Customized Rubric With Examples€¦ · Customized Rubric With Examples Version: October 2010 ... implementation process in search of additional information; provides audience with

1

Customized Rubric With Examples

Version: October 2010

Themes from Developmental Psychology: Critical thinking skills can be arrayed cognitively from less complex to more complex

Students must develop less complex skills before they can develop more complex skills

Most college students operate at cognitive levels that are too low for adequate critical

thinking performance

Critical thinking skills develop slowly (if they do develop)

Cross-curricular educational efforts and educational efforts over time are needed to give

students sufficient time and practice for development of critical thinking skills

Benefits of a Rubric Based on Levels of Cognitive

Development: Uses research-based criteria to sort critical thinking skills from less to more complex

Improve insights about students’ critical thinking strengths and weaknesses

Identify the ―next steps‖ in building student critical thinking skills

Provide students with more appropriate feedback for learning

Improve consistency of ratings across professors and assignments

Can establish learning goals based on the level of skills students are expected to achieve

Susan K. Wolcott WolcottLynch Associates

Bellevue, WA 98008

425-747-9867

Cell: 425-830-3962

Email: [email protected]

Web site: www.WolcottLynch.com

2

Steps for Better Thinking Performance Patterns Less Complex Performance Patterns More Complex Performance Patterns

“Confused Fact-Finder”

Performance Pattern 0

Step 1, 2, 3, & 4 skills weak

“Biased Jumper”


Step 2, 3, & 4 skills weak

“Perpetual Analyzer”


Step 3 & 4 skills weak

“Pragmatic Performer”


Step 4 skills weak

“Strategic Re-Visioner”


Strategically Integrates

Step 1, 2, & 3 skills

Overall Problem Approach:

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 conclusions or greater

confidence in conclusions as the

problem is addressed over time

Common Weaknesses:

Fails to realistically perceive

uncertainties/ambiguities

Does not seem to ―get it‖;

recasts open-ended problem to

one having a single ―correct‖

answer

Insists that professors,

textbooks, or other experts

should provide ―correct‖

answer

Expresses confusion or futility

Uses illogical/contradictory

arguments

Cannot evaluate or

appropriately apply evidence

Inappropriately cites textbook,

―facts,‖ or definitions

Concludes based on

unexamined authorities' views

or what ―feels right"

Major Improvements Over

Performance Pattern 0:

Acknowledges existence of

enduring uncertainties and the

viability of multiple

perspectives

Begins to use evidence

logically to support

conclusions

Common Weaknesses:

Jumps to conclusions

Stacks up evidence

quantitatively to support own

view and ignores contrary

information

Equates unsupported personal

opinion with other forms of

evidence

Inept at breaking problem

down and understanding

multiple perspectives

Insists that all opinions are

equally valid, but ignores or

discounts other opinions

Views experts as being

opinionated or as trying to

subject others to their personal

beliefs



Presents coherent and balanced

description of a problem and

the larger context in which it is

found

Identifies issues, assumptions,

and biases associated with

multiple perspectives

Attempts to control own biases

Logically and qualitatively

evaluates evidence from

different viewpoints

Common Weaknesses:

Unable to establish priorities

for judging across alternatives

Reluctant to select and defend

a single overall solution as

most viable, or provides

inadequate support for solution

Writes overly long paper in

attempt to demonstrate all

aspects of analysis (problems

with prioritizing)

Jeopardizes class discussions

by getting stuck on issues such

as definitions



After thorough exploration,

consciously prioritizes issues

and information

Articulates well-founded

support for choosing one

solution while objectively

considering other viable

options

Conclusion based on

qualitative evaluation of

experts’ positions or situational

pragmatics

Effectively incorporates others

in the decision process and/or

implementation

Common Weaknesses:

Conclusion doesn’t give

sufficient attention to long-

term, strategic issues

Inadequately identifies and

addresses solution limitations

and ―next steps‖



Prioritizes and addresses

limitations effectively

Interprets and re-interprets

bodies of information

systematically over time as

new information becomes

available

Exhibits a strategic, long-term

vision

Spontaneously considers

possible ways to generate new

information about the problem

Common Weaknesses:

Not applicable

2006 Susan K. Wolcott. All rights reserved. Materials herein may be reproduced within the context of educational practice or classroom education, provided that reproduced materials are not in any way directly offered

for sale or profit. Please cite this source: Wolcott, S. K. (January 26, 2006). Steps for Better Thinking Performance Patterns [On-line]. Available: http://www.WolcottLynch.com. Based in part on information from

