#3 0RINCIPLES OF!CCREDITATION &OUNDATIONS FOR 1UALITY %NHANCEMENT P EMPHASIS ADDED $ECATUR '! 3!#3 0EDAGOGIES EMPLOYING ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIES DEVELOP OR ENHANCE OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS TO REFLECT ON AND INTEGRATE MULTIPLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION FROM CUR RI CULAR CO CURRICULAR AND EXTRA CURRICULAR EXPERIENCES #URRENT STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION HAVE SHOWN THAT STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING INCREASES CRITICAL THINKING PROBLEM SOLVING AND DECISION MAKING SKILLS IN STUDENTS!DDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE FOUND IN THE 3UMMER 2EADINGS FOR AND HTTP WWW NSU EDU IEA SUMMER?READING PHP AND HTTP WWW NSU EDU IEA?SUMMER?READING PHP THE PASSWORD FOR BOTH IS NSU 0ROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORTS RESULTS FROM NATIONAL AND LOCAL SURVEYS AND OTHER COMPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SOURCES

156

Appendix E Liberal Arts 2001 Newsletter Announcing Revision of LOG 210 Appendix E Liberal Arts 2001 Newsletter Announcing Revision of LOG 210 Quality Enhancement Plan 157 A23

Appendix F Summary of National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Results Appendix F Summary of National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Results CRITICAL THINKING AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT: 2006 NSSE DATA Developing Critical Thinking dispositions and skills is a complex process that essentially involves three clusters of learning activities: Higher-Order Learning, Integrative Learning, and Reflective Learning. Higher-Order Learning Comparative data are presented as a superscript to NSU data. The first number in the superscript presents ADP data, second NSU Carnegie Classification Peer Institutions data, and third NSSE 2005 National Sample data. Higher-Order Learning involves activities that challenge students to utilize higher levels of mental activity than those required for rote memorization. Almost three-quarters (72% 73%, 71%, 77% ) of first-year students and more than four-fifths (84% 82%, 82%, 84% ) of seniors say their classes emphasize analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components (combination of quite a bit and very much responses). Three-quarters of first-year students (73% 62%,63%, 64% ) and seniors (75% 71%, 72%, 73% ) say their classes emphasize synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships (combination of quite a bit and very much responses). Three-quarters of first-year students (75% 63%,65%, 65% ) and seniors (79% 68%, 68%, 70% ) say their classes emphasize making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions (combination of quite a bit and very much responses). Three-quarters (74% 68%, 65%, 72% 77%, 77%, ) of first-year students and more than four-fifths (83% 79% ) of seniors say their classes emphasize applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations (combination of quite a bit and very much responses). More than three-quarters of first-year students (77% 79%, 80%, 82% 80%, 84%, ) and seniors (82% 81% ) report that examinations during 2005-2006 academic year challenged them to do their best work (combination of responses 5,6,7 on a scale with 1=very little and 7=very much). Although, NSU students generally report higher or equal levels of engagement in Higher-Order Learning activities than the national averages, a substantial number of students (approximately a quarter) indicate that their courses never or only sometimes involved synthesis and making judgments. Integrative Learning Comparative data are presented as a superscript to NSU data. The first number in the superscript presents ADP data, second NSU Carnegie Classification Peer Institutions data, and third NSSE 2005 National Sample data. Integrative Learning involves activities that require integrating acquired knowledge, skills, and competencies into a meaningful whole. Quality Enhancement Plan A25 158

Appendix F (cont d) A quarter (76% 76%, 75%, 75% ) of first-year students and more than four-fifths (89% 85%, 86%, 86% ) of seniors reported frequently (combination of often and very often responses) working on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or information from various sources. Two-thirds of first-year students (66% 62%, 61%, 60% ) and seniors (69% 62%, 63%, 60% ) reported frequently (combination of often and very often responses) including diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions or assignments. Almost two-thirds (62% 50%, 45%, 51% ) of first-year students and almost three-quarters (73% 68%, 67%, 69% ) of seniors reported frequently (combination of often and very often responses) putting together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or during class discussions. Only two-fifths of first-year students (44% 17%, 18%, 18% ) and seniors (44% 21%, 28%, 26% ) reported frequently (combination of often and very often responses) discussing ideas from readings or classes with faculty members outside of class. Two-thirds of first-year students (66% 55%, 55%, 55% ) and seniors (70% 62%, 63%, 63% ) reported frequently (combination of often and very often responses) discussing ideas from readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.). Although, NSU students do report higher levels of engagement in Integrative Learning activities than the national average, a substantial number of students report relatively low levels of engagement in interdisciplinary activities and in Integrative Learning activities outside the classroom. Reflective Learning Comparative data are presented as a superscript to NSU data. The first number in the superscript presents ADP data, second NSU Carnegie Classification Peer Institutions data, and third NSSE 2005 National Sample data. Reflective Learning involves activities that ask students to explore their experiences of learning to better understand how they learn. Two-thirds of first-year students (66% 50%, 49%, 51% ) and seniors (65% 55%, 53%, 56% ) reported frequently (combination of often and very often responses) examining the strengths and weaknesses of their own views on a topic or issue. More than two-thirds of first-year students (70% 59%, 60%, 59% ) and seniors (70% 63%, 61%, 64% ) frequently (combination of often and very often responses) tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective. Three-quarters of first-year students (76% 58%, 60%, 62% ) and more than two-thirds of seniors (68% 63%, 63%, 66% ) frequently (combination of often and very often responses) learned something that changed the way they understand an issue or concept. Reflective learning is a key strategy in developing critical thinking, a main intended outcome of the (QEP) (e.g., King & Kitchener, 1994) 7. Although, NSU students do report higher levels of engagement in Reflective Learning activities than the national average, a substantial number of students (approximately a third) indicate that they never or only sometimes engage in reflective learning activities. 7 King, P.M. & Kitchener, K.S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. A26 Norfolk State University 159

