Psychology, PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
Assessment, Spring Semester, 2015
Queensborough Community College/CUNY
Department of Social Sciences
Individual Course Assessment Report
Date Submitted: June 18, 2015
Course No./Title: PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
The courses assessed were:
PSYC 215, Child Development, 1 section
PSYC 220, Human Growth and Development, 14 sections
PSYC 230, Abnormal Psychology, 4 sections
PSYC 240, Social Psychology, 2 sections
PSYC 245, Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1 section
PSYC 250, Personality, 2 sections
PSYC 255, The Psychology of Women, 1 section
PSYC 270, The Psychology of Aging, 1 section
PSYC 290, States of Consciousness, 1 section
Pathways Learning Outcomes (Scientific World)
Evaluate evidence and arguments critically or analytically.
Participants
No. Sections Assessed: 27 sections in total
No. Students Assessed: 624
Course Assessment Method
Students were given a short reading assignment (see Appendix 1) concerning research into
eyewitness testimony which, in recent years, has garnered much interest and empirical
investigation. The students were able to take the reading home and carefully consider it.
Then, in the next class, students were given a written, 16 multiple-choice assessment (see
Appendix 2). The questions were formed around the four categories on the critical reading
rubric (see Appendix 4): constructing meaning, contextualizing, using others perspectives and
positions, and evaluating evidence and drawing conclusions. There were four questions for each
of the four categories.
This work represents the second time the assessment was piloted. The first time was during the
Spring, 2014 semester (Time 1) - 178 students participated, from 9, PSYC 101 sections. The
second time was during the past semester of Spring, 2015 (Time 2) - 624 students participated,
from 27, upper level PSYC sections. The procedure and instrument were virtually identical from
Time 1 to Time 2.
Psychology, PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
Assessment, Spring Semester, 2015
Two issues were of interest.
• Across the four categories of the critical reading rubric, would the pattern of student
performance be similar from Time 1 to Time 2? At Time 1, performance in the
categories of constructing meaning and using other perspectives and positions outpaced
contextualizing and evaluating evidence and drawing conclusions.
• Would student performance in any of the four categories show an increase from Time 1
to Time 2? At Time 1, students in PSYC 101 sections participated but during Time 2,
students in upper level PSYC courses participated.
Assessment Results: Spring, 2015 (Time 2)
Rating Criteria
Emerging
1 correct
Weak
Development
2 correct
Strong
Development
3 correct
Constructing
Meaning
(Questions 1-4)
Contextualizing
(Questions 5-8)
X
X
Questions
correct
(percent)
77%
55%
Using Other
Perspectives and
Positions
(Questions 9-12)
Evaluating Evidence
and Drawing
Conclusions
(Questions 13-16)
Mastery
4 correct
X
X
74%
67%
Psychology, PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
Assessment, Spring Semester, 2015
•
As at Time 1, performance at Time 2 in the categories of constructing meaning and using
other perspectives and positions outpaced contextualizing and evaluating evidence and
drawing conclusions.
•
As can be seen in the Table above, students showed strong development in the category of
‘constructing meaning’. On average, 77% of the items were correct for a mean of 3.07
items. Performance was also strong in ‘using other perspectives and positions’; on
average, 74% of the items were correct for a mean of 2.96 items.
•
Student performance showed weaker performance over the remaining two categories. In
the category of ‘evaluating evidence and drawing conclusions’, 67% of the questions were
answered correctly for a mean of 2.68 items. Last, only 55% of the questions were
answered correctly in the category of ‘contextualizing’ for a mean of 2.21 items.
Assessment Results: Performance during Spring, 2014 (Time 1) and Spring, 2015 (Time 2).
Spring, 2014
(Time 1)
Spring, 2015
(Time 2)
Questions
correct
(M) Questions
correct
(%) Constructing Meaning (Questions 1-4)
2.88
72%
Contextualizing (Questions 5-8)
1.99
51%
2.21
55%
Using Other Perspectives and Positions
(Questions 9-12)
2.78
70%
2.96
74%
Evaluating Evidence and Drawing
Conclusions (Questions 13-16)
2.51
64%
2.68
67%
•
Questions
correct
(M) 3.07
Questions
correct
(%) 77%
As can be seen from the Table above, the pattern of results across the four categories of
questions was similar from Spring, 2014, and Spring, 2015. As mentioned, students
Psychology, PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
Assessment, Spring Semester, 2015
showed strong development in the category of ‘constructing meaning’ and in ‘using other
perspectives and positions’. Performance was weaker in the category of ‘evaluating
evidence and drawing conclusions’ and weakest in ‘contextualizing’.
