General Education Assessment
Reader Response Project
Rubric Field Test Matrix
12 February 2004
The following pages summarize a current draft of general education skills that are the focus of this general education
assessment. The initial target of this workgroup was to develop a rubric with three to five dimensions focused on general
education skills. The assessment organization was to use three of the dimensions to measure skills that would be
demonstrated in all responses. In addition to these general dimensions, each response is to be assessed on one of three
“ways of knowing” dimensions. These “ways of knowing” dimensions were distilled from generally recognized patterns of
thinking.
In this current draft, seven dimensions are listed. For each response, readers will evaluate the first three dimensions and
then select one of the ways of thinking dimensions as the criteria for a fourth evaluation.
Conceptual outline of general education skills targeted for assessment
1.
2.
3.
4.
Communication of Ideas
Information Literacy Skills
Synthesis / Critical Thinking Skills
Ways Of Thinking/Knowing
a. Quantitative, Empirical Thought
b. Rationality Based On Authority, Reasoning, Or Consequences
c. Intuitive/Reflective Thought
d. Multiple, mixed or no clear ways of thinking in use
1 of 9
1 - Communication of Ideas
A person with the skills in communication necessary for further growth as a lifespan learner and productive
member of society organizes her/his response to an open-question in an effective response demonstrating
competency in standard written English.
0
No written response that
could be evaluated,
incoherent, illegible, or
unintelligible.
1
a) No point or thesis/
tendency to list ideas
without synthesis
2
a) Vague, thesis/ idea
developed as bullet
points/ poor conclusion
b) no clear structure/ few
or no transitions or
connectors among
sentences and
paragraphs
b) Poor organization/
paragraphs unrelated to
thesis/ inadequate,
mechanical, transitions
between paragraphs/
nominal sentence
transitions/ redundancy
c) Problems with language
use at a basic level:
run-ons, fragments,
punctuation, word
forms, spelling
homonyms,
c) Awkward, but generally
readable/ most
sentence patterns
under control/ errors in
construction/ limited,
non-specific language/
few synonyms
3
a) Thesis present
b) general idea of the form
of an essay and of
paragraphs/ some
paragraphs do not
support thesis/
paragraph breaks, but
weak transitions
c) mixed sentence
constructions/ one or
two mistakes, but not
riddled with errors
4 (top)
a) Thesis explicitly
referenced/ conclusion
focuses on thesis and
extends it
b) well-organized, unified
paragraphs
c) mechanics and usage
very good/ figurative
language
Notes:
1. Evaluation of communication skills is far more complex than this single dimension accommodates. When some standards in a classification
are meet and others are not, a response should be classified based on a holistic appraisal. Even when a thesis is present, if rhetorical skills
are limited classification at a lower level is appropriate. However, when a response is well organized and generally well delivered, despite
specific rhetorical errors, a classification at a higher level is appropriate.
2. Although use of supporting detail is important in good communication, evaluation of that element of a response is reserved for the
“Information literacy skills” dimension of this rubric.
Reader Response – Rubric
12 February 2004
2 of 9
2 - Information literacy skills
An information literate person evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into
his/her knowledge base and value system.
The student demonstrates that she/he:
 Distinguishes between fact and fiction.
 Differentiates between relevant and irrelevant information
 Identifies the author’s purpose and point of view accurately.
 Identifies unsubstantiated statements.
 Identifies inconsistencies, errors and omissions.
 Identifies bias, stereotyping, or incorrect assumptions.
 Compares and contrasts different points of view properly,
 Include his/her original ideas.
0
1
2
Inability to understand or Does not provide or
Utilizes minimal supporting
analyze the reading/ text
misuses supporting details details or evidence
irrelevant to response/
Minimum development /
Less development /
little or no context,
overgeneralization; few or
insufficient explanation /
mention or reference to
no specific examples.
examples often too broad
author, quotation,
to be useful, no concrete
summary, paraphrase
Does not understand or
details.
analyze the reading/ no
mention or reference to
Understands author’s
author
purpose and point of view
but doesn’t refer to specific
No differentiation
points in the article
between writer’s and
author’s voices
3
Reasonable development /
examples and direct
reference to the article.
Summarizes the main
ideas of the article,
differentiating between
relevant and irrelevant
information, but simply
restating what the author
has said
4
Well-developed / good
examples, details /
quotations / direct
adequate reference to
reading or other specific
sources.
Synthesizes main ideas to
construct new concepts/
compares new knowledge
with prior/ may determine
whether the new
knowledge has an impact
on his or her values
system and take steps to
reconcile difference.
Notes:
Reader Response – Rubric
12 February 2004
3 of 9
3 - Synthesis and Critical Thinking Skill Patterns1
A person demonstrating competence in synthesis and critical thinking addresses cognitive complex issues using processes of problem and
resource identification, prioritizing alternative and recognizing conditionality then choosing a response.