Appendix G General Education Curriculum Map CURRICULUM MAP - GENERAL EDUCATION CORE LEGEND [I] OUTCOME STATEMENT: The program outcome is (E) EXPLICITLY or (I) IMPLICITLY stated in the course syllabus as being one of the learning outcomes for this course. [II] LEVEL OF CONTENT DELIVERY: SEMESTER: SPRING 2005 SELECTED GENERAL EDUCATION OUTCOMES GENERAL EDUCATION CORE COURSES 1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Student is able to produce texts appropriate for their purposes and audiences as reflected in: (a) Form; (b) Organization; (c) Content development; (d) Language usage and style (syntax, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics). 2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LITERACY Student is able to: (1) Use and apply computers, software applications, and other resources to achieve a wide variety of academic, professional, and personal goals; (2) Use a set of abilities to solve problems, collect data, manage information, communicate with others, create effective presentations, and use information to make informed decisions. 3. SCIENTIFIC REASONING Student is able to: (1) Propose relationship between observed phenomena; (2) Design experiments which test hypotheses concerning proposed relationships; (3) Predict logical consequences of observed phenomena and determine possible alternative outcomes; (4) Judge the degree to which a particular conclusion is justified based on the empirical evidence related to observed phenomena. 4. QUANTITATIVE REASONING Student is able to solve problems within: (1) Numeric or arithmetic contexts; (2) Conceptual contexts; (3) Geometric contexts; (4) Data representation and chance element contexts. 5. CRITICAL THINKING Student is able to consistently and systematically: (1) Identify main ideas and/or themes; (2) Make comparative judgments from data; (3) Determine the validity/ credibility and implication of a supposition; (4) Identify limitations and contradictions in an event; (5) Analyze and evaluate arguments and issues; (6) Demonstrate creative problem-solving skills; (7) Implement and evaluate a plan to work towards a goal or conclusion. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION Student is considered to have oral communication competency if he or she is able to express him or herself in a structured, meaningful, and productive manner. The student must also be able to convey his/her intentions or ideas in messages crafted to introduce, inform, or persuade the listener. [i] Outcome Statement (E, I) [ii] Level (I, E, R, A) [iii] Demonstrate (X) [i] Outcome Statement (E, I) [ii] Level (I, E, R, A) [iii] Demonstrate (X) [i] Outcome Statement (E, I) [ii] Level (I, E, R, A) [iii] Demonstrate (X) [i] Outcome Statement (E, I) [ii] Level (I, E, R, A) [iii] Demonstrate (X) [i] Outcome Statement (E, I) [ii] Level (I, E, R, A) [iii] Demonstrate (X) [i] Outcome Statement (E, I) [ii] Level (I, E, R, A) [iii] Demonstrate (X) (I) INTRODUCES - Students are not expected to be familiar with the content or skill at the collegiate or graduate level. Instruction and learning activities focus on basic knowledge, skills, and/or competencies and entry-level complexity. (E) EMPHASIZES - Students are expected to possess a basic level of knowledge and familiarity with the content or skills at the collegiate or graduate level. Instruction and learning activities concentrate on enhancing and strengthening knowledge, skills, and expanding complexity. (R) REINFORCES - Students are expected to possess a strong foundation in the knowledge, skill, or competency at the collegiate or graduate level. Instructional and learning activities continue to build upon previous competencies and increased complexity. (A) APPLIES - Students are expected to possess an advanced level of knowledge, skill, or competency at the collegiate or graduate level. Instructional and learning activities focus on the use of the content or skills in multiple contexts and at multiple levels of complexity. Communications: ENG 101 Communication Skills I E R X E R X Digital, Computer & Telecommunications: CSC 150 Computer Literacy E E X E R X E A Natural Sciences: BIO 100 Biological Science I A X I A X E R X E A X E A X Natural Sciences: BIO 100L Biological Science Lab I A X I R X E A X E A X E A X I R X Health & Physical Education: PED 100 Fundamentals of Fitness for Life I E X I A X E E X Communications: ENG 102 Communication Skills II E A X E A X Natural Sciences: PHY 100 Physical Science E R X I E X E I X I E X I E X I R X Social Sciences: SOC 101 Introduction to Social Sciences I R X I E E I X I R E E X I R X Mathematics: MTH 103 Contemporary Mathematics I R X E A X I E E A X I E I R Health & Physical Education: HED 100 Personal and Community Health I R A I I R I E X [III] DEMONSTRATION OF LEARNING: Social Sciences: HIS 101 History of World Civilization II E A X I I (X) Students are asked to demonstrate their learning on the outcome through homework, projects, tests, etc. and are provided formal feedback. Humanities: FIA 201 Basic Art Appreciation I I X I I X E E X E I X Humanities: HUM 210 Humanities I I E X I A X I R X E R X I E X Communications: SCM 285 Principles of Speech E R X E R X E A X Cultural Elective: PSY 340 Psychology of African Americans E A X E A X E A X I A X E A X 160

Appendix H School of Liberal Arts Critical Thinking Group Discussions Appendix H School of Liberal Arts Critical Thinking Group Discussions SCHOOL OF LIBERAL ARTS OPENING SESSION DISCUSSION TOPIC: IN OUR COURSES, HOW DO WE TEACH STUDENTS TO THINK CRITICALLY? GROUP 1 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. What does thinking critically mean? RESPONSE: Critical thinking is the practice of systematically analyzing and evaluating ideas by inductive and deductive reasoning and by drawing logical conclusions based on supporting evidence. (Lazere, Donald. Critical Thinking in College English Studies. ERIC Digest.) 2. What critical thinking skills should students master in general? RESPONSE: The critical thinking skills that the students should master are the ability to analyze, criticize, and advocate ideas, to reason inductively and deductively, and to draw conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from clear statements of belief. 3. What specific critical thinking skills should students develop (or strengthen) in my course? RESPONSE: Some specific critical thinking skills that students should develop or strengthen are analyzing (analysis), criticizing (criticism) reading material, and drawing conclusions based on sound inferences. 4. Is demonstrate the ability to think critically an explicit or implicit part of the course s learning outcomes? RESPONSE: The learning outcomes of any course should be explicit. 5. What strategies do I employ to teach the critical thinking skills students should have for success in my course? RESPONSE: Some of the strategies that I employ to teach critical thinking for success in my course are: Reading Identifying the author s thesis, purpose, tone, and audience 6. What effective teaching techniques have I used to develop my students critical thinking ability? RESPONSE: Some effective teaching techniques that I have used to develop my students critical thinking ability include: Questioning Comparing and contrasting Problem-solving 7. What kinds of activities and assignments have helped my students learn to think critically? RESPONSE: Some activities and assignments that have helped the students to think critically: Peer Evaluation Collaboration (Small Group) Quality Enhancement Plan A29 161

Appendix H (cont d) Role-Playing Scenarios/Case Studies Journal Writing 8. What examples can I give from a specific course to demonstrate that my students learned to think critically? RESPONSE: My students demonstrated that they learned to think critically by: Writing documented research papers Completing Written Assessments Completing follow-up tutorials on MyCompLab (and other OWL tutorials) 8/13/07 9. How can I integrate critical thinking concepts and skills into my course? RESPONSE: I can integrate critical thinking concepts and skills into my course by: Talking and listening about reading assignments Reflecting on reading materials Attending seminars and workshops Initiating discussions on related topics Debating relevant/current issues School of Liberal Arts Opening Session Discussion questions: How do we teach students to think critically? August 13, 2007 Group 2 1. What does thinking critically mean? It is a process by which one reads, analyzes and evaluates some text(s) (written, visual or oral work) for the purpose of improving students critical thinking skills. 2. What critical thinking skills should students master in general? Students should be able to master the following: Inductive and deductive reasoning Formation of sound judgments and solutions Comparative analysis (similarities and differences) of literary texts 3. What specific critical thinking skills should students develop (or strengthen) in my course? In ENG 101/102 the following critical thinking skills are used: Comparison and contrast Process analysis A30 Norfolk State University 162

