1. University-Level Assessment of Critical Thinking Critical Thinking Workshop, May 2010

2. Standardized Tests California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) Summer 2008 Freshmen Non- College of Business, Management and Economics 961 “Process of purposeful, self- regulatory judgment” Analysis, Evaluation and Inference = Total Deductive and Inductive = Total Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) Summer 2009 Freshmen Random Sample – 60% 848 with 824 completing at least 75% Voluntary System of Accountability Requirement Reading I, Reading II, Critical Thinking (Reading III)

3. California Critical Thinking Skills Test Number of Questions ESU4-Year College Total3414.5716.80 Analysis74.094.44 Inference166.767.85 Evaluation113.724.52 Induction178.369.53 Deduction176.217.27

4. Skills Subscores Critical ThinkingReadingWritingMathematics Mean Subscore No. of Instns. Percent Below No. of Instns. Percent Below No. of Instns. Percent Below No. of Instns. Percent Below 126 to 13001000 0 0 125 to 125.9901000 0 0 124 to 124.9901000 0 0 123 to 123.9901000 0 0 122 to 122.9901000 0 0 121 to 121.99010019801000 120 to 120.99010029501000 119 to 119.99010038901000 118 to 118.99010087501000 117 to 117.99010046701000 116 to 116.99010017363950100 115 to 115.990100 429 585296 114 to 114.990100422871685 113 to 113.9919879 16421460 112 to 112.994912510241336 111 to 111.9948414711920 110 to 110.998690435511 109 to 109.991247203035 108 to 108.99 1422 000005 107 to 107.9979000022 106 to 106.9934000010 100 to 105.9920000000 Number of Institutions 55 Mean109.30 (108.94)116.12 (115.27)113.18 (113.16)112.29 (113.15) MAPP

5. Reading Level III (Critical Thinking) Students who are proficient can: evaluate competing causal explanations evaluate hypotheses for consistency with known facts determine the relevance of information for evaluating an argument or conclusion determine whether an artistic interpretation is supported by evidence contained in a work recognize the salient features or themes in a work of art evaluate the appropriateness of procedures for investigating a question of causation evaluate data for consistency with known facts, hypotheses or methods recognize flaws and inconsistencies in an argument

6. Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress

7. Next Steps Reading University Assessment Committee Reading Task Group Assessments Senior MAPP Results Summer Freshmen 2010 and Senior Fall 2010