193 / 2018-03-31 15:02:54

Assessing Critical Thinking in the English for Academic Purposes Classroom: Benchmarked Objective Criteria for Argumentative Written Texts

Critical Thinking,EAP,CEFR,Benchmark,Criteria

全体主题 > Principles and methodology of developing standards for language assessment

Assessing written arguments for objective indicators of critical thinking is a contested exercise. The concept of critical thinking itself may be difficult to define and its measurement too often mirrors the widely quoted definition of obscenity by US Supreme Court Justice Stewart: “I know it when I see it.” Scholars have debated whether critical thinking instruction should be left to subject professors (see e.g. McPeck 1981), with others arguing that critical thinking is a generic skill that can be taught across disciplines (see e.g. Ennis, 1992; 1996). Assuming critical thinking can be defined and taught, writing instructors have little guidance for evaluating the criticality presented in a student's text.

The measurement of critical thinking in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classrooms is therefore in need of an objective set of criteria for assessments. Modeled on Paul and Elder's Critical Thinking Competency Standards (2007), a matrix of ten intellectual standards will be proposed in this presentation to measure criticality in tertiary students’ argumentative texts: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, logic, significance, fairness, depth, breadth and completeness. These ten criteria will be benchmarked to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for Languages: Learning Teaching and Assessment (2001) and their use in the context of an English medium, transnational university in China will be discussed. Specific application to the undergraduate discipline of philosophy will be explored by consulting philosophy writing guidebooks for commonalities of agreed upon characteristics for reasoned argumentative texts. Philosophy and its teaching methods provide an untapped wealth of techniques and strategies for EAP instructors to incorporate into their assessment practices. Moreover, the relationship between clarity in language and philosophical argumentation is an area where EAP instructors can utilize the Socratic Method in feedback on assessments as a basis for improving the writing of their students. This presentation will thereby merge sound principles and methods for developing standards in and for language assessments.

Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for Languages: Learning
Teaching and Assessment. Cambridge University Press.

Ennis, R. (1996) Critical Thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ennis, R. (1992) “Conflicting Views on Teaching Critical Reasoning", in Talaska, R. (ed.) Critical Reasoning in Contemporary Culture. Albany: SUNY Press.

McPeck, J. (1981) Critical Thinking and Education. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007) Critical Thinking Competency Standards. (Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.