•
Compared to Time 1, performance was better during Time 2. The number of questions
answered correctly in each category averaged about .2 points higher during Time 2 than
Time 1 and was greater by 3-5 percentage points.
Conclusions and Action Plan
•
The results from both time periods point to similar findings. Comparing across the four
categories of critical reading, students showed stronger development in ‘constructing
meaning’ (derive accurate meaning from texts) and ‘using other perspectives and
positions’ (explore perspectives and assumptions contained within the text). Students had
greater difficulty in ‘contextualizing’ (makes connections in a limited fashion between
written language and contexts, such as prior experience or physical setting) and
‘evaluating evidence and drawing conclusions’ (draws conclusions that are logically tied
to information). The emergence of the same trend, across the two time points may
indicate an important characterization of critical reading ability in students. In order to
examine if the findings are an artifact of the instrument, the results found on assessments
carried out by other sub-disciplines within the Department of Social Sciences will be
undertaken. Such an approach is beneficial because the assessment instruments varied
across sub-disciplines but they were formed around the same critical reading rubric.
•
It is interesting to note that there was a modest increase in performance from the first
administration of the assessment to the second one. It may be tempting to conclude that
this reflects an increase in skill, but any conclusion should be drawn very cautiously.
While the administration of the assessment appears to follow a longitudinal design, the
same participants were not followed with the much larger sample during the second
administration highlighting this fact. Ideally, the same participants would have been
followed with much more methodological and statistical controls imposed.
•
While students did not have the reading at the time of taking the multiple-choice
assessment, the issue has been carefully considered. By not allowing students to have the
article during the assessment, it was thought that careful reading and study of the material
would be fostered. Having the reading available at the time of the assessment, could allow
students to procrastinate, attempt to read and evaluate the article in class, while attempting
to answer the questions. This was not an ideal scenario because faculty members were
asked to allot only 20 minutes for students to complete the questions on the assessment.
Psychology, PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
Assessment, Spring Semester, 2015
•
The Assessment Committee of the Department of Social Sciences will be carefully
considering the instrument and findings and decide how to proceed.
Psychology, PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
Assessment, Spring Semester, 2015
Appendix 1: Assigned Reading
The Psychology and Power of False Confessions (Abbr., Rev.)
Observer – Association for Psychological Science
By Ian Herbert
On July 8, 1997, Bill Bosko returned to his home in Norfolk, Virginia, after a week at sea to find his wife murdered
in their bedroom. A few hours later, Bosko’s neighbor, Danial Williams was asked to answer questions at the police
station. And after eight hours there, Williams confessed to the rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko.
Five months later, because of inconsistent physical evidence, the Norfolk police became convinced that Williams
did not act alone and turned their attention to Joseph Dick, Williams’ roommate. Dick confessed as well. He later
pled guilty, testified against two other co-defendants, named five more accomplices who were never tried, and
publicly apologized to the victim’s family. “I know I shouldn’t have done it,” Dick said just before the judge gave
him a double life sentence. “I have got no idea what went through my mind that night — and my soul.”
Dick now says that all of that is untrue, and he has a team of lawyers who believe him. In 2005, the Innocence
Project filed a petition on behalf of Williams, Dick, and the other two members of the group called the “Norfolk
Four.” They petitioned Virginia Governor Tim Kaine for clemency on the basis of new physical evidence, and in
August 2009, the outgoing governor issued conditional pardons, which set the men free but forced them to be on
parole for the next 20 years. It was a decision that Kaine struggled with, and he granted conditional pardons because
he said the men failed to fully prove their innocence. “They’re asking for a whole series of confessions … to all be
discarded,” Kaine said on a radio show in the fall of 2008. “That is a huge request.”
