Rubric for General Education Outcome: Critical thinking
Criterion
Perspective:
awareness of other
points of view,
recognizes other
methods or
approaches, cognizant
of role of perspective
in addressing the
issue/problem; shows
complex awareness of
problem, shows
awareness of
alternative criterion
for judging the
issue/problem
Analysis: able to
“connect dots”; breaks
problem into
component parts;
dissects problem or
issue coherently and
logically; prioritizes
elements/factors;
displays a plan of
attack or plan of
analysis of issue;
analyzes strengths and
weaknesses of relevant
evidence
Meets Criterion Fully
4
Meets Criterion
Minimally
2
Explicitly
Acknowledges the
acknowledges and
fact that there are
develops other
different
perspectives; explicitly perspectives, but
recognizes multiple
does not integrate or
approaches to the
develop them in the
problem/issue and
response; voices the
integrates this into the
fact that there is
response; explicitly
more than one way to
recognizes different
approach
methods for solving the problem/issue but
problem/issue and
does not develop any
weighs the differences; in resolving the
writes/speaks in a way problem/issue; shows
that shows intellectual some intellectual
humility; shows
humility but more
scholarly tone and is
generally dogmatic
respectful of opposing in outlook
views
Explicitly “connects
dots”; explicitly states
the elements of the
issue/problem and
relates them into a
coherent whole;
explicitly follows a
plan that is systematic
in resolving the
issue/problem; weighs
strengths and
weaknesses as well as
priority among
elements
Does Not Meet
Criterion
0
Responds in
complete ignorance
of obviously relevant
alternative views;
unaware that there
are multiple
perspectives—just
asserts his or her own
without reflection;
fixates on chosen
approach and
“solves” problem by
mere assertion that it
is solved; displays
intellectual arrogance
and dogmatism in
response; no
cognizance of
context of other
views;
Sees that there are
Really blind to the
dots to connect, but
constituent parts of
does not achieve any the issue and
clearly coherent
therefore never sees
relationship among
there are dots to
the elements of the
connect at all; is
issue/problem; is
unsystematic in
haphazard in
thinking and tends to
following a plan in
assert opinions
finding a solution;
without any
not fully cognizant of reflective analysis of
necessity to weigh
why they are saying
strengths and
what they are saying;
weaknesses and to
oblivious of strengths
prioritize them.
and weaknesses
Vocabulary: uses
relevant concepts; uses
discipline-specific
concepts in analysis
and in providing a
solution; identifies
relevant concepts on
which the
problem/issue
depends; correctly
formulates the
problem/issue with
relevant concepts
Explicitly and
correctly uses relevant
concepts; explicitly
identifies the central
concepts involved in
the problem/issue; uses
appropriate terms in
analyzing and
responding to the
issue/problem;
writing/speaking is
scholarly—does not
use slang or profanity
and otherwise
inappropriate verbiage
Explicitly recognizes
that there are specific
relevant concepts but
does not correctly
explain them or
correctly use them in
analyzing and
responding to the
problem/issue;
misses some
important concepts
central to the
problem or issue;
writing or speaking is
not thoroughly
appropriate—some
slang, profanity, etc
are present
Judgment: draws a
conclusion based on
evidence; summarizes,
defends judgment
rendered by citing
evidence; shows
systematic grasp of
issue/problem;
recognizes evidence on
which judgment
depends; indicates
what would be needed
to make judgment
stronger; recognizes
weaknesses in
judgment
Explicitly states the
conclusion and the
evidence on which it is
based; explains why
this judgment is the
best fit and offers
evaluation of the
evidence as well;
clearly knows strengths
and weaknesses of the
position taken and
presents judgment in
light of this
knowledge; entire
response displays
systematic and logical
piecing together of the
solution offered
Explicitly states a
conclusion but has
not identified and/or
fully developed the
evidence for it;
judgment is offered
with little reflection
on the strengths and
weaknesses; does not
explain why this
judgment is best fit;
in general the
response is a bit
haphazard about
building a case for a
final judgment;
Might mention that
some concept is
relevant but does not
understand the
concept much less
use it productively in
addressing the
issue/problem;
generally discusses
problem as if no
special concepts
were at all relevant;
writes in a nonscholarly tone laced
with slang and
profanity and
otherwise
inappropriate
verbiage
Does not really come
to a final conclusion
but rather remains
wishy-washy or
otherwise vague
about conclusion that
follows from his or
her discussion of the
problem/issue;
discusses
problem/issue
without any sense of
what is evidence and
what conclusions it
points to; makes no
effort to build a case
for a solution
Rubric for General Education Outcome: Critical Thinking
[Circle the appropriate number; add any comments at bottom, if desired; do put student name and
course number in spaces provided.]
Meets Criterion
Meets Criterion
Does Not Meet
Fully
Minimally
Criterion
Criterion
Critical Perspective:
4
2
0
awareness of other
points of view, other
3
1
methods or
approaches to
problem or issue
Critical Analysis: able
4
2
0
to “connect dots”;
dissects the
problem/issue
1
3
coherently and is
systematic and logical
in discussing the
problem/issue
Critical Vocabulary:
4
2
0
uses relevant concepts
and thinks the
3
1
problem/issue through
with appropriate
terminology and
appropriate verbiage
Critical Judgment:
4
2
0
draws a conclusion
based on significant
3
1
weighing of the
evidence; presents
judgment in context
of knowing its
strengths and
weaknesses
Name:_______________________ Course # and section:___________ Score:_________
Comment: _______________________________________________________________
Appendix: Some Further Thoughts on How to Use the CT Rubric
This CT rubric was developed after having worked extensively with Richard
Paul’s approach to critical thinking. Paul conceives of critical thinking as
involving a basic set of criteria or standards that thinking must meet. He identifies
9 “general intellectual standards” which are applicable regardless of the discipline.
These nine are:
Clarity
Accuracy
Precision
Depth
Relevance
Logicalness
Significance
Breadth
Fairness
In devising our rubric, it was found desirable to condense these or to find
alternative criteria that would incorporate these standards. The rubric turned out to
involve four standards or criteria: critical perspective, critical analysis, critical
vocabulary, and critical judgment. It may be helpful to relate these four to Paul’s
nine. We might associate each of the four categories on the rubric with their
primary standards in Paul’s approach:
Critical Perspective: is a matter of fairness, breadth, depth, and relevance
Critical Analysis: is a matter of logicalness, significance, relevance, depth,
precision, accuracy, and clarity
Critical Vocabulary: is a matter of clarity, accuracy, precision, and relevance.
Critical Judgment: is a matter of logicalness, relevance, depth, breadth, clarity,
fairness, and significance.