Appendix H (cont d) Cause and effect Narrative Argumentation and persuasion Research (evaluating resources) (NOTE: All answers # 4-9 respond to these two courses: ENG 101/ENG 102). 4. Is demonstrate the ability to think critically an explicit or implicit part of the course s learning outcomes? It is an implicit part of the course s learning outcomes. 5. What strategies do I employ to teach the critical thinking skills students should have for success in my course? Students debate and analysis of the debate helps students develop argumentative skills. It also helps students detect and identify specific fallacies in logical reasoning in these debates. 6. What effective teaching techniques have I used to develop my students critical thinking ability? Visual aids for students interpretation and explanation Analysis of expressions and aphorisms 7. What kinds of activities and assignments have helped my students learn to think critically? Reading assignment followed by an analysis of the reading. Research papers: electronic and visual presentations of a summary version of their research papers. 8. What examples can I give from a specific course to demonstrate that my students learned to think critically? Submission of projects and portfolios. By the material used to support evidence in their post-test students demonstrate that they have developed skills in critical thinking. 9. How can I integrate critical thinking concepts and skills into my course? By applying all of the above (# 5-8). By ensuring that students read closely and analyze assigned texts through their written work and oral presentations, the instructor will integrate critical thinking concepts and skills into his/her course. Quality Enhancement Plan A31 163

Appendix H (cont d) SCHOOL OF LIBERAL ARTS OPENING SESSION DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL THINKING Group 3 1. Select a theory that is appropriate, relevant, and effective for dealing with the issue, problem, or literary work. For example, students should be able to choose and apply an historical or psychological theory for analyzing and understanding certain aspects of Hamlet. Break down or divide the problem, work, etc. into its component parts, elements, themes, etc. In a deliberate way draw logical conclusions. A is followed by B, and B is followed by C not D. Explore why one conclusion is better and more logical than another. 2. Students should be able to evaluate the quality and construction of a work, whether it s (a) literary, or (b) their own essay or research paper. Students should be required to apply critical thinking to certain life problems e.g., saving money, selecting their courses, budgeting and using their time well. 3. Students should be able to perform explication de texte analyze language and recognize brilliant, creative phrasing. Students should be able to detect and discern specific themes, symbols, metaphors, patterns, etc. 4. Being able to demonstrate the ability to think critically is more explicit than implicit. The student has to demonstrate critical thinking, which implies overt skills and a mastery of objective criteria. At the same time, some critical thinking may become instinctive or second nature, implied rather than explicitly rendered. Practice may lead to good habits, such as sensing how to begin an essay and when to begin a new paragraph. 5. Again, explication de texte. A search for themes, symbols, and character analysis. Students can be divided into discussion groups that have individual projects. In-class debates with the class judging the participants. 6. Class discussion and analysis of assigned works. Directed writing assignments focus on a theme, character, pattern, etc. A32 Norfolk State University 164

Appendix H (cont d) Focus on conjunctive adverbs, words and phrases that embody different kinds of logical progression e.g., therefore, consequently, moreover, thus, etc. 7. Discussion groups in class. Students have an organized debate in class on a controversial issue of their own choice. Two teams participate and the class judges the results. In-class and out-of-class papers Reading works aloud, memorization of poems, etc. can foster logical and critical skills. 8. In speech classes, students give presentations based on principles of effective speechmaking. Students are encourage to write papers with logical construction and internal development using separate paragraphs, transitional words and phrases, and effective rhetorical strategies. 9. Teachers should deliberately engage in such practices/assignments every class period by making them part of the curriculum. Students should read, discuss, write about what is read and demonstrate effective analysis. They may be segregated in groups and read, analyze, and evaluate each other s essays. Quality Enhancement Plan A33 165

Appendix I Selected School of Liberal Arts Critical Thinking Briefs Appendix I Selected School of Liberal Arts Critical Thinking Briefs Critical Thinking Notes-Bernadette J. Holmes, Ph.D. Spring 2008 Criminal Justice Critical Thinking strategies are integrated as part of the learning outcomes for undergraduate and graduate level courses. To this end, a precise clarification and comprehensive distinction is made in my courses in terms of rigor and conceptualization of content. As such, competence of the learning outcomes and intended achievement for outcomes is assessed differently and serves as the foundation for pedagogical strategies employed in graduate and undergraduate courses. Graduate level course objectives focus on higher levels of abstraction including analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Major research assignments that emphasize theory, research, and policy are included. Moreover, policy implications are developed to improve the application of knowledge. Teaching strategies include student facilitated focused discussion, essay exams, article critiques and oral presentations of research reports. More sophisticated and complex communication skills are required. By comparison, Undergraduate level course objectives and outcomes focus on basic comprehension and knowledge. The demonstrated knowledge skills include observation and recall, knowledge of major ideas and mastery of basic subject matter. Targeted assignments include multichoice, short answer, and application of basic content knowledge emphasizing current events, which serves as the framework for undergraduate instruction. January 7, 2008 MEMO TO: Dr William Byrne, Asst. Dean, SOLA FROM: Nelson G. Jenks, Chair, FIAR SUBJECT: Critical Thinking in FIAR The following are explanations of how the Department of Fine Arts uses, teaches and explores Critical Thinking within the QEP and/or the teaching goals, objectives and practices of various Art, Design and Art History classes offered in the department... The Art Appreciation (FIA 201) introduces Critical Thinking/ Aesthetic Thinking starting at the first of each semester and continuing throughout the term. Individual oral critiques using the mode of identifying, researching, developing a plan or search and deciding on a judgment is used to inspect actual works of art in the gallery and in reproduction forms. The same development of the Critical or Aesthetic Thinking or Judgments is developed in a written form many times throughout each term...the beginning courses such as Basic Design (FIA 114, 115 and 116) use extensive development of Critical/Aesthetic Thinking to develop, explore, plan and decide upon the why s, the history and Quality Enhancement Plan A35 166