We know that false confessions do happen on a fairly regular basis. Because of advances in DNA evidence, the
Innocence Project has been able to exonerate more than 200 people who had been wrongly convicted, 49 of whom
had confessed to the crime we now know they didn’t commit. In a survey of 1,000 college students, four percent of
those who had been interrogated by police said they gave a false confession.
But Why?
False confessions seem so illogical, especially for someone like Joseph Dick of the Norfolk Four, who got a double
life sentence after confessing. Why do people confess to crimes they didn’t commit? Some do it for the chance at
fame (more than 200 people confessed to kidnapping Charles Lindbergh’s baby), but many more do it for reasons
that are far more puzzling to the average person. In the November 2004 issue of Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, APS Fellow Saul Kassin looked at the body of research and described how the police are able to interrogate
suspects until they confess to a crime they didn’t commit.
Generally, it starts because people give up their Miranda rights. In fact, Richard A. Leo found that a majority of
people give up the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. In fact, according to self-report data, innocent
suspects gave up their rights more often than guilty suspects (most told Leo either that this was because they felt that
they didn’t have anything to hide because they were innocent or that they thought it would make them look guilty).
Once a suspect starts talking, the police can use a variety of techniques to make the accused feel as though they are
better off confessing than continuing to deny (these include promises of leniency and threats of harsher interrogation
or sentences). If a suspect feels like a conviction is inevitable not matter what he or she says, confessing may seem
like a good idea.
But, in some cases, the accused comes to believe that he or she actually did commit the crime. It’s been shown
repeatedly that memory is quite malleable and unreliable. Elizabeth Loftus has repeatedly shown that the human
brain can create memories out of thin air with some prompting. In a famous series of experiments, Loftus, APS Past
President, was able to help people create memories for events that never happened in their lives simply through
Psychology, PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
Assessment, Spring Semester, 2015
prompting. She helped them “remember” being lost in a shopping mall when they were children, and the longer the
experiment went on, the more details they “remembered.” The longer police interrogate a suspect, emphatic about
his guilt and peppering their interrogation with details of the crime, the more likely a suspect is to become convinced
himself.
Joseph Dick claims that this is what happened to him. His confession, testimony, and apology to the family were not
lies, he maintains, but rather the product of a false memory. “It didn’t cross my mind that I was lying,” he said. “I
believed what I was saying was true.”
‘Corrupting the Other Evidence’
Despite the evidence that false confessions are a regular occurrence, most jurors struggle with the concept just like
Kaine did with the Norfolk Four. Confessions are difficult to discount, even if they appear to be coerced. Years ago,
Kassin noticed that cases with confessions have an unusually high conviction rate, and since then he has dedicated
his life to studying why that happens and what can be done about it.
In a 1997 study, Kassin and colleague Katherine Neumann gave subjects case files with weak circumstantial
evidence plus either a confession, an eyewitness account, a character witness, or no other evidence. Across the
board, prospective jurors were more likely to vote guilty if a confession was included in the trial, even when they
were told that the defendant was incoherent at the time of the confession and immediately recanted what he said.
Kassin and Neumann also did two simultaneous studies to further explore the power of confessions. In one, they had
people watch a trial and turn a dial to rate the extent to which evidence convinced them the defendant was guilty or
innocent. The other asked potential jurors after the trial which evidence was most powerful. In both the mid-trial and
post-trial ratings, jurors saw the confession as the most incriminating. Other studies have shown that conviction rates
rise even when jurors see confessions as coerced and even when they say that the confession played no role in their
judgment. “I don’t honestly think juries stand a chance in cases involving confessions,” Kassin says. “They’re bound
to convict.”
Kassin says he doesn’t blame jurors. He travels around the country lecturing on the psychology of false confessions
and he says “the most common reaction I get from a lay audience is, ‘Well, I would never do that. I would never
confess to something I didn’t do.’ And people apply that logic in the jury room. It’s just that basic belief that false
confessions don’t occur.” What’s more, the evidence juries are given in conjunction with the false confessions is
very damning, Kassin says. False confessions of guilt often include vivid details of how a crime was committed —
and why. Confessions sometimes even come with an apology to the family. It’s no wonder jurors have trouble
discounting them.
What confessions rarely include is an explanation of why the person confessed. In most states, police are not
required to videotape the interrogations, just the confessions. So juries don’t get to see any potential police coercion
and they don’t get to see the police planting those vivid details in the minds of the suspects.