Reflective Judgment Scoring Manual With Examples (1985/1996) by K. S. Kitchener & P. M. King. Grounded in dynamic skill theory (Fischer & Bidell, 1998).

http://www.wolcottlynch.com/

3

Steps for Better Thinking Rubric

Steps for Better Thinking

SKILLS

Less Complex Performance Patterns More Complex Performance Patterns "Confused Fact Finder" Performance Pattern 0—How performance might appear when Step 1, 2, 3, and 4 skills are weak

"Biased Jumper" Performance Pattern 1—-How performance might appear when Step 1 skills are adequate, but Step 2, 3, and 4 skills are weak

"Perpetual Analyzer" Performance Pattern 2—-How performance might appear when Step 1 and 2 skills are adequate, but Step 3 and 4 skills are weak

"Pragmatic Performer" Performance Pattern 3—-How performance might appear when Step 1, 2, and 3 skills are adequate, but Step 4 skills are weak

"Strategic Re-Visioner" Performance Pattern 4—-How performance might appear when one has strong Step 1, 2, 3, and 4 skills

Step 1: IDENTIFY A—Identify and use relevant information B—Articulate uncertainties

A0—Uses very limited information; primarily "facts," definitions, or expert opinions

B0—Either denies uncertainty OR attributes uncertainty to temporary lack of information or to own lack of knowledge

A1—Uses limited information, primarily evidence and information supporting own conclusion*

B1—Identifies at least one reason for significant and enduring uncertainty*

A2—Uses a range of carefully evaluated, relevant information

B2—Articulates complexities related to uncertainties and the relationships among different sources of uncertainty

A3—Uses a range of carefully evaluated, relevant information, including alternative criteria for judging among solutions

B3—Exhibits complex awareness of relative importance of different sources of uncertainties

A4—Same as A3 PLUS includes viable strategies for GENERATING new information to address limitations

B4—Exhibits complex awareness of ways to minimize uncertainties in coherent, on-going process of inquiry

Step 2: EXPLORE C—Integrate multiple perspectives and clarify assumptions D—Qualitatively interpret information and create a meaningful organization

C0—Portrays perspectives and information dichotomously, e.g., right/wrong, good/bad, smart/stupid

D0—Does not acknowledge interpretation of information; uses contradictory or illogical arguments; lacks organization

C1—Acknowledges more than one potential solution, approach, or viewpoint; does not acknowledge own assumptions or biases

D1—Interprets information superficially as either supporting or not supporting a point of view; ignores relevant information that disagrees with own position; fails to sufficiently break down the problem

C2—Interprets information from multiple viewpoints; identifies and evaluates assumptions; attempts to control own biases*

D2—Objectively analyzes quality of information; Organizes information and concepts into viable framework for exploring realistic complexities of the problem*

C3—Evaluates information using general principles that allow comparisons across viewpoints; adequately justifies assumptions

D3—Focuses analyses on the most important information based on reasonable assumptions about relative importance; organizes information using criteria that apply across different viewpoints and allow for qualitative comparisons

C4—Same as C3 PLUS argues convincingly using a complex, coherent discussion of own perspective, including strengths and limitations

D4—Same as D3 PLUS systematically reinterprets evidence as new information is generated over time OR describes process that could be used to systematically reinterpret evidence

Step 3: PRIORITIZE E—Use guidelines or principles to judge objectively across the various options F—Implement and communicate conclusions for the setting and audience

E0—Fails to reason logically from evidence to conclusions; relies primary on unexamined prior beliefs, clichés, or an expert opinion

F0—Creates illogical implementation plan; uses poor or inconsistent communication; does not appear to recognize existence of an audience

E1—Provides little evaluation of alternatives; offers partially reasoned conclusions; uses superficially understood evidence and information in support of beliefs

F1—Fails to adequately address alternative viewpoints in implementation plans and communications; provides insufficient information or motivation for audience to adequately understand alternatives and complexity

E2—Uses evidence to reason logically within a given perspective, but unable to establish criteria that apply across alternatives to reach a well-founded conclusion OR unable to reach a conclusion in light of reasonable alternatives and/or uncertainties

F2—Establishes overly complicated Implementation plans OR delays implementation process in search of additional information; provides audience with too much information (unable to adequately prioritize)

E3—Uses well-founded, overarching guidelines or principles to objectively compare and choose among alternative solutions; provides reasonable and substantive justification for assumptions and choices in light of other options*

F3—Focuses on pragmatic issues in implementation plans; provides appropriate information and motivation, prioritized for the setting and audience*

E4—Articulates how a systematic process of critical inquiry was used to build solution; identifies how analysis and criteria can be refined, leading to better solutions or greater confidence over time