Appendix I (cont d) the final outcomes of design for each and every work of art that is produced in the class throughout each semester...the beginning and advanced courses in Fashion design and production (FDM 150, 250) uses the same intense development of Critical/Aesthetic Thinking to develop, explore the rationale, plan and decide upon the final outcomes of design, materials, and production in creating an article of clothing that will attempt to stand up to the Aesthetic Judgments of their fellow students and their instructors. These same articles of clothing are many times sent to attempt to be acceptably criticized by National and International experts in the same field...the basic, intermediate and advanced courses in Graphics (FIA 260, FIA 360/362/363, and FIA 460/461/462/ 463) must use a continuous exploration of the Critical /Aesthetic Thinking model that has been developed in the foundation classes. This model will be essential to use throughout these classes and into the students professional future endeavors. The development, research, planning and critical decisions is the backbone of every art student, whether they are pursuing graphics, or any other artistic pursuit...in every Fine Arts class that is taught in the Department of Fine Arts, there MUST be developed by the students learning and creation and instructors presentation and use, Critical/Aesthetic Thinking as it is applied to the intended works of art and explorations of the historical works of art. These Critical/Aesthetic decisions based on history, fundaments of design, development of the intuitive response and making of a final judgment represent the process of Creating any work of art. HISTORY DEPARTMENT: SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES FOR CRITICAL THINKING COURSE NUMBER STRATEGY OUTCOME HIS 101 ( Ford) Used book - I, Rigoberta Menchu: An Indian Woman in Guatemala. Gave students two questions as a guide to analyze book, which subsequently forced them to use electronic data bases found in NSU=s Library. Lynn Harrison of NSU library visited class and gave specific instructions on how to use the data bases found. Improved writing and information literacy skills. HIS 102 (Mears) Used Web 2.0 programs (Poscasting wiki instant messaging) Improved participation and engagement. HIS 100, 101 (Alexander) All major textbooks have designated websites that have study questions, interactive maps to help them infuse critical thinking, give problem solving assignments and allow other students to respond to comments in dialog which encourages critical thinking. Students see connection between historical and critical thinking. HIS 205 (Alexander) Have students analyze historical websites Students will understand and be able to judge the relationships of textual and visual information. HIS 102. 103, 228, 335, 336 (Pharr) Used documents from each course=s main textbook companion website to give students the opportunity to work with critical thinking skills that rotate around document sets found at the companion sites and in document sets textbooks in instructor=s personal library. CD- ROMS that come with the text that also include documents and interactive map exercises are also used. Students sometimes respond to these as individuals. In other cases, group work achieves the same purposes. Note: HIS 328 activities are pulled from both 102/103 and 335/336 sites where appropriate. Student successes were visible in areas such as: 1) improved verbal and written skills, 2) partnered learning seen via group work, 3) student success in such skills as analysis, application, synthesis, and evaluation A36 Norfolk State University 167

Appendix I (cont d) Department of Interdisciplinary Studies Departmental Meeting NOTES: Discussion on Critical Thinking 08/13/07 The Department of Interdisciplinary Studies places intense focus on critical thinking, as it is one of the core components of interdisciplinarity. Further, the department offers the course, INT 322: Approaches to Critical Analysis, which is required of all INT majors and all Education majors. During our discussion at the beginning of the semester in Madison Hall, we focused on the intentionality of critical thinking application with our students. We decided to place an emphasis on critical analysis via reading. For example, Ms. Langley who teaches INT 322 decided to continue to encourage students to read the newspapers and other materials for information on current events and have students analyze the situations according to the critical thinking item/element they are reviewing and discussing in class (e.g., problem solving, perceptions, language, etc.). Further the department also decided to place more emphasis on the fundamentals of reading reading completely and reading comprehension. We found that our students often do not read and that is why their critical thinking skills are impaired. We decided to create/post a Reading is Fundamental sign in our department bulletin board and continue to emphasize the connections between literacy, comprehension, and critical thinking. Lastly, we said we would continue to highlight connections with our students on applying critical thinking skills to their real-life/world situations inside and outside of the classroom. We want our students to not just utilize critical thinking skills when discussing theories, but also when dealing in practice. -Khadijah O. Miller, Dept. Head Quality Enhancement Plan A37 168

Appendix I (cont d) NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Mass Communications and Journalism (MCJR) Report from the Critical Thinking Meeting 1.3.07 Spring 2008 The MCJR faculty members are using the following critical thinking strategies to meet departmental and course objectives. Broadcast News Writing and Reporting students are evaluated based on the news packages they prepare. The process involves multiple critical thinking processes. First, students are broken into groups where field reporting is conducted. Next, the groups submit their work through an editing process. Finally, the student groups must compete with the other class groups for inclusion in the final project, a 30 minute program. Each group must analyze all field reporting in order to put together their own 30 minute segment. Students grades depend on the critical selection of superior media content. Communication Law students are required to analyze public policy to determine who the key players are. This analysis is followed by a discussion and a final paper, a critical analysis of the information learned. Media Writing students focus on enhancing their worldview and how it effects perceptions of the media. The instructor later quantifies the learning outcomes from the critical thinking process. Another Media Writing instructor focuses on the importance of words, their usage and meaning, as a gauge of critical thought. This word emphasis is a major component of the final project for the course. Principles of Advertising students use critical thinking to transfer concepts from theory to practice. The textbook author described copywriting using short axioms that the student could remember. On examinations and quizzes, students were required to create display ads that represented the author s theories. University 101 students examine their career goals and identify media professions they admire. They are later required to develop a presentation to identify the skills needed to become the media professional they admire. Upperclassmen and speakers share their experiences which also help the students to develop critical thinking regarding career preparation and college matriculation. Media Management students are required to write reports on local media agencies. Each student must answer 13-15 questions as a foundation for the assignment. After the 13-15 answers are obtained, the students analyze the information to develop additional questions. The students are required to conduct an additional interview with the media organization to discuss ways to improve the organization. WNSB Practicum students are divided into two groups. One half of the group is assigned to the radio. The second half of the class works with underclassmen to strengthen their skills, a service learning project. The assignments for both groups support the operation and enhancement of WNSB radio. At the end of the semester, students write a reflection paper that focuses on how radio interacts with the community and how the industry is impacted by communities. This reflective essay involves self analysis, synthesis, and understanding radio operation and the media s responsibility to serve their communities. Television Directing students are required to produce a 30-minute talk show. There are numerous critical thinking aspects involved in television production such as shot composition, developing show A38 Norfolk State University 169

Appendix I (cont d) ideas, audio, lighting, etc. Each of these separate production components involves critical thinking and combines to create a talk show. Public Relations Practices students are required to absorb the theories of campaign development while planning and writing an actual campaign as a group project. During the campaign s research phase, students interview actual players in the industries that impact their campaign. For the final presentation, the groups invite organizations that might benefit from the campaign in an attempt to gain support for the implementation stage. Mass Communication/Journalism Internship students first complete a rigorous internship that provides media work experience. In addition, students must write a paper analyzing their internship experiences and synopsizing their new skills/competencies and turn in a completed final project that is suitable for their portfolio. MUSIC DEPARTMENT From: Brown, Ernest J. Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 4:04 PM To: Broadus-Gay, Marilyn Cc: Lassiter, Paula G.; Randolph, Barbara; Gayle, Daphne L. Subject: Critical Thinking: Music Critical Thinking In-Service Music Department Meeting Critical Thinking Applications in Music Courses 1. Music Theory classes require students to analyze, critique, and problem solve harmonizations dealing with the common-practice period. 2. The choral and band ensembles, in the process of learning music, model appropriate musical practices and are asked to self-correct performing problems. 3. Applied courses (instrumental and voice) become familiar with composer stylistic characteristics and performance approaches. 4. Sight-Singing classes involve intervallic placements of tones within the diatonic key, circle of fifths and the overtone series. 5. Music History classes deal with multi-cultural applications and globalization arising from comprehensive studies of music. 6. Music Media classes involve the students in the compositional process which is self-directed and synthesizes multiple musical components (melody, timbre, form etc ). 7. Music Education Method classes emphasize oral and written communication skills necessary to pass the P.R.A.X.I.S. teaching exam. Quality Enhancement Plan A39 170

