David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 20 (4):19-33 (2001)
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
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Earl W. Spurgin (2004). The Goals and Merits of a Business Ethics Competency Exam. Journal of Business Ethics 50 (3):279-288.
Robert Liebler (2012). Student Perceptions of Faculty Use of Cheating Deterrents. Journal of Academic Ethics 10 (4):327-333.
Elliott Sober (1998). To Give a Surprise Exam, Use Game Theory. Synthese 115 (3):355-373.
Ken Levy (2009). The Solution to the Surprise Exam Paradox. Southern Journal of Philosophy 47 (2):131-158.
Elizabeth Burns & Michael Lacewing (2004). Essay Writing and Exam Preparation. In Elizabeth Burns & Stephen Law (eds.), Philosophy for AS and A2. Routledge
Lori Richter (2011). Questions About Critical Thinking. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 26 (2):37-43.
Nancy Slonneger Hancock (2006). Logic for the LSAT. Teaching Philosophy 29 (2):125-155.
James Fieser & Norman Lillegard (2005). Philosophical Questions: Readings and Interactive Guides: Instructor's Manual and Test Questions: Cd with Powerpoints. OUP Usa.
Matthew Elton (1997). Cognitive Success and Exam Preparation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):72-73.
Joshua M. Feinberg (2009). Perception of Cheaters: The Role of Past and Present Academic Achievement. Ethics and Behavior 19 (4):310 – 322.
Francis Jeffry Pelletier (2003). Context Dependence and Compositionality. Mind and Language 18 (2):148–161.
Jacob Eisenberg * (2004). To Cheat or Not to Cheat: Effects of Moral Perspective and Situational Variables on Students' Attitudes. Journal of Moral Education 33 (2):163-178.
Alireza Ahmadi (2012). Cheating on Exams in the Iranian EFL Context. Journal of Academic Ethics 10 (2):151-170.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads29 ( #135,355 of 1,902,101 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #281,246 of 1,902,101 )
How can I increase my downloads?