And that may be just the tip of the iceberg. Kassin believes that confessions can have a dramatic impact on trials
even if they never make it into a courtroom. They can influence potential eyewitnesses, for example, and taint other
kinds of evidence.
Kassin recently teamed up with psychologist Lisa Hasel to test the effect of confessions on eyewitnesses. They
brought subjects in for what was supposed to be a study about persuasion techniques. The experimenter briefly left
the room and, during that time, someone came in and stole a laptop off the desk. The subjects were then shown a
lineup of six suspects, none of whom was the actual criminal, and they were asked to pick out which member of the
lineup, if any, committed the crime. Two days later, the witnesses were brought back for more questioning. Those
who identified a suspect were told that the person they identified (or someone else) had confessed, or all suspects
denied their involvement. Those who had (correctly) said none of the people in the lineup committed the crime
were told either that someone had confessed or all suspects denied their involvement.
Psychology, PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
Assessment, Spring Semester, 2015
The results show that confessions can have a powerful effect on other evidence. Of the people who identified a
subject from the lineup, 60 percent changed their decision when told that someone else had confessed. Also, 44
percent of the people who said no one in the lineup committed the crime changed their mind when told that someone
had confessed. When asked about their decision, “about half of the people seemed to say, ‘Well, the investigator
told me there was a confession, so that must be true.’ So they were just believing the investigator,” Hasel said. “But
the other half really seemed to be changing their memory. So that memory can never really be regained once it’s
been tainted.” Moreover, when people who identified someone in the lineup were told that someone had confessed,
their confidence levels rose and they were more certain of the details of the crime even though no one in the lineup
committed the crime. The implications for inside the courtroom are obvious. Whereas physical evidence is
immutable (once collected, it can always be retested), an eyewitness’s decision cannot be revisited without
contamination, Kassin and Hasel suggest.
Psychology, PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
Assessment, Spring Semester, 2015
Appendix 2: Multiple-Choice Assessment Based on Assigned Reading
1. The main purpose of the article was to:
a. Expose the unfairness of the judicial system
b. Describe the Innocence Project
c. Explain why jurors make wrong convictions
d. Provide explanations of why some people may make false confessions and
describe the impact of confessions to the judicial process
2. In one research study, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus helped people to create memories that never
existed in order to:
a. Learn about their childhood experiences.
b. To show how police interrogation might impact confessions
c. To show how memories are real and cannot be constructed
d. To display the importance of Miranda Rights
3. Which of the following statements can be described as one of the author’s unstated
assumptions?
a. All of the accused are innocent
b. False confessions rarely happen
c. Confessions may be considered as part of evidence but jurors and eye witnesses
should be told about how the confessions were obtained and, educated about the
possible problems with confessions.
d. People should not be convicted based on eye witness testimony alone
4. According to the article, which of the following is a true statement about false
confessions?
a. If a suspect confesses to a crime then it must be true.
b. False confessions are considered strong evidence in the judicial system.
c. False confessions rarely ever make it to the court room.
d. A confession cannot be considered false if the person believes their own
confession to be true.
5. The article opened with the case of Joseph Dick of the Norfolk Four in order to illustrate:
a. The pressure by the police to get a confession
b. The start of the legal process
c. How false memories are related to confessions
d. Why people give up their Miranda rights
6. This reading would most likely be found in what kind of text:
a. Forensic Psychology
b. Sociology
c. Memory
d. Behavioral Psychology
Psychology, PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
Assessment, Spring Semester, 2015
7. Based on the information in the article, it can be inferred that the Innocence Project
a. Would support using repressed memories in court cases
b. Would recommend that DNA evidence be given higher value in considering guilt
or innocence than eyewitness testimony
c. Is focused on releasing people from jail
d. Would consider sociocultural issues like race and socioeconomic status when
considering eye witness testimony and judicial processes
8. Which piece of evidence, would strengthen the author’s position about false confessions:
a. A survey study of 1,000 college students found that 4% or 40 students admitted to
giving a false confession.
b. The Norfolk Four were given conditional pardons.
c. The Innocence Project reports that ninety percent of defendants’ confessions are
true.
d. An expert forensic witness is able to get defendants to tell the truth.