Appendix I (cont d) Critical Thinking Report Dept. of Political Science The Dept. of Political Science convened on August 13, 2007, in the J. Hugo Madison Hall Building, following the Fall 2007 Opening Session. Dr. Marilyn Broadus-Gay, Dean of the School of Liberal Arts, requested that each dept. in the school discuss critical thinking as it related to our discipline. Prof. Kimberly L. Hutson led our dept. discussion. She is a member of the university s QEP committee reviewing issues related to making Logic 210 more effective. Our discussion related to The Elements of Thought (discussed in Critical Thinking, by Paul and Elder, 2006). We discussed how the Elements of Thought Purpose, Questioning the Issue, Information, Interpretation and Inference, Concepts, Assumptions, Implications and Consequences, and Points of View, were discussed and utilized in our courses; whether the course related to theory, research methods, statistics or fundamental Political Science elements. In addition, we discussed how the Socratic method of teaching enhanced the critical thinking of students in our classes, in internships as well as in student sponsored activities; such as student seminars, debates. Our faculty utilizes all of the elements of thought in our classes. However, we emphasized the needs to identify (for the students) how each element of thought, i.e., questioning the issue, understanding assumptions, discussing consequences, etc. directly relates to the fundamentals of critical thinking. Further, we indicated that we need to more effectively discuss, not only in LOG 210, the issue of thinking about a way of thinking ; in order to help students understand better ways of thinking for solving academic as well as personal problems. Also, Bloom s Taxonomy was discussed in relation to the rigor of introductory vs. senior level classes. We discussed the need to collectively revisit our courses to make sure that our syllabi and course content include more identifiable, critical thinking elements as well as incremental, yet increased levels of rigor, based on the level of the course. Norfolk State University Department of Psychology August 13, 2007 Agenda 1. Welcome Shanda 2. Course Outlines template and SAVES 3. FN grade 4. Verify classroom locations and post signs as needed 5. Spring 2008 markups 6. Myers e-book 7. FQM 8. New carpet Tuesday p.m. and Wednesday installation 9. Teacher Evaluation criteria 10. Other 11. Next meeting A40 Norfolk State University 171

Appendix I (cont d) Department of Psychology August 13, 2007 Minutes The Psychology Department meeting was held on August 13, 2007 @ approximately 3:30 p.m., in Madison Hall. The following persons were present: Dr. Darlene Colson, presiding Dr. Joy Cooley, Dr. Ernestine Duncan, Dr. Desideria Hacker, Dr. Karen Holmes, Ms. Shanda Jenkins, Dr. Joy Kannarkat, Dr. Delanyard Robinson, Dr. Ronald Thomas The following person was excused: Dr. Karen White Dr. Colson welcomed everyone back from summer break. She introduced Ms. Shanda Jenkins as a new full-time adjunct faculty member. Everyone introduced themselves to Ms. Jenkins. Dr. Adib Shakir will not be returning to the department. His new position is the Executive Assistant to the President. This meeting will be conducted in two parts. The first part we will discuss aspects of critical thinking, and the second part we will follow the agenda. Aspects of Critical Thinking We are currently using the following aspects of critical thinking in the classrooms: Doing research papers to find problems; using key words and understanding what they have read; Encouraging students to do hypothesis testing from day to day and Encouraging students to examine where their beliefs and facts come from such as television, newspapers, and magazines. We can assess students critical thinking skills by the following: Evaluate excuses students provide as to why they don t meet course requirements such as coming to class; Have students examine the wrong/bad choices they have made; Consider their ability to self-correct when given feedback and Inform students when e-mail messages have misspelled words and/or grammatical errors. 2. Course outlines template and SAVES In the future, faculty will be responsible for entering their course outlines into the SAVES database. A template has been created by Dr. Colson for faculty members to follow when entering course outlines into the SAVES database. 3. FN grade Handout The purpose of the FN grade policy is to determine if federal financial aid funds, awarded to students who fail to attend class, be returned to the Department of Education. If funds are to be returned, the reported last date of attendance is required to determine the earned and unearned portions of the award(s). The FN grade will not appear on students transcripts. Faculty members are required to Quality Enhancement Plan A41 172

Appendix I (cont d) differentiate students who fail a class because they stopped attending from those who failed the class based on merit. The last known date of attendance is used to identify these students. Keep good attendance records. 4. Verify classroom locations and post signs as needed Please post any classroom locations on the classroom doors by the first day of classes. 5. Spring 2008 markups Dr. Colson is working on the spring 2008 schedules. Each faculty member will meet with her regarding their schedule and any requests. 6. Myers e-book Bob Podstephney will meet with the faculty to discuss the Myers-e book for Psychology 210 and Psychology 211. 7. FQM Faculty Qualification Matrix forms had numerous errors such as wrong courses for the semester, missing or incorrect credit hours. Course outlines had numerous errors as well. The format of the course outlines should have been followed exactly like the sample sheet that was provided. Dr. Colson has created a template for faculty to follow. Bottom line is faculty must make a bigger commitment to quality of our documents. 8. New carpet Good news the department will be getting new carpet. The installation will be Tuesday, August 14 th through Wednesday, August 15 th. Please pack all of your belongings and label everything by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, August 14 th. 9. Teacher Evaluation criteria This item was tabled until further notice. 10. Other Dr. Karen White had surgery and will be out for the first three weeks of classes and we need to cover her classes. Payment in the form of a TEA will be provided for those who volunteer to teach her classes during her absences. The following faculty members volunteered: Dr. Colson will teach CPS 713, Dr. Holmes will teach CPS 604, and Dr. Kannarkat a maybe for PSY 331. Please be reminded to submit your third week enrollment verifications to Ms. Adams by the due date. We will need to open another section of PSY 210 for MWF 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. It can be an overload for a full-time faculty member, or an adjunct person can teach this course. The meeting adjourned @ approximately 4:40 p.m. A42 Norfolk State University 173

