Examining the Exam

Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 20 (4):19-33 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper examines the content of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal exam (1980). Our report is not a statistical review. We find the content of this exam defective in a number of areas. The exam consists of five “tests” of 16 questions for a total of 80 questions. Of these, we cannot recommend test 1, test 2, test 4, and test 5; and, we cannot recommend questions 4, 5, 14, 16, 37, 45, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67. As shown in this report, the exam creates confusion and makes basic errors in critical thinking in a number of areas, and therefore, lacks content quality in these areas. Hence, no statistical results pertaining to the administration of these areas to students can be informative. We find the remaining areas acceptable as to content. But until the problems are corrected, we can only recommend that those who may use the exam remove the defective parts from test administration or from data collection and reporting. We recommend the former, because of the wasted time involved in the latter. This would amount to administering only 14 questions, i.e. test 3 with questions 37 and 45 eliminated.We also find the scope of the exam to be quite limited, but allow that this may be unavoidable for any instrument designed to be completed in about an hour. We further recommend the use of several tests, rather than one; and, that any such results be understood only as a measure of minimal competency (below which remediation likely is needed) for the skills tested, but not as an adequate measure of critical thinking.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Examining the Exam.Don Fawkes, Tom Adajian & Dan Flage - 2003 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 21 (3):31-46.
Examining the Exam.Don Fawkes, Tom Adajian & Steven Hoeltzel - 2001 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 20 (4):19-33.
Examining the Exam.Don Fawkes, Tom Adajian & Dan Flage - 2003 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 21 (3):31-46.
The goals and merits of a business ethics competency exam.Earl W. Spurgin - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 50 (3):279-288.
Questions about Critical Thinking.Lori Richter - 2011 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 26 (2):37-43.
Student Perceptions of Faculty Use of Cheating Deterrents.Robert Liebler - 2012 - Journal of Academic Ethics 10 (4):327-333.
Examining Ethics.Toby Schonfeld, Hugh Stoddard & Cory Andrew Labrecque - 2014 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 23 (4):461-471.
The Solution to the Surprise Exam Paradox.Ken Levy - 2009 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 47 (2):131-158.
AQA religious ethics for AS and A2.Jill Oliphant - 2011 - New York: Routledge. Edited by Jon Mayled & Anne Tunley.
Essay writing and exam preparation.Elizabeth Burns & Michael Lacewing - 2004 - In Elizabeth Burns & Stephen Law (eds.), Philosophy for AS and A2. Routledge.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-15

Downloads
18 (#814,090)

6 months
7 (#418,426)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Thomas Adajian
James Madison University
Steven Hoeltzel
James Madison University

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references