F4—Implementation plans address current as well as long-term issues; provides appropriate information and motivation, prioritized for the setting and audience, to engage others over time

Step 4: ENVISION G—Acknowledge and monitor solution limitations through next steps H—Overall approach to the problem

G0—Does not acknowledge significant limitations beyond temporary uncertainty; next steps articulated as finding the “right” answer (often by experts)

H0—Proceeds as if goal is to find the single, "correct" answer

G1—Acknowledges at least one limitation or reason for significant and enduring uncertainty; if prompted, next steps generally address gathering more information

H1—Proceeds as if goal is to stack up evidence and information to support own conclusion

G2—Articulates connections among underlying contributors to limitations; articulates next steps as gathering more information and looking at problem more complexly and/or thoroughly

H2—Proceeds as if goal is to establish an unbiased, balanced view of evidence and information from different points of view

G3—Adequately describes relative importance of solution limitations when compared to other viable options; next steps pragmatic with focus on efficiently GATHERING more information to address significant limitations over time

H3—Proceeds as if goal is to come to a well-founded conclusion based on objective consideration of priorities across viable alternatives

G4—Identifies limitations as in G3; as next steps, suggests viable processes for strategically GENERATING new information to aid in addressing significant limitations over time*

H4—Proceeds as if goal is to strategically construct knowledge, to move toward better conclusions or greater confidence in conclusions as the problem is addressed over time*

2006, Susan K. Wolcott. All rights reserved. Materials herein may be reproduced within the context of educational practice or classroom education, provided that reproduced materials are not in any way directly offered

for sale or profit. Please cite this source: Wolcott, S. K. (February 9, 2006). Steps for Better Thinking Rubric [On-line]. Available: http://www.WolcottLynch.com. Based in part on information from Reflective Judgment Scoring Manual With Examples (1985/1996) by K. S. Kitchener & P. M. King. Grounded in dynamic skill theory (Fischer & Bidell, 1998).

* Shaded cells represent emergence of minimal skills in each step. Performance descriptions to the left of a shaded cell characterize skill weaknesses. Performance descriptions to the right of a shaded cell characterize skill strengths.


4

Steps for Better Thinking Competency Rubric


“Confused Fact Finder”


“Biased Jumper”


“Perpetual Analyzer”


“Pragmatic Performer”


“Strategic Revisioner”

Ste

p 1

Skil

ls Identify relevant

information

Circle ALL that apply

Identifies facts, definitions,

and/or experts’ opinions.

Identifies information1 that is

relevant to the problem

Explores a wide range of relevant

information1

Focuses on the most important

relevant information1

Develops viable strategies for

generating important relevant

information1 over time

Recognize and address uncertainties2


Identifies at least one reason for temporary uncertainty2

Identifies at least one reason for significant and permanent

uncertainty2

Addresses significant and permanent uncertainties2 when interpreting

information

Identifies and discusses the significance of the most important

uncertainties2

Develops viable strategies for minimizing important uncertainties2

over time

Ste

p 3

Skil

ls

Use guidelines or

principles to judge

objectively across options


Avoids reaching a biased conclusion Maintains objectivity while

establishing reasonable priorities for

reaching a well-founded conclusion

Uses a systematic process of critical

inquiry to build a solution;

Articulates how problem solving approach and criteria can be refined,

leading to better solutions or greater confidence over time

Communicate and

implement

conclusions


Appropriately tailors communication

or implementation plans to the

setting and audience

Provides appropriate information to

motivate and engage others in long-

term strategies

Ste

p 4

Skil

ls

Address solution

limitations


Focuses on most efficient ways to

address limitations or to gather

additional information

Articulates solution limitations as a

natural part of addressing open-

ended problems

Engage in continuous

improvement Circle ALL that apply

Identifies uncertainties and

limitations as opportunities for

continuous improvement; Engages in lifelong learning

Overall Approach

to the Problem Circle ONLY ONE

Proceeds as if goal is to find the

single, "correct" answer

Proceeds as if goal is to stack up

evidence and information to support own conclusion

Proceeds as if goal is to establish an

unbiased, 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 consideration of priorities

across viable alternatives

Proceeds as if goal is to strategically

construct knowledge, to move toward better conclusions or greater

confidence in conclusions as the

problem is addressed over time

1 Information can take many forms, including facts, descriptions, definitions, arguments, opinions, ideas, claims, theories, concepts, observations, research findings, values, perceptions, beliefs, influences, effects, and so on.