Appendix I (cont d) Comments on Critical Thinking Sociology Department 6 Jan 2008 1. Sociology requires critical thinking; 1. view from the group level rather than individual; 2. examining political & economic institutions, inequality 3. Go beyond personal opinion 4. Research methods & statistics require critical thinking to be understood 2. Emphasize problems & problem solving: 1. View social conditions from all points of view; include debates on pro s & con s 2. Consider choosing from alternative strategies; integrate & synthesize information 3. How & what textbook information can be applied in internship situations 4. Use current events; subject to analysis 3. Sociological theories discussed in most classes 1. Requires critical thinking to understand & distinguish ideas of different perspectives 2. Consider evidence; which theory is supported by particular evidence 4. Empirical Approach 1. Emphasize evidence. Which ideas are supported by evidence. 2. Go beyond opinions to evidence. Evaluate evidence of various opinions. 3. Hypothesis testing in research & statistics 5. Asking Questions Are questions well stated. Do they question do justice to the complexity of the matter Is it is accurate, biased, distorted? 6. Introduce it as a course outcome. Require papers & oral presentations & class discussions & essay questions: Compare different theories, strategies, solutions Consider different predictions of different theories Choose by which has most relevant evidence Discuss pro s & con s of different strategies Evaluate questions & answers Integrate research findings from a variety of authors Gather data (questionnaires etc) & test hypotheses 7. Graduate students Deconstruct & evaluate theories starting with logic and research protocols upon which they are based. Evaluate evidence for different theories Detailed examination of research process, measurement Quality Enhancement Plan A43 174

Appendix J Summaries of Perry s Model and Modes of Cognitive Complexity Appendix J Summaries of Perry s Model and Modes of Cognitive Complexity Dualism modified Relativism discovered Commitments in relativism developed Position 1 Transition Position 2 Transition Position 3 Transition Position 4a Transition (and/or) Transition Position 4b Transition Position 5 Transition Position 6 Transition Position 7 Transition Position 8 Transition Position 9 Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Development Authorities know, and if we work hard, read every word, and learn Right Answers, all will be well. But what about those Others I hear about? And different opinions? And Uncertainties? Some of our own Authorities disagree with each other or don t seem to know, and some give us problems instead of Answers. True Authorities must be Right, the others are frauds. We remain Right. Others must be different and Wrong. Good Authorities give us problems so we can learn to find the Right Answer by our own independent thought. But even Good Authorities admit they don t know all the answers Yes! Then some uncertainties and different opinions are real and legitimate temporarily, even for Authorities. They re working on them to get to the Truth. But there are so many things they don t know the Answers to! And they won t for a long time. Where Authorities don t know the Right Answers, everyone has a right to his own opinion; no one is wrong! But some of my friends ask me to support my opinions with facts and reasons. Then what right have They to grade us? About what? In certain courses Authorities are not asking for the Right Answer; They want us to think about things in a certain way, supporting opinion with data. That s what they grade us on. But this way seems to work in most courses, and even outside them. Then all thinking must be like this, even for Them. Everything is relative but not equally valid. You have to understand how each context works. Theories are not Truth but metaphors to interpret data with. You have to think about your thinking. But if everything is relative, am [ relative too? How can I know I m making the Right Choice? I see I m going to have to make my own decisions in an uncertain world with no one to tell me I m Right. I m lost if! I don t. When I decide on my career (or marriage or values) everything will straighten out. Well, I ve made my first Commitment! Why didn t that settle everything? I ve made several commitments, I ve got to balance them--how many, how deep? How certain, how tentative? Things are getting contradictory. I can t make logical sense out of life s dilemmas. This is how life will be. I must be wholehearted while tentative, fight for my values yet respect others, believe my deepest values right yet be ready to learn. I see that I shall be retracing this whole journey over and over--but, I hope, more wisely. (Perry, 1981, p.79) Quality Enhancement Plan A45 175

Appendix J (cont d) King s (1978) Summary of Perry s Model Dualism (Positions 1-2). In the early positions, individuals order their world in dualistic and absolute categories. Alternative opinions or differing perspectives on the same phenomenon create discomfort. For students at these levels, classroom learning means catching whatever the instructor pitches. In Position 2, uncertainty about what is or is not true creeps in, although the uncertainty an authority might introduce is sometimes seen as merely a heuristic device to prod students to learn on their own. Multiplicity (Positions 3-4). In these positions, the existence of multiple perspectives on any given issue is recognized, although alternative perspectives may be considered temporary in areas where authorities still search for the answers. In Position 4, others holding an opinion contrary to one s own are no longer seen as simply wrong but rather as entitled to their views. Indeed, all opinions are seen as having comparable claims on correctness. Relativism (Positions 5-6). Recognition of multiplicity in the world leads to understanding that knowledge is contextual and relative (King, 1978, p. 38). The shift is transformational. Analytical thinking skills emerge, and in critiquing their own ideas and those of others, student recognize that not all positions are equally valid. This stage may be problematic, however, because the discovery of relativism in ideas and values can engender resistance to choosing among presumably equal alternatives. Development may be delayed at this stage. Commitments in relativism (Positions 7-9). Students moving through position 7 to 9 test various propositions and truth claims, eventually making an active affirmation of themselves and their responsibilities in a pluralistic world, establishing their identities in the process (King, 1978, p. 39). The individual makes commitments to ideas, values, behaviors, and other people (for example, in marriage and careers). A46 Norfolk State University 176

Appendix K General Education Core Organized in Two Tiers Appendix K General Education Core Organized in Two Tiers GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BACCALAUREATE DEGREE Proposed Revision Students entering Norfolk State University seeking the baccalaureate degree are required to take forty semester hours from the general education core curriculum consisting of the following subject areas: Introduction to University Life; Communications; Digital, Computer and Telecommunications; Health and Physical Education; Humanities; Mathematics; Natural Sciences; Social Sciences; Critical Thinking; and Cultural Electives. The proposed revision reorganizes the general education core into two-tiers. Tier I courses consist of 27 hours and are required. Tier II courses consist of 13 hours and may be picked from the enclosed list. Tier I: The goal of critical thinking instruction in Tier 1 general education courses is to develop an awareness in students that knowledge is not absolute and different points of view exist among experts. Students will be able to reflect on the information presented in diverse media and diverse frames of reference to 1) identify main ideas, themes, and assumptions; and 2) make comparative judgments from data. Introduction to University Life: UNI 101 Communications: ENG 101, ENG 102 Critical Thinking: Humanities: Mathematics: MTH 103 Natural Sciences: Social Sciences: Total Tier I 2 Semester Hours 6 Semester Hours 3 Semester Hours (pick from list below) 3 Semester Hours (pick from list below) 3 Semester Hours 7 Semester Hours (pick from list below) 3 Semester Hours (pick from list below) 27 Semester Hours Tier II: The purpose of the second tier of the general education core is to emphasize and reinforce the fundamental principles and processes of inquiry underlying effective reasoning. In Tier 2 of the general education core, students will be asked to identify a problem or issue, to evaluate the validity and credibility of related suppositions, and to use an inferential ladder to articulate and analyze assumptions underlying decisions and proposed solutions to problems or issues. Pick 13 hours from the enclosed list: (The number of Semester Hours listed for each category refers to the maximum number of hours allowed for Tier II.): COURSE DESCRIPTION COMMUNICATIONS (3 SEMESTER HOURS) SCM 285 Principles of Speech DIGITAL, COMPUTER AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS (3 SEMESTER HOURS) CLM 165 CSC 150 TED 170 Computer Literacy for Musicians Computer Literacy Introduction to Technology NATURAL SCIENCES (7 SEMESTER HOURS) BIO 100 BIO 100L BIO 110 CHM 100 CHM 100L CHM 110 Biological Science Biological Science Lab General Biology Chemistry: Man and Environment Chemistry Lab Basic Concepts in Chemistry Quality Enhancement Plan A47 177

