Core Competencies: Critical Thinking Definition and Rubric Level of Competence

Skill Definition Examples High: Consistently does the following:

Acceptable: Frequently does the following:

Insufficient: Regularly does the following:

Interpretation: Categorizing Decoding Significance Clarifying Meaning

To comprehend and express the meaning or significance of a wide variety of experiences, situations, data, events, judgments, conventions, beliefs, rules, procedures or criteria.

• Recognize a problem and describe it without bias.

• Distinguish the main idea from subordinate ideas in a text.

• Construct a tentative categorization or way to organize something one is studying.

• Clarify what a chart or graph means. Identify an author’s theme or point of view.

Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Correctly categorizes/groups objects, identifies main ideas correctly and correctly identifies problems and issues.

Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Correctly categorizes/groups objects, identifies main ideas correctly.

Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Confuses groupings and categorizations, mistakes subordinate ideas for main ideas.

Analysis: Examining Ideas Detecting Arguments Analyzing Arguments

To identify the intended and actual inferential relationships among statements, questions, concepts, descriptions or other forms of representation intended to express beliefs, judgments, experiences, reasons, information or opinions.

• Identify the similarities and differences between two approaches to the solution of a problem.

• Decide what the main claim in a written passage is, determine the premises advanced, identify any unstated assumptions, and trace the reason the writer supports that claim.

• Sketch the relationship of sentences or paragraphs to each other and to the primary purpose of the article.

Identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Correctly distinguishes reasons from claims, is able to note major and minor differences and similarities and identifies key tacit assumptions.

Identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con. Correctly distinguishes reasons from claims, is able to note major and minor differences and similarities

Fails to identify strong, relevant counter-arguments. Confuses claims with the reasons offered in their support. Misses major differences or similarities

Evaluation: Assessing Claims Assessing Arguments

To assess the credibility of statements or other representation which are accounts or descriptions of a person’s perception, experience, situation, judgment, belief or opinion; and to assess the logical strength of the actual or intended inferential relationships among statements, descriptions, questions or other forms of representation.

• Determine an author’s credibility. • Judge whether a premise of a given

argument is justified or if two statements contradict each other.

• Compare the strengths and weaknesses of alternative interpretations and judge whether an argument’s conclusions follows either with certainty.

• Judge the logical strength of arguments based on hypothetical situations, and determine if additional information is necessary to strengthen an argument.

Thoughtfully evaluates major alternative points of view. Correctly distinguishes between well-reasoned vs poorly reasoned arguments. Correctly evaluates the credibility of sources and correctly judges the relative strength of a series of related arguments

Offers analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. Correctly distinguishes between well-reasoned vs poorly reasoned arguments. Correctly evaluates the credibility of sources.

Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Fails to distinguish between well-reasoned vs. poorly reasoned arguments. Is mislead by fallacious reasoning. Over estimates or underestimates the credibility of sources.

Students must demonstrate at least one of the six skills to fulfill the critical thinking competency.

Critical Thinking Rubric Rev 1/31/07, Page 2

Level of Competence

Skill Definition Examples High: Consistently does the following:

Acceptable: Frequently does the following:

Insufficient: Regularly does the following:

Inference: Querying Evidence Conjecturing

Alternatives Drawing Conclusions

To identify and secure elements needed to draw reasonable conclusions; to form conjectures and hypothesis; to consider relevant information and to educe the consequences flowing from data, statements, principles, evidence, judgments, beliefs, opinions, concepts, descriptions, questions or other forms of representation.

• Determine what background information it would be useful to have to support one’s opinion.

• See the implications of a position someone advocates. Construct meaning from the elements of a reading.

• Formulate an opinion by considering opposing views.

• Conduct an experiment and apply proper statistical methods to attempt or confirm or disconfirm an empirical hypothesis.

Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Correctly recognizes the need for additional information in order to draw warranted conclusions and is able to identify the kind of information needed or the additional options to consider.

Draws warranted, non-fallacious conclusions. Correctly recognizes the need for additional information in order to draw warranted conclusions.

Draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions.

Explanation: Stating Results Justifying Procedures Presenting Arguments

To state the results of one’s reasoning; to justify that reasoning in terms of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, and contextual considerations upon which one’s results were based; and to present one’s reasoning in the form of cogent arguments.

• Explain what one thinks and how one arrived at a judgment.

• State the reasons for one’s results, justify one’s procedures and arguments.

• Construct a chart organizing one’s findings or state research results describing the method and criteria used to achieve those results.

• Write a paper arguing a particular position. • Design a graph that represents the

subordinate and super-ordinate relationship among concepts or ideas.

• Cite the evidence that led one to reject or accept another author’s position.

Justifies key results and procedures, explains assumptions and reasons. Presents reasons and evidence in an organized, clear and comprehensive, and intelligible way.

Justifies some results or procedures, explains reasons. Presents reasons and evidence in an organized and intelligible way.

Justifies few results or procedures, seldom explains reasons. Does not present reasons or evidence in an organized way.

Self-Regulation: Self-Examination Self-Correction

Self-consciously to monitor one’s cognitive activities, the elements used in those activities, and the results educed, particularly by applying skills in analysis and evaluation to one’s own inferential judgments with a view toward questioning, confirming, validating, or correcting either one’s reasoning or one’s results.

• Apply critical thinking to oneself to improve on one’s previous opinions.

• Monitor and correct an interpretation. • Examine views with sensitivity to the

possible personal biases or self-interest in order to monitor how well one has comprehended something.

• Reconsider interpretation or judgment in view of further analysis of the facts of a case.

• Revise answers in view of errors or new discoveries made and revise one’s conclusions or work.

Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead. Open to new ideas, anticipates obvious problems and asks courageous questions about tough but important issues

Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead. Open to new ideas, anticipates obvious problems

Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions. Comes to conclusions too hastily or refuses to draw obvious conclusions. Is mistrustful of reasoning as a means to decision-making and problem-solving.

Adapted from: Facione, Peter A. and Facione, Noreen C., 1994 “The Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric” The California Academic Press Facione, Peter A. 2006. “Critical Thinking: What it is and why it counts” Insight Publishing. and “Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction: Executive Summary” from the American Philosophical Association’s Delphi Process