Information can be obtained in many ways such as reading, seeing, hearing, touching, feeling, experiencing, interacting, thinking, etc. 2 Uncertainties can relate to many aspects of the problem, including the problem definition, availability of solution alternatives, quality and interpretation of information, effects of alternatives, priorities and values of the decision maker and others, and so on. Temporary uncertainties relate to conditions that will become known in the future (e.g., experts will find the answer, information will become available, or effects will be knowable). 3 Perspectives can relate to any type of grouping that is meaningful to the problem, such as categories of people, cultures, societies, roles, races, genders, hierarchies, theories, concepts, ideas, beliefs, attitudes, physical

locations, time, disciplines, values, emotions, and so on. 4 Assumptions are hypotheses, suppositions, conjectures, assertions, presumptions, beliefs, or premises that are taken for granted or that lie behind an argument. Assumptions are made because of uncertainties; the ―truth‖

cannot be known or proven. Some assumptions are better than others. Better assumptions are more reasonable, logical, comprehensive, plausible, likely, rational, impartial, objective, justified, credible, and/or believable.

2006 Susan K. Wolcott. All rights reserved. Materials herein may be reproduced within the context of educational practice or classroom education, provided that reproduced materials are not in any way directly offered for sale or profit. Please cite this source: Wolcott, S. K. (February 9, 2006). Steps for Better Thinking Competency Rubric [On-line]. Available: http://www.WolcottLynch.com. Based in part on information from Reflective

Judgment Scoring Manual With Examples (1985/1996) by K. S. Kitchener & P. M. King. Grounded in dynamic skill theory (Fischer & Bidell, 1998).

Ste

p 2

Skil

ls

Integrate multiple

perspectives3 and

clarify assumptions4


Acknowledges more than one

potential solution, approach, or

viewpoint

Analyzes information from multiple

perspectives,3 including

assumptions4 and alternative objectives

Provides reasonable and substantive

justification for assumptions4 used in

analysis

Argues convincingly using a

complex, coherent discussion of own

perspective; Articulates strengths and weaknesses of position

Interpret and

organize information


Uses evidence logically to support a

point of view; Correctly applies

concepts/theories/techniques

Qualitatively interprets information

and develops meaningful categories

for analysis

Preserves problem complexity, but

emphasizes the most important

and/or most relevant and reliable information

Systematically re-interprets

information as circumstances change

or new information becomes available


5

One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Create a Customized Critical Thinking Rubric (version 10/27/2010)

PURPOSE: The purpose of this document is to help you develop a customized critical thinking rubric. You might wish to develop a customized rubric because

existing rubrics might:

Not address the specific critical thinking skills you would like to assess

Include more performance levels than needed, given the skills of your students and the objectives of your course/program/institution

Use language that is inconsistent with your discipline

CHOOSE ROW(S): The table on the following pages includes rows for a variety of potential critical thinking skills. Choose a subset of the rows corresponding

to the skills you would like to assess (e.g., based on the skills called for in an assignment or the learning objectives of your program or institution). For a

classroom rubric, it is generally best to choose 3 to 7 rows that will fit on a single page.

CHOOSE NUMBER OF COLUMNS: The columns on the following pages correspond to Steps for Better Thinking performance patterns 0 through 4, which

are based on the skills exhibited at stages 3 through 7 of King & Kitchener’s reflective judgment model. (For more details about the performance patterns, see the

materials available under Educator Resources at www.WolcottLynch.com.) For assessing undergraduate student work, it is usually sufficient for a rubric to

include only performance patterns 0 through 2 or performance patterns 0 through 3. For graduate student work, you may wish to use only performance patterns 0

through 3 or all five patterns.

TITLE THE COLUMNS: You might want to re-label the columns in your rubric. For example, labels for a 3-column rubric might be ―Weak, Average, and

Very Good,‖ or ―Limited, Developing, and Advanced.‖

MODIFY TERMINOLOGY: If desired, modify the terminology in the rubric to match the language used in your course/discipline/institution. However, take

care to ensure that the wording changes do not alter the complexity of thinking described within each column of the rubric.

PROVIDE DEFINITIONS: Consider providing your students with definitions of key terms used in the rubric. See the last page of this document for ideas.

ADD CITATION: Provide a citation to this document (e.g., at the bottom of your rubric): Developed from Wolcott, S. K., October 31, 2006, One Size Doesn’t

Fit All: Create a Customized Critical Thinking Rubric, Available at www.WolcottLynch.com.

LOOK FOR NEW IDEAS: Over time, additions and changes will be made to this document. Be sure to check for the newest version under ―Educator

Resources‖ at www.WolcottLynch.com.