Appendix K (cont d) COURSE PHY 100 PHY 100L DESCRIPTION Physical Science Physical Science Lab CRITICAL THINKING (3 SEMESTER HOURS) LOG 210 XXX YYY ZZZ Logic & Critical Thinking HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION (3 SEMESTER HOURS) PED 100 HED 100 Fundamentals of Fitness for Life Personal and Community Health SOCIAL SCIENCES (3 SEMESTER HOURS) SOC 101 HIS 100 HIS 101 Introduction to Social Sciences History of World Civilization I History of World Civilization II HIS 102 United States History to 1877 HIS 103 United States History Since 1877 *HIS 335 African-American History to 1865 *HIS 336 African-American History Since 1865 *HIS 370 African History and Culture (Part 1) *HIS 371 African History and Culture (Part 2) *SOC 237 *POS 315 *PSY 340 Cultural and Racial Minorities Blacks in the American Political Process Psychology of African Americans HUMANITIES (3 SEMESTER HOURS) HUM 210 HUM 211 ENG 207 FIA 201 MUS 301 *ENG 383 *FIA 370 *MUS 234 Humanities I Humanities II Literature of the Western World Basic Art Appreciation Music Appreciation African-American Literature African and African-American Art African-American Music CULTURAL ELECTIVE (3 SEMESTER HOURS) *Courses marked with an asterisk satisfy the University's cultural elective requirement. A48 Norfolk State University 178

Appendix L Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning Appendix L Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning The National Teaching and Learning Forum http://www.ntlf.com/html/lib/faq/cl-utenn.htm Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning The goal of this activity is to generate discussion among student groups about a specific topic or content area. 1. Faculty conducts a brief (10-15 minutes) lecture on a topic or content area. Faculty may assign a reading or written assignment as well. 2. Instructor then gives the students a set of generic question stems. 3. Students work individually to write their own questions based on the material being covered. 4. Students do not have to be able to answer the questions they pose. This activity is designed to force students to think about ideas relevant to the content area. 5. Students should use as many question stems as possible. 6. Grouped into learning teams, each student offers a question for discussion, using the different stems. Sample question stems: What is the main idea of...? What if...? How does...affect...? What is a new example of...? Explain why...? Explain how...? How does this relate to what I've learned before? What conclusions can I draw about...? What is the difference between... and...? How are...and...similar? How would I use...to...? What are the strengths and weaknesses of...? What is the best...and why? The National Science Digital Library http://nsdl.org/resource/2200/test.20061004093440426t Guided Reciprocal Peer Questioning There are times when students feel so confused by new concepts that they don't know what questions to ask. Guided reciprocal peer questioning provides students with higher order open-ended questions to generate a focused discussion in a small group setting. The questions are generic prompts students use to generate specific content-based questions. The instructor gives a mini-lecture in class and then provides a list of open-ended questions. Below is a selection of these adapted from King (1993) and Millis and Cottell (and references cited within, Quality Enhancement Plan A49 179

Appendix L (cont d) 1998 ). Included are questions that encourage synthesis, comparison and contrast, and extrapolation to other contexts. Explain why. Explain how. What is the meaning of? Why is happening? What is the main idea of? What is the solution to the problem of? What if? What conclusions can I draw about? What is the best and why? What do you think causes? Why? How does affect? How does relate to what I've learned before? What is the difference between and? How are and similar? How would I use to? What are the strengths and weaknesses of? What is another way to look at? What is a new example of? What would happen if? What are the implications of? Why is important? How does apply to everyday life? Students are then given a few minutes to individually prepare several content-specific questions aided by these open-ended questions. The students form groups and take turns asking their questions and discussing possible answers. Alternatively, the instructor can assign reading prior to class and provide the open-ended questions as a take home worksheet. With this variation, it is helpful to set aside a few minutes at the beginning of the next class for students to review the reading assignment and questions. King, A. (1993). "From sage on the stage to guide on the side." College Teaching, 41(1). Millis, B. J., and Cottell, P. G., Jr. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty, American Council on Education, Series on Higher Education. The Oryx Press, Phoenix, AZ. A50 Norfolk State University 180

Appendix M List of Potential Lead Faculty Appendix M List of Potential Lead Faculty List of faculty and staff who have participated in summer institutes and related workshops from summer 2002 through summer 2007 and who assisted in developing the Quality Enhancement Plan. Henry L. Albritton Library Systems, L. B. Brooks Library Junelle L. Banks Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment Elsie M. Barnes Academic Affairs Gladys Bennett First Year Experience / ACCESS Jacqueline Bolden First Year Experience / ACCESS William (Andy) Byrne School of Liberal Arts Nuria M. Cuevas Academic Affairs/Institutional Effectiveness & Assessment Marvin D. Feit Social Work Charles H. Ford History, School of Liberal Arts Mildred K. Fuller Allied Health, School of Science and Technology Curtis K. Greaves Counseling Center, Division of Student Affairs Cynthia Lynne Harrison Library Acquisitions & Cataloging, L. B. Brooks Library Quality Enhancement Plan A51 181

Appendix M (cont d) Eleanor L. Hoy School of Science and Technology Kimberly L. Hutson Political Science, School of Liberal Arts Larry Mattix School of Science and Technology Khadijah O. Miller Interdisciplinary Studies, School of Liberal Arts Page R. Laws Honors Program and English, School of Liberal Arts Margaret G. Massey Research and Technology Alexei G. Matveev Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment Chinedu G. Okala Faculty Senate and Fine Arts, School of Liberal Arts Delanyard L. Robinson Psychology, School of Liberal Arts Amelia N. Ross-Hammond Music, School of Liberal Arts and First Year Experience / Coordinator, Service-Learning Ronald L. White Mathematics, School of Science and Technology Rudolph Wilson Political Science, School of Liberal Arts Enrique G. Zapatero Management Information Systems, School of Business A52 Norfolk State University 182