InapproParaphrase
Mastery of
Transition
Mastery of
Transition
Mastery of
Transition
Mastery of
priate
current skill
current skill
current skill
current skill
Response
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Foundation: Knowledge
and Skills
Identify the Problem,
Relevant Information and
Uncertainties
Explore Interpretations
and Connections
Prioritize Alternatives
and Communicate
Conclusions
Integrate, Monitor, and
Refine Strategies for Readdressing the Problem
Proceeds as if goal is to
find the single, “correct”
answer.
Proceeds as if goal is to
stack up evidence and
information to support
conclusion
Proceeds as if goal is to
establish a detached,
balanced view of evidence
and information from
different points of view
Proceeds as if goal is to
come to a well-founded
conclusion based on
objective comparisons of
viable alternatives.
Proceeds as if goal is to
construct knowledge, to
move toward better
conclusion or grater
confidence in conclusions
as the problem is
addressed over time
A. Identify problem and
acknowledge reasons
for enduring
uncertainty and
absence of single
“correct” solution
B. Identify relevant
information and
uncertainties
embedded in the
information
C. Interpret information:
D. Organize information
in meaningful ways
that encompass
problem complexities.
E. After thorough
analysis, develop and
use reasonable
guidelines for
prioritizing factors to
consider and choosing
among solution
options.
F. Communicate
appropriately for a
given audience and
setting.
G. Acknowledge and
explain limitations of
endorsed solution.
H. Integrate skills into ongoing process for
generating and using
information to monitor
strategies and make
reasonable
modifications.
Primary Characteristics:


Repeat or paraphrase
information
Reason to single
“correct” solution
perform computations,
etc.
1)
Recognize and control
for own biases
2)
Articulate assumptions
and reasoning
associated with
alternative points of view
3) Qualitatively interpret
evidence from a variety
of points of view
Notes:
1
Based on Lynch, C.L., Wolcott, S.K. & Huber, G.E. (2001). Steps for Better Thinking Skill Patterns [On-line]. Available:
http://www.WolcottLynch.com.
Reader Response – Rubric
12 February 2004
4 of 9
Ways of Thinking/Knowing - Modality
The ways of thinking/knowing dimension of this rubric requires classification of a student’s response into one of four categories or ways of thinking,
and then evaluation of the facility with which that approach is utilized.
Classifications of way of thinking:
A. Quantitative, empirical thought and analysis
B. Authority based, logical premise rationality, consequences thought and analysis
C. Intuitive/Reflective thought
D. Multiple, mixed or no clear way of thinking (Use only when one of the prior ways of thinking can not be identified as the predominant
approach to considering an open ended question.)
Each of these ways of knowing is considered a rational, logical approach to considering an open-question in which both evidence and values are
considered. Although one discipline or another, one person of another may consider one of the ways of knowing as “superior” or better than an
other, for the purpose of general education each of the first three ways of knowing is considered equal.
Reader Response – Rubric
12 February 2004
5 of 9
4a - Quantitative / Empirical Thought
A person utilizing quantitative/empirical thinking as a way to address an open question bases their response in
processes of inquiry that apply a scientific method of analysis of empirical information using established
procedures including quantitative measurement and analysis that recognizes the tentative, probabilistic nature of
these methods to arrive at an evaluation of the choices.
0
No evidence of empirical rationally
1
2
3
Strengths
Strengths
Strengths
Weaknesses
Recognition of tentative nature of
knowledge.
Healthy, positive skepticism.
Limited to “Just the facts, Ma’am!”
perspective
Overly focused on definitions and
names.
Willingness to express own
conclusions as opposed to …
Recognition of bias in sources.
Comfort with tentative nature of
knowledge, while understanding
that evidence discriminates
between good ideas and bad
ideas.
Dichotomous thinking: expectation
of the “right” answer.
Realization of importance of
statistics, empirical measurement.
“Commonsense” and perceived
patterns trump evidence and
reason.
Weaknesses
Good understanding of the
meaning of evidence, grasp of
level of confidence.
Since all knowledge is tentative,
all ideas have equal merit; failure
to discriminate.
Sound logical reasoning, including
the ability to synthesize
conclusion for varied evidences.
Failure to understand the impact
of available evidence.
Recognition of personal bias and
attempt to compensate.
Poor reasoning skills; unable to
construct a logical argument or to
adequately consider evidence
contrary to own point of view or
current beliefs.
Good grasp of statistical thinking.
Dependence on authority (but
inability to distinguish useful
authority form inappropriate).
Difficulty recognizing personal
bias.
Weak statistical thinking skills.
Rejection of “common sense” test
of knowledge.
Good perspective on point of
view; able to reason from a variety
of positions.
Willing to change conclusion
based on new evidence.