Thanks to the many educators who have contributed to the content in this document, especially Charlene Grey at Pennsylvania Campus Compact; Jerry Stonewater

and his colleagues at Miami University; JoAnn Carter-Wells, Kathryn Angus, and their colleagues in the Reading Department at California State University-

Fullerton; and Dasaratha Rama at Florida International University.

6

Performance Pattern 0 Performance Pattern 1 Performance Pattern 2 Performance Pattern 3 Performance Pattern 4 Overall approach to the

problem/question

Attempts to find the single

"correct" answer to open-

ended questions/problems

Appears to begin with

conclusion and then stack up

evidence/arguments to

support it

Appears to perform

comprehensive and objective

analyses from different

viewpoints, but unable to

reach or strongly defend

conclusions

Appears to develop well-

founded conclusions based on

comprehensive and objective

comparison of viable

alternatives

Proceeds as if goal is to

construct knowledge, to move

toward better conclusions or

greater confidence in

conclusions as the problem is

addressed over time

Identifies and summarizes the

problem/question in readings

or other sources of

information

Does not identify and

summarize the problem, or

identifies an inappropriate

problem

Identifies the main problem;

but does not identify

subsidiary, embedded, or

implicit aspects of the

problem

Clearly identifies the main

problem and subsidiary,

embedded, or implicit aspects

of the problem

In addition to previous level,

emphasizes and states criteria

for identifying the most

important aspects of the

problem


anticipates future problems

and identifies issues arising

from current limitations

Identifies and addresses

uncertainties (i.e., reasons

why the problem is open-

ended)

Ignores uncertainty, or

attributes uncertainty to

temporary lack of information

or to own lack of knowledge

Identifies at least one reason

for significant and permanent

uncertainty, but does not

integrate uncertainties into

analysis

Addresses significant and

permanent uncertainties when

interpreting and analyzing

information

Identifies and discusses the

significance of the most

important uncertainties


minimizing the most

important uncertainties over

time

Identifies information/

evidence that is relevant to the

problem

Identifies irrelevant

information

Identifies at least some

information that is relevant to

the problem

Explores a wide range of

relevant information


relevant information


generating important relevant

information over time

Clarify the facts, concepts,

evidence and other forms of

support for a position

Provides very limited support

for OWN thesis, primarily

unexamined prior beliefs,

clichés, expert opinions, or

quotes; Fails to acknowledge

and/or provide support for

thesis OTHER THAN OWN if

viewed as ―incorrect‖

Explains support for OWN

thesis, but uses superficially

understood evidence; Fails to

acknowledge and/or provide

support for thesis OTHER

THAN OWN, or provides less

compelling evidence and then

discounts it

Investigates a range of

evidence supporting multiple

viewpoints; Uses carefully

evaluated evidence to reason

logically for a GIVEN thesis;

Provides inadequate support

for OWN thesis in light of

reasonable alternatives and/or

uncertainties


relevant evidence and

investigates evidence

supporting multiple

viewpoints; Uses carefully

evaluated evidence to reason

logically in support of own

thesis; provides reasonable and

substantive justification for

interpretations

Articulates how a systematic

process of critical inquiry was

used to build a position

Clarifies and analyzes the

information/evidence

supporting OWN

position/thesis

Provides very limited support,

primarily unexamined prior

beliefs, clichés, expert

opinions, or quotes

Provides support, but uses

superficially understood

evidence

Explores support for multiple

viewpoints, but fails to clearly

identify or provide adequate

support for own

position/thesis

Uses carefully evaluated

evidence to reason logically in

support of position/ thesis



used to build position/thesis

Clarifies and analyzes the


supporting a position/ thesis

with which one disagrees

Fails to acknowledge and/or

provide support; characterizes

other positions as incorrect or

wrong


provide support, or provides

limited support and then

discounts it

Investigates a range of

evidence supporting a given

position


relevant evidence for

evaluating another position



or can be used to evaluate

another position

Identifies and explores


supporting multiple

viewpoints (or solutions,

approaches, perspectives)

Portrays viewpoints

dichotomously, e.g.,

right/wrong, good/bad,

smart/stupid

Acknowledges more than one

potential viewpoint, but

provides superficial analyses

Explores arguments and


viewpoints

Evaluates information using

general principles that allow

comparisons across

viewpoints


articulates a systematic

process for evaluating

viewpoints over time

7

Performance Pattern 0 Performance Pattern 1 Performance Pattern 2 Performance Pattern 3 Performance Pattern 4 Evaluate the quality (i.e., the

relevance, reliability, and

sufficiency) of

evidence/support for a

position

Repeats evidence or other

forms of support from

authoritative sources, taking it

as truth

Superficially interprets

evidence as either supporting

or not supporting a position;

equates unsupported personal


evidence; focuses on quantity

rather than quality of evidence

Evaluates the quality of

evidence, addressing strengths,

weaknesses, and context of the

problem


emphasizes the highest quality

evidence


develops viable strategies for

addressing important

limitations of evidence over

time

Evaluate similarities and

differences in points of view

Focuses on definitions or

descriptions OR describes

alternative viewpoints as right

and wrong

Provides superficial

comparison; focuses primarily

on own agreement or

disagreement

Provides accurate and detailed

assessment of similarities and

differences

In addition to Level 2:

