Form
2000 of the CCTST introduces critical thinking questions requiring
the application of one's reasoning skills to contexts more appropriate
to the analysis, inference, and evaluation expectations of the new
century. With updated topics and, in some cases, with data presented
in images and diagrams, Form 2000 provides item contexts that are
more broadly representative of the reasoning required to be a skillful
critical thinker. The example page in the banner to the left is
intended only to illustrate the way this format appears to test-takers.
There a pie-chart presents some of the information needed to make
correct inferences in response to the three CCTST test questions
presented below the diagram. To avoid requiring test-takers to flip
back and forth between pages, diagrams always appear on the same
page or in the same e-testing screen window as the questions to
which they are related.
The
most recent form of this well-established tool continues to focus
on the assessment of the core critical thinking skills of analysis-interpretation,
inference, and evaluation-explanation. New question formats introduced
in Form 2000 are combined with many introduced in Form A (1990)
and Form B (1992) making From 2000 a richer and more robust tool
for evaluating the core critical thinking skills.
As
with Form A and Form B, test takers are invited to form reasoned
judgments based on discursive textually presented information. Using
From 2000 they are also invited to reason with information presented
in the kinds of diagrams and charts now frequently found in basic
textbooks, newspapers, and meeting rooms.
Twenty-two
of the thirty-four items on Form 2000 appear on Form A of the CCTST.
This integral relationship between the two instruments provides
strong evidence of the validity of form 2000. Internal consistency
measures provide evidence that Form 2000 is slightly more reliable
than form A. As indicated in this manual and in other research,
since it's publication in 1990 the CCTST Form A is a valid measure
of critical thinking skills. In effect, Form 2000 of the CCTST
is superior version of Form A.
The
Scales Scores for the CCTST, TER, HSRT, and the BCTST
Scale
Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning happens when we decide
that the evidence at hand means that a given conclusion is probably
true. For example, if we know that the vast majority of people who
smoke, as compared to those who do not smoke, suffer serious health
problems, we might reasonably conclude by inductive reasoning that
smoking is probably hazardous to one’s health. Scientific reasoning
aims to show that some ideas more likely to be true than others.
Scientists use inductive methods, such as experimentation; and they
use inductive tools, such as statistics. When we base our predictions
about how things will happen in the future on our past experiences
we are using inductive reasoning. As long as there is even the most
remote and obscure possibility that although all the reasons for
a claim could be true and yet the claim itself might still be false,
we are in the realm of inductive reasoning.
Scale
Deductive Reasoning: Deductive reasoning happens when we decide
that, no matter what, it is impossible that the conclusion we are
considering is false, given that all the premises of our argument
are true. For example, if we know for a fact that San Diego is west
of Denver, and we know that Denver is west of Detroit and New York,
then we can infer with deductive certainty that San Diego is west
of New York. Mathematics uses deductive reasoning. Algebra and geometry
are exercises in deductive reasoning. Playing a game can also be
an exercise in deductive reasoning, and so can filling out an income
tax return. For both games and tax returns are things that require
us to apply strict rules and laws. For example, “if the batter
swings and misses three pitches, the batter is out, and Johnnie
just did that, so Johnnie is out” is a deductive inference.
One of the ways that we know that little children can reason deductively
is to observe that they can play games that require following rules,
even playground rules.
Scale
Analysis: We are using our analytical skills when we pull apart
arguments and points of view to show why a person thinks what he
or she thinks. In effect we are separating the premises and the
assumptions a person is using from the claim or the conclusion that
the person is reaching. For example, suppose someone proposes that
that we should go to war because the enemy is building up weapons
of mass destruction to use against us. An analysis of this person’s
position would reveal that the person is making assumptions about
what the enemy is doing (“building up weapons” ) and about
what the enemy is intending (“to use against us”).
Scale
Inference: We use your inference skills whenever we draw conclusions
based on reasons and evidence. We might be using our deductive reasoning
inference skills or our inductive reasoning inference skills. We
can apply your inference skills to all sorts of things including
beliefs, opinions, facts, conjectures, principles, and assumptions.
We can even apply our inference skills to mistakes. If we reason
to any conclusions based on things that we know are mistaken, then
we are most likely going to have reached a faulty conclusion, even
if we applied your skills well. For example, we know that Chicago
is in Illinois. But suppose we were so confused that we thought
that Illinois was in Mexico, and not in the United States. We might
then infer that Chicago is in Mexico. Good use of inference skills,
but based on mistaken beliefs – the result is, as we would
expect, not a true statement. It is important to keep separate what
we know to be true and what conclusions we infer based on what we
know.
Scale Evaluation: We are using our evaluation skills when
we decide how strong or how weak a person’s arguments are,
or when we determine the believability of a given statement. For
example, what do we think about the idea that the sun goes around
the earth? Well, if we were standing all day in an open field you
might observe that the sun rose in the east and set in the west.
This would seem to support the idea that the sun goes around the
earth. On the other hand, if we knew that the earth was spinning
on its axis and that the solar system includes our planet in orbit
around the sun, then we would evaluate the idea that the sun goes
around the earth as naive and mistaken. It is just not logical to
hold that belief any longer, not given what we know about our planet
and our solar system. We evaluate ideas and arguments all the time.
The question is, how well we do it. The idea that we are safe drivers
when we are under the influence of drugs or alcohol is not believable.
Unfortunately, the drugs or alcohol inhibits our critical thinking
by, among other things, weakening our skill at making good evaluations.
It is just at that time that a person is likely to make a mistake
and think that he or she can drive safely.
Scale
Total Score: The total score indicates one's overall reasoning
or critical thinking skill level. The total is the sum of of the
scores in analysis, inference, and evaluation, which are core skills
in critical thinking. We use these skills in both inductive reasoning
and deductive reasoning. The total can also be calculated by summing
the induction and deduction scores. To learn more about critical
thinking and reasoning skills and dispositions download free the
2006 update of "Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts."
Autumn
Leaves Image © 2005 Peter A. Facione