Appendix N QEP Director Job Description and Qualifications Appendix N QEP Director Job Description and Qualifications Director, Office of Quality Enhancement and Critical Thinking Studies Proposed Job Description and Qualifications The QEP director will report to the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs and will be responsible for successful implementation of all components of the QEP, communicating information about the QEP to the University community including progress towards program goals and outcomes, overseeing the daily operations of the office, ensuring responsible and competent stewardship of QEP resources, and ensuring assessment of all aspects of the QEP and coordinating assessment components with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment. The QEP director also will ensure faculty communities of practice and student learning communities are formed and sustained, will identify a pool of qualified external consultants and secure consultation services as designed in the QEP and as needed, will plan and conduct orientation sessions for new faculty and current faculty accepting new assignments to teach general education core courses, will ensure faculty development activities are planned and conducted as designed and appropriate, will ensure appropriate records are maintained and are accessible for all aspects of the QEP, and will ensure appropriate learning resource materials related to critical thinking pedagogies and cocurricular activities are accessible for program participants (i.e., faculty, staff, and students). In addition, the QEP director will be responsible for preparing and disseminating reports as appropriate and required for the QEP, including ensuring that ongoing and five-year impact assessments are conducted and reported routinely, and for conducting annual QEP implementation and progress reviews. The director will supervise the administrative support specialist and will work closely with the QEP faculty coordinators, lead faculty for the communities of practice, the General Education Council, the Office of Residential Life, the Office of First Year Experience and ACCESS (academic support services for students), the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment, and the Lyman Beecher Brooks Library. Qualifications A search for the QEP director will begin in spring 2008. The successful incumbent will have an earned doctorate from a regionally-accredited institution, at least three years of higher education teaching and advising experience, 3-5 years of administrative experience with demonstrated effective stewardship of allocated and pooled resources, experience with assessment and accountability and/or accreditation requirements, a record of scholarly activity commensurate with eligibility for faculty rank at the associate or full professor level, excellent communication (oral, written, and interpersonal) skills, and a demonstrated record of producing and communicating technical and research results to a variety of audiences. An incumbent with a doctorate in a general education core subject area, general education teaching or assessment experience, or experience teaching or assessing critical thinking skills is preferred. Quality Enhancement Plan A53 183

Appendix O Summary of Roles and Responsibilities for Key Staff and Key Collaborative Relationships Appendix O Summary of Roles and Responsibilities for Key Staff and Key Collaborative Relationships Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs o Supervises the QEP director and ensures all aspects of the QEP are implemented o Monitors the QEP budget o Monitors and evaluates the progress and effectiveness of the QEP activities and key personnel o Reports progress with reference to implementation of the QEP to the Executive Cabinet and Board of Visitors QEP Director o Implements and monitors day-to-day activities and details related to QEP activities o Develops and administers annual QEP budget o Coordinates efforts of School QEP Coordinators o Supervises QEP administrative assistant o Coordinates QEP assessment process o Submits semester progress reports to the General Education Council o Collaborates with university offices to ensure successful implementation of the QEP o Administers faculty and staff development program o Identifies and disseminates faculty professional development events and resource materials o Facilitates and coordinates Critical Thinking Communities of Practice and Student Learning Communities QEP Administrative Assistant o Provides general office support for all activities related to the QEP activities o Provides technical support related to QEP activities o Supports faculty and staff development program and ensure logistics and details related to the faculty and staff development program completed in a timely manner o Schedules and supports QEP-related workshops, seminars, meetings, and assessment activities QEP Faculty Coordinators o Coordinate development and implementation of critical thinking intensive courses in the majors o Coordinate enhancement of the capstone courses to integrate application of critical thinking skills o Coordinate service-learning and undergraduate research activities in the majors o Coordinate critical thinking assessment in the majors. Prepare School critical thinking assessment reports o Coordinate and monitor e-portfolios Quality Enhancement Plan A55 184

Appendix O (cont d) General Education Council o Serves as a forum for exchange of best practices in developing and assessing critical thinking skills in students o Serves as a channel for input on QEP matters from students, faculty and other members of the university community o Serves as a resource for faculty, students and staff involved in QEP implementation o Serves as a resource for the faculty communities of practice and student learning communities o Participate in communities of practice as appropriate o Regularly reviews the progress in implementation of the QEP and make recommendations for improvement as needed o Submits annual progress reports to the Provost General Education Council o Map critical thinking and all core competency outcomes with general education goals and course objectives o Review curricular revisions related to the general education core and recommends for action to the University Curriculum Committee o Assess the general education core o Ensure compliance with accreditation standards and state guidelines related to the general education core o Participate and lead communities of practice as appropriate Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment o Work with the QEP director to ensure ongoing, viable assessment and program review plans are developed o Work with the QEP director to ensure critical thinking assessment measures are administered, collected, and analyzed o Work with the QEP director to ensure student learning outcomes are achieved o Disseminate assessment information as appropriate for use in decision-making and improving student outcomes o Work with academic units, faculty, and university offices to design and implement assessment strategies as appropriate and to support a culture of evidence and continuous improvement o Conduct faculty and staff development related to assessment and institutional effectiveness practices, measures, and requirements o Work with faculty and staff to support a scholarship of assessment as learning o Participate in communities of practice as appropriate Lyman Beecher Brooks Library o Collaborate with academic units and university offices to provide access to learning resource materials o Provide instruction and support with reference to accessing and utilizing information resources o Support information resources needs of faculty communities of practice and student learning communities o Participate in communities of practice as appropriate A56 Norfolk State University 185

Appendix O (cont d) Office of Information Technology o Serve as a resource in planning and providing access to broad range of academic resources, technology, and training for faculty, students, and staff o Support technology and web-based infrastructure and resources as appropriate o Provide technology-related training as needed o Participate in General Education Council and other committees as appropriate Office of First Year Experience and ACCESS (academic support services) o Provide academic support services to students o Oversee and assess peer mentoring, service-learning, and other co-curricular experiences related to the QEP as appropriate o Embed critical thinking outcomes as appropriate in the required undergraduate orientation course, UNI 101 (Introduction to University Life), and other general studies courses as appropriate o Participate in communities of practice as appropriate Counseling Center o Serve as a resource in planning and responding to student needs with reference to adjusting to college life, stress management, personal concerns, relationship and family issues, and psychological health o Serve as a resource in planning and implementing co-curricular learning and development activities to enhance student success and achievement o Participate in communities of practice and support learning communities as appropriate Office of Residential Life o Oversee and assess student learning community program and other co-curricular activities as appropriate o Participate in communities of practice as appropriate Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs o Serve as a resource for enhancing and expanding co-curricular experiences related to the QEP o Participate in communities of practice as appropriate Academy for Teaching, Learning, and Research o Collaborate with the Office of Quality Enhancement and Critical Thinking Studies to support faculty development activities related to the QEP o Participate in critical communities of practice and learning communities as appropriate Quality Enhancement Plan A57 186

187