Rubrics for Critical Think to guide development of questions that support higher order thinking 1

Critical Thinking Rubric

GEO #7 - Apply critical thinking skills to solve problems, make informed decisions, and interpret events.

Rubric Component  4 3 2 1
Identifies and Accurately identifies the Accurately identifies the Identifies the problem/ Does not identify or
problem/question and provides a well- problem/question and provides a question and provides a poor summary summarize the
summarizes the developed brief summary. or identifies an inappropriate
problem/question at summary. problem/question accurately if
problem/question. at all.
issue.

Identifies and Provides a well-developed Examines evidence and Merely repeats information Does not identify or
assesses the quality examination of the evidence and questions its questions the quality. Distinguishes provided. Does not justify position or
accuracy, relevance, and completeness. Clearly between distinguish between fact and opinion.
assess the quality of supporting
evidence.
of supporting distinguishes between fact and opinion. fact and opinion.
data/evidence

Identifies and Accurately identifies and Accurately identifies Does not explain Does not identify or
 provides a well-developed explanation of and provides an explanation of contextual issues; consider any contextual issues.
considers the contextual issues with a clear sense of scope. potential contextual issues. provides inaccurate information; or
influence of the merely provides a list.
context* on the 
issue
Demonstrates higher Accurately identifies the author’s meaning Accurately identifies meaning Does not explain, provides inaccurate
level and/or potential bias and provides a well- and/or bias and provides a brief information, or merely lists potential
developed explanation. bias or inferred meanings.
thinking by explanation.
interpreting the
author’s meaning or
the potential bias

Identifies and Accurately identifies conclusions, implications, Accurately identifies conclusions, Does not explain, provides inaccurate Does not identify or evaluate
and consequences with a well-developed implications, and consequences with information, or merely provides a list any conclusions, implications
evaluates explanation. Provides an objective reflection of a brief evaluative summary. of ideas; or only discusses one area. or consequences.
conclusions, own assertions.
implications, and
consequences
 

      * Context may include cultural/social, scientific, educational, economic, technological, ethical, political, and personal experience issues .

Source: [Link] Fall 2009

 Rubrics for Critical Think to guide development of questions that support higher order thinking 2
WSU Critical Thinking Rubric
1) Identifies and summarizes the problem/question at issue (and/or the source's position).
Emerging Mastering
Does not identify and summarize the problem, is confused or Identifies the main problem and subsidiary, embedded, or implicit
identifies a different and inappropriate problem. aspects of the problem, and identifies them clearly, addressing their
relationships to each other.
Does not identify or is confused by the issue, or represents the issue
inaccurately. Identifies not only the basics of the issue, but recognizes nuances of the
  issue.

2) Identifies and presents the STUDENT'S OWN hypothesis, perspective and position as it is important to the analysis of the issue.

Emerging Mastering
Addresses a single source or view of the argument and fails to Identifies, appropriately, one's own position on the issue, drawing
clarify the established or presented position relative to one's own. support from experience, and information not available from assigned
Fails to establish other critical distinctions. sources.

3) Identifies and considers OTHER salient perspectives and positions that are important to the analysis.

Emerging Mastering
Deals only with a single perspective and fails to discuss other Addresses perspectives noted previously, and additional diverse
possible perspectives, especially those salient to the issue. perspectives drawn from outside information.

4) Identifies and assesses the key assumptions.

Emerging Mastering
Does not surface the assumptions and ethical issues that underlie the Identifies and questions the validity of the assumptions and addresses
issue, or does so superficially. the ethical dimensions that underlie the issue.

5) Identifies and assesses the quality of supporting data/evidence and provides additional data/evidence related to the
issue.

Emerging Mastering
Merely repeats information provided, taking it as truth, or denies
evidence without adequate justification. Confuses associations and Examines the evidence and source of evidence; questions its accuracy,
correlations with cause and effect. precision, relevance, completeness.

Does not distinguish between fact, opinion, and value judgments. Observes cause and effect and addresses existing or potential
consequences.

Clearly distinguishes between fact, opinion, & acknowledges value

judgments.
 

Source: [Link] Fall 2009

Rubrics for Critical Think to guide development of questions that support higher order thinking 3

6) Identifies and considers the influence of the context* on the issue.

Emerging Mastering
Discusses the problem only in egocentric or sociocentric terms. Analyzes the issue with a clear sense of scope and context, including an
assessment of the audience of the analysis.
Does not present the problem as having connections to other
contexts--cultural, political, etc. Considers other pertinent contexts.

7) Identifies and assesses conclusions, implications and consequences.

Emerging Mastering
Fails to identify conclusions, implications, and consequences of the Identifies and discusses conclusions, implications, and consequences
issue or the key relationships between the other elements of the considering context, assumptions, data, and evidence.
problem, such as context, implications, assumptions, or data and
evidence. Objectively reflects upon the their own assertions.

Source: [Link] Fall 2009

Rubrics for Critical Think to guide development of questions that support higher order thinking 4
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 Facione and Facione Holistic Scoring Rubric (1994) is copied below and is available free, with a page of instructions, at
[Link]

4  Consistently does all or almost all of the following:

Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.
Identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con.
Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view.
Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions.
Justifies key results and procedures, explains assumptions and reasons.
Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.

3  Does most or many of the following:

Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.
Identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con.
Offers analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view.
Justifies some results or procedures, explains reasons.
Fairmindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead .
2  Does most or many of the following:
Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.
Fails to identify strong, relevant counter-arguments.
Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view.
Justifies few results or procedures, seldom explains reasons.
Regardless of the evidence or reasons maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.

1  Consistently does all or almost all of the following:

Offers biased interpretations of evidence, statements, graphics, questions, information, or the points of view of others.
Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments.
Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view
Argues using fallacious or irrelevant reasons, and unwarranted claims.
Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on  self-interest or preconceptions.
Exhibits close-mindedness or hostility to reason .

Source: [Link] Fall 2009