Critical Thinking Rubric SP 2015
EIU graduates question, examine, evaluate, and respond to problems or arguments by:
Exemplary
4
Demonstrates the ability to
Asking essential
questions and engaging ask essential questions, engage
diverse perspectives, and
diverse perspectives.
construct a clear and insightful
problem statement with
evidence of all relevant
contextual factors. Problem
statement is very detailed.
Satisfactory
3
Partial
2
Minimal
1
Demonstrates the ability to
ask essential questions,
engage diverse perspectives,
and construct a problem
statement with evidence of
most relevant contextual
factors. Problem statement is
adequately detailed.
Begins to demonstrate the
ability to ask essential
questions, engage diverse
perspectives, and construct a
problem statement with
evidence of most relevant
contextual factors. Problem
statement is superficial.
Demonstrates a limited
ability in asking essential
questions, engaging diverse
perspectives, and identifying
a problem statement or
related contextual factors.
Seeking and gathering
data, information, and
knowledge from
experience, texts,
graphics, and media.
Information is taken from
varied source(s) with enough
interpretation/evaluation to
develop a comprehensive
analysis or synthesis.
Information is taken from
varied source(s) with enough
interpretation/evaluation to
develop a coherent analysis
or synthesis.
Information is taken from
source(s) with some
interpretation/evaluation,
but not enough to develop a
coherent analysis or
synthesis.
Information is taken from
source(s) without any
interpretation/evaluation.
Understanding,
interpreting, and
critiquing relevant
data, information, and
knowledge.
Information is critiqued and
evaluated appropriately to
inform a comprehensive
argument.
Viewpoints of experts are
questioned thoroughly.
Information is critiqued and
informs a solid argument.
Viewpoints of experts are
subject to questioning.
Information is critiqued.
Viewpoints of experts are
taken as mostly fact, with
little questioning.
Information is not critiqued.
Viewpoints of experts are
taken as fact, without
question.
Synthesizing and
integrating data,
information, and
knowledge to infer and
create new insights.
Organizes and synthesizes
information/evidence to
reveal insightful patterns,
differences, or similarities
related to focus. Transforms
ideas or solutions into new
forms.
Organizes
information/evidence to
reveal important patterns,
differences, or similarities
related to focus. Synthesizes
ideas or solutions into a
coherent whole.
Organizes
information/evidence, but
the organization is not
effective in revealing
important patterns,
differences, or similarities.
Connects ideas or solutions
in novel ways.
Lists information/evidence.
Recognizes existing
connections among ideas or
solutions, but does not
develop connections.
Anticipating, reflecting
upon, and evaluating
implications of
assumptions,
arguments,
hypotheses, and
conclusions.
Thoroughly (systematically
and methodically) analyzes
own and others' assumptions
and biases and carefully
evaluates the relevance of
contexts when presenting a
position and conclusions.
Identifies own and others'
assumptions and biases and
several relevant contexts
when presenting a position
and conclusions.
Questions some
assumptions. Identifies
several relevant contexts
when presenting a position.
May be more aware of
others' assumptions than
one's own (or vice versa).
Shows an emerging
awareness of present
assumptions. Begins to
identify some contexts when
presenting, but does not
consider them in arguments,
hypotheses, or conclusions.
Creating and
presenting defensible
expressions,
arguments, positions,
hypotheses, and
proposals.
Creates an original argument.
Conclusions and related
outcomes (consequences and
implications) are logical and
reflect student’s informed
evaluation and ability to place
evidence and perspectives
discussed in priority order,
considering multiple
perspectives and drawing
upon multiple resources.
Creates an argument.
Conclusion is logically tied to
a range of information,
including opposing
viewpoints; related outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are identified
clearly.
Begins to create an
argument. Conclusion is
logically tied to information
(because information is
chosen to fit the desired
conclusion); some related
outcomes (consequences and
implications) are identified
clearly.
Restates an argument.
Conclusion is inconsistently
tied to some of the
information discussed;
related outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are
oversimplified.