9. In the article, the author focuses the reading around understanding the behavior of what
people in a court case?
a. judges
b. the accused
c. lawyers
d. prosecution
10. The work of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus provides some very interesting and surprising features
of human memory. Based on her research, what would Dr. Loftus tell you to do to help
you remember an event accurately?
a. Be sure to talk over the event with several people who experienced the event to
get an accurate account.
b. Be sure to read stories of people who experienced some similar event either in the
newspaper or on the web.
c. Carefully write down and record the event before talking to anyone about the
event.
d. Make no special effort to remember the event, but discuss the case with your
family.
11. When a jury determines if an accused person is guilty or not, the jury considers all of the
evidence around the alleged crime. What evidence below would the author of the article
suggest as the most important to a jury when reaching a guilty verdict or outcome?
a. A person testifies in court that was an eyewitness to the crime.
b. The accused person has a history of mental illness and memory problems.
c. If the alleged crime an accused person committed was a felony such as stealing,
rape, or murder.
d. If the accused person confessed to the crime.
Psychology, PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
Assessment, Spring Semester, 2015
12. While the article focuses on the law and courtroom testimony, it also reinforces an idea
about memory. What idea about human memory is found throughout the reading?
a. Human memory is very accurate when it comes to remembering events.
b. Encoding, storage, and retrieval are fundamental components of memory.
c. Human memory is not always accurate and leads people to remember things
incorrectly.
d. Memory is worse for the accused because they make more mistakes remembering
information.
13. In the article, a number of research findings are reported. What is the main goal of the
research?
a. To understand the way in which human memory functions.
b. To better understand how juries interpret information presented by the lawyers.
c. To gain knowledge regarding how judges interpret information.
d. To learn how a confession can impact the outcome of a trial.
14. The author of the article presents information, results from studies, and interpretation to
explore the case of the ‘Norfolk Four’. Based on the reading, does the author lead you to
conclude that the accused in the case were:
a. not guilty
b. guilty
c. unable to stand trial
d. under the legal age and not able to testify
15. What is an important feature of the research summarized in the article?
a. All of the studies took at least one year to complete.
b. Most studies used the experimental method.
c. Most studies used the correlational method.
d. Many of the participants were not actual jurors or lawyers.
16. The research of Kassin and Hasel is discussed in the article. In their work, they have
participants witness a laptop being stolen and then ask the participants to identify a
suspect from a lineup. While none of the people in the lineup actually committed the
crime, some witnesses identify a ‘suspect’ whereas others correctly do not. Then, they
attempt to change opinions of the witnesses telling them that someone confessed to the
crime. What does the study show about human memory?
a. Once a person makes a decision about the guilt of a suspect, a confession cannot
change his/her opinion.
b. A person who confesses to a crime should always be believed.
c. A confession can change the opinion of a person and contaminate the memory of
an eyewitness.
d. Research tells us very little about how memory operates in a courtroom.
Psychology, PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
Assessment, Spring Semester, 2015
Appendix 3: Instructions to Faculty
Department of Social Sciences
Queensborough Community College/CUNY
Medical Arts Bldg., Room M-104
718-631-6251
Memorandum
To:
Social Sciences (Psychology) Dept. Faculty
From:
J. Jankowski
Date:
April, 2015
Re:
Course Assessment, Psychology, Upper Level Courses
This semester, we will once again be piloting an assessment instrument from May 4-15. The
creation of the instrument was prompted by the assessment initiative of the college and guided
by the Assessment Committee of the department. To this end, the department committee has
settled on examining critical reading across the social sciences disciplines.
As you may know, in Spring 2014, we piloted the assessment with some PSYC 101 sections. In
this semester, we will pilot the instrument with all upper level sections (not PSYC 101). While
the goal is once again to test the usefulness of the assessment, we are also focused on comparing
the performance from PSYC 101 sections to upper level ones, looking for any improvement in
performance. The assessment should not take more than 20 minutes for students to complete.
The assessment results from all upper level sections will be aggregated, and a general report on
the results will be drafted. Please note that this course assessment WILL NOT be used as a
component of your professional evaluation; only student evaluations of faculty and peer teaching
observations are used for that purpose.