Notes:
Reader Response – Rubric
12 February 2004
6 of 9
4b - Rationality based on Authority, Reasoning, or Consequences
A person utilizing rationally based on authority, reasoning or consequences as a way to address an open question bases
her/his response in processes of inquiry that apply established criteria including philosophical, ethical, and/or moral
standards, in a logically disciplined process to arrive at an evaluation of the choices.
1
2
3
0
No apparent utilization of
systematic reasoning
Implicit utilization of systematic
reasoning
Tentative explicit utilization of
systematic reasoning
Accomplished explicit
utilization of systematic
reasoning
Shows no apparent utilization of a
systematic approach to
considering a question.
Demonstrates use of some
systematic way of examining a
question without explicit
references to those systems.
Demonstrates an initial to minimal
commandment of a systematic
way of examining a question.
 Defines the question,
assumptions, and related
concepts.
 Identifies relevant criteria and
conditions – defines the rules
and/or sources of standards
for making a decision
consistent with the system.
 Considers the relevance,
sufficiency and reliability of
evidence used in addressing a
question.
 Explicitly applies the relevant
criteria and condition to the
evidence in a systematic
procedure and
 Reaches a conclusion.
Demonstrates consistent to
accomplished command of a
systematic way of examining a
question.
In addition to the points in the prior
skill level,
 Acknowledges the
consequences, implications
and variations appropriate to
examining a question utilizing
the selected system.
And/Or
Makes comparisons among
diverse systems and/or
approaches in considering the
same question.
Notes:
Reader Response – Rubric
12 February 2004
7 of 9
4c - Intuitive/Reflective Thought
A person utilizing intuitive and/or reflective thought as a way to address an open question bases their response in
processes of self-reflection that apply their experiences and the reported experiences of others in a reflective process to
arrive at an evaluation of the choices.
0
No apparent intuitive/reflective
thought
Shows no apparent utilization of
intuitive/reflective thought
Reflection in the response to the
question is absent.
No conclusion is apparent.
1
Makes an attempt to show
intuitive/reflective thought
A simple response to a question.
 Repeats the thesis and the
main points
 Summarizes.
 Repeat material stated
elsewhere.
 Used limited vocabulary.
 Uses trite clichés.
 Focuses on generalities.
2
Uses intuitive/reflective thought
Demonstrates limited
intuitive/reflective thought in
response to a question.
 Reflects on the question and
any related assumption,
concepts and criteria.
 Uses quotations or direct
paraphrase from the text as
evidence.
 Quotes a significant, but
common, source from outside
of the text. (exp. JFK,
Declaration of Independence)
 Suggests further action.
 Offers a point of significance.
 Shows an awareness of an
audience.
 Uses precise, descriptive,
sophisticated word choice.
 Conscious express of self
awareness.
 Uses analogies and
metaphors.
3
Accomplishes effective and
explicit intuitive/reflective thought
Effectively and explicitly responds
to a question with intuitive and
reflective thought.
In addition to the points in the
prior skill level,
 Calls the reader to action.
 Gives new knowledge made
by the writer that is garnered
from reflecting on the question
and answer.
 Offers speculation or a
warning on the subject…
“What if?”
 Asks provocative question
that lead to further thought.
 Acknowledges and/or
compares the consequences,
implications and variations of
responses to the question
and/or similar questions.
Notes:
Reader Response – Rubric
12 February 2004
8 of 9
4d – Multiple, mixed or no single way of thinking
A person utilizing used multiple ways of thinking to address an open question.
0
No apparent rational or logic of
thought
1
Makes an attempt to show rational
logical thought
Shows no apparent utilization of
rational logical thought.
No conclusion is apparent.
A simple response to a question.
 Repeats the thesis and the
main points
 Summarizes.
 Repeat material sated
elsewhere.
 Focuses on generalities.
Reader Response – Rubric
2
Uses rational logical thought
involving several of the way of
knowing
Demonstrates limited rational
logical thought in response to a
question.
 Reflects on the question and
any related assumption,
concepts and criteria.
 Uses quotations or direct
paraphrase from the text as
evidence.
 Quotes a significant, but
common, source from outside
of the text. (exp. JFK,
Declaration of Independence)
 Suggests further action.
 Offers a point of significance.
 Shows an awareness of an
audience.
 Uses precise, descriptive,
sophisticated word choice.
 Conscious express of self
awareness.
12 February 2004
3
Accomplishes effective and
explicit rational logical thought
from multiple perspectives
Effectively and explicitly responds
to a question with rational logical
thought that specifically
acknowledges the difference ways
of approaching consideration.
In addition to the points in the
prior skill level,
 Consciously applies specific,
labeled ways of thinking.
 Calls the reader to action.
 Gives new knowledge made
by the writer that is garnered
from reflecting on the question
and answer.
 Offers speculation or a
warning on the subject…
“What if?”
 Asks provocative question
that lead to further thought.
 Acknowledges and/or
compares the consequences,
implications and variations of
responses to the question
and/or similar questions.
9 of 9