CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 174Student Assessment and FeedbackEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentEducational Assessment and Pedagogy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rubrics to assess critical thinking and information processing in undergraduate STEM courses

Open access
Reynders, Gil, Lantz, Juliette, Ruder, Suzanne M., Stanford, Courtney L., Cole, Renée S.·2020·International Journal of STEM Education
DOI 10.1186/s40594-020-00208-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Process skills such as critical thinking and information processing are commonly stated outcomes for STEM undergraduate degree programs, but instructors often do not explicitly assess these skills in their courses. Students are more likely to develop these crucial skills if there is constructive alignment between an instructor’s intended learning outcomes, the tasks that the instructor and students perform, and the assessment tools that the instructor uses. Rubrics for each process skill can enhance this alignment by creating a shared understanding of process skills between instructors and students. Rubrics can also enable instructors to reflect on their teaching practices with regard to developing their students’ process skills and facilitating feedback to students to identify areas for improvement. Results: Here, we provide rubrics that can be used to assess critical thinking and information processing in STEM undergraduate classrooms and to provide students with formative feedback. As part of the Enhancing Learning by Improving Process Skills in STEM (ELIPSS) Project, rubrics were developed to assess these two skills in STEM undergraduate students’ written work. The rubrics were implemented in multiple STEM disciplines, class sizes, course levels, and institution types to ensure they were practical for everyday classroom use. Instructors reported via surveys that the rubrics supported assessment of students’ written work in multiple STEM learning environments. Graduate teaching assistants also indicated that they could effectively use the rubrics to assess student work and that the rubrics clarified the instructor’s expectations for how they should assess students. Students reported that they understood the content of the rubrics and could use the feedback provided by the rubric to change their future performance. Conclusion: The ELIPSS rubrics allowed instructors to explicitly assess the critical thinking and information processing skills that they wanted their students to develop in their courses. The instructors were able to clarify their expectations for both their teaching assistants and students and provide consistent feedback to students about their performance. Supporting the adoption of active-learning pedagogies should also include changes to assessment strategies to measure the skills that are developed as students engage in more meaningful learning experiences. Tools such as the ELIPSS rubrics provide a resource for instructors to better align assessments with intended learning outcomes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40594-020-00208-5

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 51 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. American Chemical Society Committee on Professional Training. (2015). Unergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry: ACS Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures for Bachelor's Degree Programs. Retrieved from https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/committees/training/2015-acs-guidelines-for-bachelors-degree-programs.pdf
  2. Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Teaching and learning in higher education: New trends and innovations, 2, 13–17.
  3. Brewer, C. A., & Smith, D. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action. American Association for the Advancement of Science. DC: Washington.
  4. Gosser, D. K., Cracolice, M. S., Kampmeier, J. A., Roth, V., Strozak, V. S., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2001). Peer-led team learning: A guidebook: Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.
  5. Gray, K., & Koncz, A. (2018). The key attributes employers seek on students' resumes. Retrieved from http://www.naceweb.org/about-us/press/2017/the-key-attributes-employers-seek-on-students-resumes/.
  6. Huitt, W. (1998). Critical thinking: an overview. In Educational psychology interactive Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/critthnk.html.
  7. Ramsden, P. (1997). The context of learning in academic departments. The experience of learning, 2, 198–216.
  8. Simonson, S. R. (Ed.). (2019). POGIL: An Introduction to Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning for Those Who Wish to Empower Learners. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
  9. The Royal Society. (2014). Vision for science and mathematics education: The Royal Society Science Policy Centre. London: England.
  10. Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1964). Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Manual. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, and World.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–174 of 174

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Reynders, G., Lantz, J., Ruder, S. M., Stanford, C. L., & Cole, R. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • Drew University (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • Ball State University (US)
Corresponding author
Cole, Renée S.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of STEM Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-03-09
Volume
7
Issue
1
ISSN
2196-7822 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s40594-020-00208-5
OpenAlex
W3031490426
Cited by
174
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13
FWCI
35.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of STEM Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1524399, 1524936, 1524965)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
Keywords
rubrics, critical thinking, information processing, process skills, undergraduate STEM education, formative feedback, constructive alignment, learning outcomes, written assessment, teaching assistants, active learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review