Develops new insights based

on complex comparisons of

multiple viewpoints



gaining new knowledge to

more clearly identify

similarities and differences

Compare and contrast two

things, ideas, theories, or

points of view

Focuses on definitions or

descriptions OR describes

ideas, theories, or points of

view as right and wrong


comparison; focuses primarily

on own agreement or

disagreement with ideas,

theories, or points of view

Provides accurate and detailed

assessment of similarities and

differences


Discusses whether the

similarities or the differences

are more important in a given

context



gaining new knowledge to

more clearly identify

similarities and differences

Identifies and evaluates key

assumptions

Does not acknowledge

assumptions; if explicitly

asked to address assumptions,

responds inappropriately (e.g.,

provides definition or asserts a

―correct‖ answer)




focuses on others’

assumptions, OR identifies

some assumptions but fails to

analyze them, OR provides

superficial analysis of

assumptions

Identifies assumptions related

to multiple perspectives;

evaluates the reasonableness

of assumptions


addresses the most important

or critical assumptions


develops strategies for

addressing limitations related

to assumptions over time

Monitor one's own

comprehension and apply

various strategies to clarify

one's own thoughts and

actions

Equates learning with knowing

the correct solution; Fails to

recognize own role in

comprehension and thoughts

other than simplistic aspects

(e.g., time spent studying)

Fails to recognize qualitative

differences in learning effort or

performance; equates learning

with ―doing the work‖; Ignores

or seems discouraged by

information suggesting that

own learning approach is

inadequate

Considers a wide range of

learning strategies; Recognizes

qualitative differences in effort

and performance; Evaluates

the quality of learning

strategies in relation to own

preferences and skills

In addition to Level 2: Views

learning as a process that can

be improved strategically over

time


Spontaneously addresses ways

to improve learning or

performance

Identifies and considers the

influence of the context

(including audience) on the

issue

Does not address context

beyond dichotomous

characterizations such as


smart/stupid

Acknowledges the existence

of different contexts, but

focuses on context in support

of own opinion

Identifies and considers the

influence of context when

analyzing perspectives and

data/evidence

Analyzes the issue with a

clear sense of scope and

context, including an

assessment of the audience of

the analysis

Identifies and addresses long-

term considerations related to

the scope, context, and

audience

Identifies and evaluates

implications and

consequences of alternatives

Does not address implications

or consequences beyond

dichotomous characterizations

such as right/wrong,

good/bad, smart/stupid

Considers implications and

consequences only

superficially; ignores negative

consequences of own position

Analyzes implications and

consequences for multiple

alternative


establishes criteria to

prioritize implications and

consequences across

alternatives


identifies processes for

addressing implications and

consequences over time

8

Performance Pattern 0 Performance Pattern 1 Performance Pattern 2 Performance Pattern 3 Performance Pattern 4 Clearly presents and supports

conclusions

Provides facts, definitions, or

other ―authoritative‖

information that mask as

conclusions instead of own

conclusion

Clearly states conclusions and

reasons, but limited to

supporting primarily one

perspective

Reluctant to select and defend

a single overall conclusion in

light of viable alternatives;

may provide conclusion with

inadequate support

Articulates criteria that apply

across viable alternatives to

reach well-founded

conclusions


articulates how problem

solving approach and criteria

can be refined, leading to

better solutions or greater

confidence over time

Clearly organizes and presents

information

Makes contradictory or

illogical statements; lacks

organization

Clearly presents own

arguments, but fails to

sufficiently break down the

problem

Organizes information and

concepts into viable

framework for exploring

realistic complexities of the

problem

Organizes information using

criteria that allow for

qualitative comparisons across

viewpoints/ alternatives


describes process for

systematically reinterpreting

evidence and/or solutions over

time

Identifies limitations of

position/thesis and establishes

plans for addressing those

limitations


significant limitations beyond

temporary uncertainty; next

steps articulated as finding the

―right‖ answer (often by

experts)

