Justifies few results or procedures, seldom explains reasons. Critical thinking occurs in the context of a course, so there is a a trend for developing context-specific thinking tests. Objectively reflects upon the their own assertions.
Emerging Mastering Fails to identify conclusions, implications, and consequences of the issue or the key relationships between the other elements of the problem, such as context, implications, assumptions, or data and evidence.
Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Offers analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. Examines the evidence and source of evidence; questions its accuracy, precision, relevance, completeness. Analyzes the issue with a clear sense of scope and context, including an assessment of the audience of the analysis.
Confuses associations and correlations with cause and effect. Emerging Discusses the problem only in egocentric or sociocentric terms.
Identifies the main problem and subsidiary, embedded, or implicit aspects of the problem, and identifies them clearly, addressing their relationships to each other. Identifies relevant arguments reasons and claims pro and con.
Fails to identify strong, relevant counter-arguments. Departments typically use the A version as a pre-test before students begin the program or course and the B version as a post-test. Identifies the salient arguments reasons and claims pro and con. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.
Exhibits close-mindedness or hostility to reason. Regardless of the evidence or reasons maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions. Emerging Mastering Does not identify and summarize the problem, is confused or identifies a different and inappropriate problem.
Offers biased interpretations of evidence, statements, graphics, questions, information, or the points of view of others. Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Justifies key results and procedures, explains assumptions and reasons.
Identifies and questions the validity of the assumptions and addresses the ethical dimensions that underlie the issue. The Facione and Facione Holistic Scoring Rubric is copied below and is available free, with a page of instructions, at http: Does most or many of the following: Does not present the problem as having connections to other contexts--cultural, political, etc.
Analytical Critical Thinking Scoring Rubrics Analytical rubrics provide more information than holistic rubrics. Emerging Mastering Merely repeats information provided, taking it as truth, or denies evidence without adequate justification.
Identifies and discusses conclusions, implications, and consequences considering context, assumptions, data, and evidence. Does not distinguish between fact, opinion, and value judgments.
Fairmindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view. The WSU rubric specifies only the highest and lowest levels of performances, leaving it to faculty adapting it to describe the intervening levels.
Does not identify or is confused by the issue, or represents the issue inaccurately.
Fails to establish other critical distinctions. Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric Peter Facione and Noreen Facione have developed the four-level Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric to assess the critical thinking skills and some of the dispositions identified by the Delphi project as these skills are demonstrated by by students in essays, projects, presentations, clinical practices, and such.
The holistic rubric illustrated above combines five different kinds of thinking into a single category. Insight Assessment has a test that measures reasoning in the health sciences.
Addresses perspectives noted previously, and additional diverse perspectives drawn from outside information. Considers other pertinent contexts. Justifies some results or procedures, explains reasons.duplication of the critical thinking scoring rubric, rating form, or instructions herein for local teaching, assessment, research, or other educational and noncommercial uses, provided that no part of the scoring rubric is altered and.
SOME LINKS TO RUBRICS FOR EVALUATING CRITICAL THINKING Critical Thinking Rubric (Scranton) killarney10mile.com The Critical Thinking Rubric presented in this CTL Bulletin was created to facilitate embedded assessment of goal 2 of the Gen-Ed program.
A random set of student papers across our Gen-Ed courses will be selected and. Critical Thinking VALUE Rubric (doc) Definition Critical thinking is a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion.
A rudimentary rubric for a simple argumentative essay on authority using the results of the Stanley Milgram authority experiment. It is used in a introductory critical thinking class designed to build critical thinking proficiencies in underprepared college students.
Essay about Critical Thinking. What is Critical Thinking? Critical Thinking is a strong topic in the field of education.
We are given the opportunity to test thinking skills, which will identify, emphasize and develop the use of solving problems, taking test, and engaging in discussion forums with other students.Download