Build success beyond the classroom: Critical thinking and assessment

Christina Cavage
A group of children stood at a table with their teacher watching her write something down on paper
Reading time: 4 minutes

There are some common myths related to critical thinking and assessment. Many people believe that it¡¯s impossible to assess critical thinking, especially in classes where language is limited. However, it can be done! Here, the key to success is crafting tasks and rubrics that allow you to separate language skills and cognitive skills. After all, a low language level doesn¡¯t necessarily reflect your student¡¯s ability to think critically.

So, how can we measure how a student knows rather than just what they know?

How to measure critical thinking

Well, we first have to consider two types of assessment¡ªformal and informal. Formal assessments tend to happen at the end of a task, lesson or skill-building activity and usually focus on the work the student has produced. Then, we have informal assessments. Those are the assessments that involve on-the-spot interactions. These types of assessments play a crucial role in measuring critical thinking.

Tips for teaching and assessing critical thinking
Play
Privacy and cookies

By watching, you agree ÃÛÌÒapp can share your viewership data for marketing and analytics for one year, revocable by deleting your cookies.

Formal assessment

There is a common misconception that assessment should only focus on the final work that your students produce. The final ¡®product¡¯ is undeniably important and often an ideal measure of linguistic abilities. But the process of producing the final work is where you can see your students¡¯ critical thinking skills in action.

When designing rubrics to measure both language and critical thinking, make sure that you only focus on one at a time¡ªeither language or critical thinking. Keeping these different skills in mind will help you to differentiate language skills and critical thinking skills, and evaluate them separately, when it comes to formal assessment.

When measuring language skills, use Bloom¡¯s early or foundational cognitive domains as a model:

If we measure these items, we are really measuring language skills. For example, with a reading activity, we might ask the following questions:

  • Who is the story about?
  • Where does the story take place?
  • What is the main idea of the story?

Can they understand the overall organization and the key vocabulary? These types of questions assess a student¡¯s linguistic ability.

Then, when it comes to critical thinking, the more advanced levels of Bloom¡¯s cognitive domains provide a useful guide:

These types of questions assess a student¡¯s metacognition or critical thinking:

  • Which character is most important to the story?
  • Why?
  • Do you agree or disagree with the character¡¯s actions?
  • Why or why not?

The clear separation of language and critical thinking in assessment will help you to get a measure of each student¡¯s progress in both skills.

Informal assessment

What about those informal assessments? It can be harder to delineate critical thinking and language skills clearly in an on-the-spot assessment.

For example, if you¡¯ve assigned group work, consider keeping a checklist of how students interact with one another. Some checklist items can be:

  • Who made an inference?
  • Who supplied reasoning for another student¡¯s idea?
  • Who made a comparison?
  • Who drew a conclusion?

You can also ask your students to keep a checklist and post these questions on an electronic bulletin board. Like self-assessment, these peer-to-peer assessments can get students reflecting and noticing.

Rubrics can also be useful in informal assessment. Let¡¯s say you¡¯ve asked students to prepare or write an essay. To measure critical thinking, you can look at each student¡¯s ideation process when they¡¯ve been working on their essays:

  • Is a student looking at all possible topics?
  • What are the factors that make a student select the option they did?
  • Are they demonstrating an awareness of other ideas?

The answers to these questions will tell you whether or not your students are thinking critically.

Just like with any other skills, the assessment of critical thinking needs to happen both formally and informally. We need to consider both the process and the final product. And in doing so, we need to carefully design rubrics that differentiate language skills and metacognition.

More blogs from ÃÛÌÒapp

  • A young child sat at a desk in a classroom writing

    Grammar: how to tame the unruly beast

    By Simon Buckland

    ¡°Grammar, which knows how to control even kings¡±?- ²Ñ´Ç±ô¾±¨¨°ù±ð

    When you think of grammar, ¡°rule¡± is probably the first word that pops into your mind. Certainly the traditional view of grammar is that it¡¯s about the ¡°rules of language¡±. Indeed, not so long ago, teaching a language meant just teaching grammatical rules, plus perhaps a few vocabulary lists. However, I¡¯m going to suggest that there¡¯s actually no such thing as a grammatical rule.

