Investigation of Cornell Critical Thinking Results as Affected by - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Mar 06, 2023 359 likes •553 views

Investigation of Cornell Critical Thinking Results as Affected by Science Writing Heuristic 1 Luke K. Fostvedt, 1 Michael T. McGill, 1 Mack C. Shelley II 2 Brian Hand, 2 William J. Therrien 1 Iowa State University 2 University of Iowa August 31,

SLIDE 1

Investigation of Cornell Critical Thinking Results as Affected by Science Writing Heuristic

1Luke K. Fostvedt, 1Michael T. McGill, 1Mack C. Shelley II 2Brian Hand, 2William J. Therrien

1Iowa State University 2University of Iowa

August 31, 2012

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 1 / 18

SLIDE 2

Outline

1 Science Writing Heuristic 2 Cornell Critical Thinking

Test (CCT)

3 IRT analysis of year 1

CCT scores

4 Results from the new

year 2 data

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 2 / 18

SLIDE 3

Science Writing Heuristic

Embeds science argument within typical inquiry

lessons

Promotes critical thinking and reasoning
Uses language as a mediating tool for negotiating the

understanding of science

Students are required to
pose questions
generate claims and evidence
compare their answers to others
reflect on changes in their understanding

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 3 / 18

SLIDE 4

Framework

To date there has been little to no research

investigating the increase in critical thinking as a result of a different style of learning presented in Science class.

This new method of teaching of Science was

implemented through the Science Writing Heuristic grant program within a Midwestern state consisting of 48 schools; here the students were all in the 5th grade at their institution.

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 4 / 18

SLIDE 5

Cluster Randomized Design

Location of 24 SWH Schools

3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 1

Count 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Location of 24 Control Schools

2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1

Count 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 5 / 18

SLIDE 6

Sample

Within these 48 schools which were randomly assigned

to be in the treatment or control groups there was a total of 2303 students.

Of this total number students who were labeled as

Special Education or being in Gifted and Talented were removed.

This was needed to investigate the possible effects on

what is considered the typical student. Leaving a sample size of 1543 5th grade students.

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 6 / 18

SLIDE 7

Sample

Female Male Total Control 335 341 676 SWH 438 429 867 Total 773 770 1543

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 7 / 18

SLIDE 8

Cornell Critical Thinking Test

The standard for critical thinking tests as well as

being the most widely recognized.

50 minutes to answer 71 Questions.
Comprised of four components:
Induction
Deduction
Observation / Credibility
Assumption

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 8 / 18

SLIDE 9

Cornell Critical Thinking Test

The test was split into its four components with their

relative questions.

Each question only has one correct answer which is

labeled as 1 and 0 for an incorrect answer (i.e. dichotomous).

The combination of students and component

questions is the inputted into the Winsteps (Linacre 2007) program in order to derive the person ability and item difficulty scores as scaled by the Rasch Model.

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 9 / 18

SLIDE 10

Results: All Students

Component Treatment n Mean SD Hedges G Induction Control 685 0.28614 0.84475 0.166 SWH 886 0.42586 0.83999 Deduction Control 685 0.32432 0.87578 0.094 SWH 886 0.40425 0.83025 Observation Control 685 0.12965 0.81945 0.049 SWH 886 0.16998 0.81343 Assumption Control 685 0.18483 1.28210

0.019

SWH 886 0.16059 1.29992

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 10 / 18

SLIDE 11

Results: Female Students

Component Treatment n Mean SD Hedge’s G Induction Control 335 0.29426 0.84603 0.137 SWH 438 0.40271 0.74942 Deduction Control 335 0.38403 0.90438 0.062 SWH 438 0.43933 0.87226 Observation Control 335 0.12489 0.81699 0.017 SWH 438 0.13856 0.82012 Assumption Control 335 0.22319 1.32168 0.040 SWH 438 0.27803 1.38335

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 11 / 18

SLIDE 12

Results: Male Students

Component Treatment n Mean SD Hedge’s G Induction Control 341 0.28282 0.84625 0.184 SWH 429 0.44513 0.91076 Deduction Control 341 0.25205 0.84191 0.154 SWH 429 0.37767 0.79365 Observation Control 341 0.14642 0.82174 0.079 SWH 429 0.21089 0.81181 Assumption Control 341 0.10372 1.21709

0.045

SWH 429 0.04879 1.21592

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 12 / 18

SLIDE 13

Results

All components except ‘Assumption’ had small

positive effects in favor of SWH.

The Induction and Deduction abilities indicated a

small effect for males in the SWH group.

Hedges G noted small effects for the Induction with

respect to the SWH treatment

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 13 / 18

SLIDE 14

Total CCT Improvement

Year 1 (Fall 10 and Spring 11): SWH mean 4.775 Control mean 3.698 Cohen’s d 0.155 P-Value <0.001 Year 2 (Fall 11 and Spring 12): SWH mean 4.634 Control mean 2.528 Cohen’s d 0.242 P-Value <0.001

5th Grade Critical Thinking Improvement Semester Critical Thinking Score

10 20 30 40 50 60

Fall10

Spring11 Fall11 Spring12

Curriculum Control SWH

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 14 / 18

SLIDE 15

Conclusions

Cluster SWH Control Difference Cohen’s d P-value Mean Mean ICC 5.783 2.459 3.324 0.348 <0.001 MC 3.934 2.637 1.297 0.133 0.113 NEC 4.527 3.692 0.835 0.133 0.340 WA 5.255 1.639 3.617 0.441 <0.001 WC 4.542 2.469 2.073 0.254 0.001 Overall 4.635 2.528 2.107 0.243 <0.001

Table : Summary statistics for the Cornell Critical Thinking Test from the 2011-2012 school year. Results are presented for each cluster along with the

verall result.

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 15 / 18

SLIDE 16

Cluster Impact

2011-2012 Results Cluster Effect Size ICC 0.348 MC 0.133 NEC 0.133 WA 0.441 WC 0.254 Overall 0.243

−40 −20 20 40

MC NEC WA WC Cluster Critical Thinking Score Change

Treatment Control SWH 5th Grade Critical Thinking Improvement Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 16 / 18

SLIDE 17

Conclusions

In almost all cases the SWH treatment showed an

improvement in critical thinking ability, but effects were small.

Effect sizes were consistent for Induction across

gender lines.

When evaluating the total score, students in schools

with the greatest diversity showed the largest gains.

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 17 / 18

SLIDE 18

Acknowledgements and SWH References

Research funded by a grant from the US Department
f Education through the Institute of Education

Sciences, award number R305A090094-10.

Brian Hand Ph.D.

brian-hand@uiowa.edu

Hand, B. Ed., Science Inquiry, Argument and

Language: A Case for the Science Writing Heuristic (Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2007).

Science Writing Heurisitc (ISU STAT) EARLI SIG 18 Zurich 2012 August 31, 2012 18 / 18