Acknowledges at least one

limitation or reason for

significant and enduring

uncertainty; if prompted, next

steps generally address

gathering more information

Articulates connections

among underlying

contributors to limitations;

articulates next steps as

gathering more information

and looking at problem more

complexly and/or thoroughly

Adequately describes relative

importance of solution

limitations when compared to

other viable options; next

steps focus on efficiently

gathering more information to

address significant limitations


identifies viable processes for

strategically generating new

information/knowledge to aid

in addressing significant

limitations over time

Establishes implementation

plans for recommended

solution

Ignores implementation or

creates illogical

implementation plan

Fails to adequately address

alternative viewpoints in

implementation plans

Establishes overly

complicated implementation

plans OR delays

implementation process in

search of additional

information

Develops implementation

plans that address multiple

issues and viewpoints; focuses

on pragmatic issues

Develops implementation

plans that address multiple

issues and viewpoints;

addresses current as well as

long-term issues

Adapts communication for the

setting and audience

Does not appear to recognize

existence of an audience

Provides insufficient

information or motivation for

audience to adequately

understand alternatives and

complexity

Provides audience with too

much information (unable to

adequately prioritize)

Uses communication that is

appropriately designed for the

setting and audience (e.g.,

objective tone, understandable

terminology, appropriate

detail, anticipates audience

needs/questions)


encourages others address

long-term issues and concerns

Identifies and controls for

own biases


existence of bias

Acknowledges the existence

of potential biases, but does

not recognize bias in own

analysis or conclusions;

makes comments that appear

to lack objectivity (e.g., uses

pejorative language when

referring to others’ arguments)

Identifies and describes

methods to control for own

biases; uses objective tone by

avoiding biased language


identifies and addresses the

most important sources of

potential bias


describes process for

systematically identifying and

reducing bias over time

Use reflection to revise

interpretations and

conclusions

Expresses confusion about

need to reflect; focuses on

correctness of position; revises

conclusion based on learning

―correct‖ information

Exhibits overconfidence in

own performance; focuses

primarily on reinforcing

original position, or changes

position due to concrete

evidence that another

alternative is better

Explores alternative

interpretations of evidence

and/or alternative viewpoints;

additional analyses may reduce

ability to strongly support a

single position; may be overly

self-critical

Acknowledges limitations;

reevaluates interpretations and

conclusions when prompted;

does not automatically engage

in reflection

Systematically reevaluates

interpretations and

conclusions to address

limitations, consider new

circumstances, reach a better

solution, or achieve greater

confidence

9

Performance Pattern 0 Performance Pattern 1 Performance Pattern 2 Performance Pattern 3 Performance Pattern 4 Paul-Elder Element of

Thought:*

Clarifies Purpose

States no purpose, recites

purpose as given, or states

purpose in terms of finding the

single, ―correct‖ answer

States purpose without careful

thought, based on initial

understanding of the task at

hand (e.g. to offer a personal

opinion/solution or to achieve

a goal that might or might not

be salient)

States purpose based on

careful study of the agenda and

task at hand, but does not

distinguish between central

and peripheral goal(s),

objective(s), function(s),

motive(s), or intention(s)

Clearly states a realistic

purpose based on careful study

of the agenda and task at hand,

focusing on central/

significant/ most important

goal(s), objective(s),

function(s), motive(s), or

intention(s)

In addition to Pattern 3:

Monitors progress and

refines understanding of the

purpose over time

Seeks ways to generate new

knowledge about the purpose

Paul-Elder Element of

Thought:*

States the Question

Does not distinguish

questions that have definitive

answers from those that are a

matter of opinion (i.e.,

assumes that all questions

have definitive answers)

States no question or recites

question as given

Distinguishes questions that

have definitive answers from

those that are a matter of

opinion

States question without

careful thought based on

initial understanding of the

problem or issue

Distinguishes questions that

have definitive answers from

those that are a matter of

opinion or that require

multiple viewpoints

Considers alternative ways to

express the

question/problem, identifies

embedded issues, and breaks

the question into sub-

questions

States the question at issue

clearly and precisely in a

way that productively guides

thinking

Focuses on central/

significant/ most important

embedded issues and sub-

questions


Anticipates questions that

may arise in the future

Identifies issues arising from

current limitations

Describes process for


the question and issues over

time


Thought:*

Gathers Information

Uses very limited

information; primarily

"facts," definitions, or expert

opinions

Cites irrelevant information

Uses limited information,

primarily evidence and

arguments supporting own

position

Makes claims that are not

supported by sufficient data

Uses a range of carefully

evaluated, relevant

information that supports

multiple viewpoints

Objectively explores the

quality and sufficiency of

information (quality includes

clarity, accuracy, and

relevancy)