    To show you what I mean, let¡¯s take the comparative of adjectives: ¡°bigger¡±, ¡°smaller¡±, ¡°more useful¡±, ¡°more interesting¡±, etc. We might start with a simple rule: for adjectives with one syllable, add -er, and for adjectives with two or more syllables, use more + adjective.

    But this doesn¡¯t quite work: yes, we say ¡°more useful¡±, but we also say ¡°cleverer¡±, and ¡°prettier¡±. OK then, suppose we modify the rule. Let¡¯s also say that for two-syllable adjectives ending in -y or -er you add -er.

    Unfortunately, this doesn¡¯t quite work either: we do say ¡°cleverer¡±, but we also say ¡°more sober¡± and ¡°more proper¡±. And there are problems with some of the one-syllable adjectives too: we say ¡°more real¡± and ¡°more whole¡± rather than ¡°realer¡± or ¡°wholer¡±. If we modify the rule to fit these exceptions, it will be half a page long, and anyway, if we keep looking we¡¯ll find yet more exceptions. This happens repeatedly in English grammar. Very often, rules seem so full of exceptions that they¡¯re just not all that helpful.

    And there¡¯s another big problem with the ¡°rule approach¡±: it doesn¡¯t tell you what the structure is actually used for, even with something as obvious as the comparative of adjectives. You might assume that it¡¯s used for comparing things: ¡°My house is smaller than Mary¡¯s¡±; ¡°John is more attractive than Stephen¡±. But look at this: ¡°The harder you work, the more money you make.¡± Or this: ¡°London is getting more and more crowded.¡± Both sentences use comparative adjectives, but they¡¯re not directly comparing two things.

    What we¡¯re actually looking at here is not a rule but several overlapping patterns, or paradigms to use the correct technical term:

    1. adjective + -er + than
    2. more + adjective + than
    3. parallel comparative adjectives: the + comparative adjective 1 ¡­ the + comparative adjective 2
    4. repeated comparative adjective: adjective + -er + and + adjective + -er/more and more + adjective

    This picture is more accurate, but it looks abstract and technical. It¡¯s a long way from what we actually teach these days and the way we teach it, which tends to be organized around learning objectives and measurable outcomes, such as: ¡°By the end of this lesson (or module) my students should be able to compare their own possessions with someone else¡¯s possessions¡±. So we¡¯re not teaching our students to memorize a rule or even to manipulate a pattern; we¡¯re teaching them to actually do something in the real world. And, of course, we¡¯re teaching it at a level appropriate for the student¡¯s level.

    So, to come back to grammar, once we¡¯ve established our overall lesson or module objective, here are some of the things we¡¯re going to need to know.

    • What grammatical forms (patterns) can be used to express this objective?
    • Which ones are appropriate for the level of my students? Are there some that they should already know, or should I teach them in this lesson?
    • What do the forms look like in practice? What would be some good examples?

    Existing grammar textbooks generally don¡¯t provide all this information; in particular, they¡¯re very vague about level. Often they don¡¯t even put grammar structures into specific CEFR levels but into a range, e.g. A1/A2 or A2/B1, and none fully integrates grammar with overall learning objectives.

    At ÃÛÌÒapp, we¡¯ve set ourselves the goal of addressing these issues by developing a new type of grammar resource for English teachers and learners that:

    • Is based on the Global Scale of English with its precise gradation of developing learner proficiency
    • Is built on the Council of Europe language syllabuses, linking grammar to CEFR level and to language functions
    • Uses international teams of language experts to review the structures and assess their levels

    We include grammar in the GSE Teacher Toolkit, and you can use it to:

    • Search for grammar structures either by GSE or CEFR level
    • Search for grammar structures by keyword or grammatical category/part of speech
    • Find out at which level a given grammar structure should be taught
    • Find out which grammar structures support a given learning objective
    • Find out which learning objectives are related to a given grammar structure
    • Get examples for any given grammar structure
    • Get free teaching materials for many of the grammar structures

    Think of it as an open-access resource for anyone teaching English and designing a curriculum.