General Procedure: Enclosed you will find, copies of a short article, assessment forms,
scantron forms, an answer key, and a blank item analysis sheet(s). Please note that all of the
materials, with the exception of the answer key, are separated according to section, if you are
teaching more than one upper level course. During one class (Day1), we ask faculty to distribute
the enclosed article to students who will be asked to read the article for the next class. Then,
during the following class (Day 2), students will be given the enclosed multiple choice
assessment. Faculty members are asked not to discuss or summarize the article at any point.
Please give points for answering questions correctly (either as a stand-alone assignment, in
conjunction with a test, or extra credit).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Psychology, PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
Assessment, Spring Semester, 2015
Day 1. Distribute the enclosed two page article to students. Then, read statement below to
students.
The Department of Social Sciences is conducting a course assessment project for some
Psychology classes this semester. Take the article home that is being distributed; read and
study the article. In the next class, you will take a multiple choice assessment of the article.
(Be sure to tell students the possible points that the assignment is worth.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Day 2. Distribute the multiple choice assessment and scantrons to students. Then, read the
statement below to students.
As noted in the previous class, the Department of Social Sciences is conducting a course
assessment. You were asked to take home an article in the last class and read it. Now, answer
question based on the article. There are a total of 16 questions, please use a #2 pencil when
completing the scantron.
Be sure to put your name on the scantron. When you are finished, return the questions and the
scantron to your instructor. Thank you for your participation.
DO NOT ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE THE ARTICLE, OR ANY NOTES, WHEN
TAKING THE ASSESSMENT.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Concluding Remarks. Please use the enclosed scantron answer key to score the assessment to
record the grades. Be sure to also do an item analysis separately for each upper level class
section.
Then, after finishing the scoring, please return all materials (i.e. copies of the article, assessment
forms, completed scantron forms, answer key, and completed item analysis sheet) to the mailbox
in M104 of: J. Jankowski.
If you have any questions, please contact:
Jeff Jankowski, Ph.D.
Phone: x5719
Email: jjankowski@qcc.cuny.edu
or
Anissa Moody, Ph.D.
Phone: x6296
Email: amoody@qcc.cuny.edu
Thank you for your participation in this important project.
Psychology, PSYC (Upper Level Courses)
Assessment, Spring Semester, 2015
Appendix 4: Critical Reading Scoring Rubric
Rating Criteria
Emerging
0-1
Weak Development
2
Strong Development
3
Mastery
4
Usually derives
accurate meaning from
texts by making sense
of written words and
analyzing reading with
respect to prior
knowledge, research,
and experience
Usually connects
written language with
contexts, such as prior
experience, historical
setting, physical setting,
knowledge of the
discipline, etc.
Usually explores
perspectives and
assumptions contained
within the text
Consistently derives
accurate meaning from
texts by making sense
of written words and
analyzing reading with
respect to prior
knowledge, research,
and experience
Consistently connects
written language with
contexts, such as prior
experience,
historical setting,
physical setting,
knowledge of the
discipline, etc.
Consistently explores
perspectives and
assumptions contained
within the text
Draws conclusions that
are logically tied to a
range of information
(because information is
chosen to fit the desired
conclusion); related
outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are
identified clearly
Draws conclusions and
related outcomes
(consequences and
implications) that are
logical and reflect
student’s informed
evaluation and ability to
place evidence and
perspective discussed in
priority order
Constructing Meaning
Derives meaning from
texts in a confused or
inaccurate way
Derives meaning from
texts in a limited
fashion; makes sense of
written words but no
further analysis
Contextualizing
Reads written language
in isolation or connects
it to irrelevant or
inaccurately understood
contexts
Using Other
Perspectives and
Positions
Takes text at face value,
showing minimal
awareness of
perspectives and
assumptions contained
within the text
Conclusions are
inconsistently tied to
some of the
information; related
outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are
oversimplified
Makes connections in a
limited fashion between
written language and
contexts, such as prior
experience, historical
setting, physical setting,
knowledge of the
discipline, etc.
Attempts to explore
perspectives and
assumptions contained
within the text
Evaluating Evidence
and Drawing
Conclusions
Draws conclusions that
are logically tied to
information (because
information is chosen to
fit the desired
conclusion); some
related outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are
identified clearly