Usefulness of ePortfolio Data

Using external accreditation criteria as benchmarks, ORU’s School of Education and Engineering Department serve as examples that the institution has begun documenting whether actual achievement levels of students are acceptable given the mission, student population, and resources available. Some majors and programs are in earlier stages of documentation, but making progress. To cite a specific example related to critical thinking, each student in the Principles of Chemistry lab course writes a 250-300 word abstract for a meat analysis lab exercise. The student’s hypothesis as to which of four types of meat is the healthiest and most cost-effective is then tested by analyzing the results of the lab experiment. The abstract is submitted electronically to a faculty member via ePortfolio under the Intellectually Alert outcome and Critical Thinking proficiency. The faculty member assesses the abstract using the Critical Thinking rubric criteria, which include a clearly identified purpose and hypothesis, accurate and appropriate data, crucial and consistent assumptions, and valid inferences and conclusions supported by content. Each student receives assessment feedback for each component from the faculty member via ePortfolio according to the following scale: Exemplary (4.0), Competent (3.0), Acceptable (2.0), Unacceptable (1.0), or Not Attempted (0). The faculty member can also add comments to the assessment to augment the quantitative data.

During the 2005-06 academic year, 216 students submitted critical thinking artifacts in three different chemistry courses. An analysis of these data reveals that 20% of the freshman chemistry majors scored at the competent or exemplary levels on their required artifacts; however, 100% were at least at the acceptable level. In comparison, 24% of general education freshmen performed at the competent or exemplary levels on their required artifacts, and 61% performed at least at the acceptable level. Goals for optimal performance have not yet been formally set, but existing standards in some disciplines use the figure of 80% as a benchmark. This tells the Chemistry department and General Education administrators that improvements are needed. General education courses in biology and the physical sciences collected similar data using the Critical Thinking rubric. These results have generated faculty discussions within the science departments regarding critical thinking, its definition, the most effective way to teach it in the sciences, when it should be taught, and the most effective techniques for assessing the skill. The data have prompted discussions among general education faculty members and administrators on methods of tracking improvements in student critical thinking throughout the students’ educational process in order to bring them to a mastery level. ORU’s ePortfolio data are available at: ePortfolio_data.