Uses a sufficient range of

carefully evaluated, relevant

information, including

alternative criteria for

judging among solutions/

viewpoints

Emphasizes high-quality

information that is relevant

to central questions/issues


Develops viable strategies

for generating new or higher-

quality information to

address limitations


Thought:*

Makes Inferences


interpretation or inference

beyond finding the ―correct‖

answer or solution

Fails to reason logically from

evidence to conclusions;

relies primarily on


clichés, or an expert opinion

Interprets information

superficially as either

supporting or not supporting

a point of view; does not

acknowledge assumptions

Provides little evaluation of

alternatives; offers partially

reasoned conclusions; uses

superficially understood

evidence and information to

support own opinion


plausible and logical

inferences that can be made

from available evidence

(including assumptions

underlying inferences)

Uses evidence to reason

logically within a given

perspective, but unable to

establish criteria that apply

across alternatives to reach a

well-founded conclusion OR

unable to reach a conclusion

in light of reasonable

alternatives and/or

uncertainties

Makes reasonable, well-

founded inferences from

available information and

provides reasonable and


assumptions

Reaches logical and

appropriate conclusions

using general principles that

allow comparisons across

alternatives (i.e., establishes

the best possible conclusion

using general principles)


Systematically reinterprets

evidence as new information

is generated over time OR

describes process that could

be used to systematically

reinterpret evidence


process of critical inquiry

was used to build conclusion/

solution, including strengths

and limitations

10

Performance Pattern 0 Performance Pattern 1 Performance Pattern 2 Performance Pattern 3 Performance Pattern 4 Paul-Elder Element of

Thought:*

Clarifies Concepts

Does not apply concepts

(ideas, theories, laws,

principles, or hypotheses)

beyond reciting definitions

May identify irrelevant

concepts

Applies relevant concepts

superficially; may not

explicitly identify concepts

used

Ignores relevant concepts or

interpretations of concepts

that disagree with own

position

Accurately and rigorously

applies relevant concepts to

gain a deeper understanding

of the problem

Considers alternative

concepts or alternative

existing definitions of

concepts

Identifies and applies the

most important concepts and

definitions of concepts for a

deep understanding of and

realistic solution to the

problem

Clearly explains key

concepts and their

implications


Generates new concepts or

new definitions of concepts

to address limitations OR

develops viable strategies for

generating new concepts or

new definitions of concepts


Thought:*

Justifies Assumptions




responds inappropriately (e.g.,

provides definition or asserts a

―correct‖ answer




focuses on others’

assumptions, OR identifies

some assumptions but fails to

analyze them, OR provides

superficial analysis of

assumptions

Identifies assumptions and

explains their relationship to

concepts, viewpoints,

alternatives, etc.

Analyzes the strengths and

weaknesses of assumptions,

including the availability and

quality of supporting

evidence


Provides reasonable

justification for choice of

assumptions using evidence

when possible

Explains how assumptions

shape the conclusion/

solution


Develops strategies for

addressing limitations related

to assumptions


Thought:*

Examines Implications and

Consequences

Does not address implications

or consequences; portrays

alternatives/viewpoints

dichotomously (e.g., right/

wrong, good/bad, smart/stupid)

Identifies limited implications

and consequences, focusing

primarily on the advantages of

own position

Explores the implications of

evidence, viewpoints, etc. to

gain a deeper understanding

of the problem

Analyzes the advantages and

disadvantages (i.e. the

consequences) of alternatives


Focuses on the most

significant implications and

consequences of key

alternatives/viewpoints


Develops strategies for

obtaining new evidence

about the advantages and

disadvantages of alternatives/

viewpoints


Thought:*

Considers Point of View

Denies legitimacy of multiple

points of view; portrays

perspectives dichotomously

(e.g., right/wrong, good/bad,

smart/stupid)

Identifies own point of view

and focuses on its strengths;

focuses on the weaknesses of

other points of view

Demonstrates fair-mindedness

in identifying and evaluating

the strengths and weaknesses

of relevant points of view


Determines the point of view

that is most reasonable given

the situation at hand


Argues convincingly using a

complex, coherent discussion

of own perspective, including

its strengths and limitations

Paul-Elder Intellectual

Standards:*

Clarity, accuracy, precision,

depth, breadth, logic,

significance, fairness,

completeness, validity,

rationality, sufficiency,

necessity, feasibility,

consistency, authenticity,

effectiveness, and efficiency.

Fails to identify relevant

intellectual standards

Recites definitions of

intellectual standards without

demonstrating an

understanding

Makes illogical or

contradictory statements

about intellectual standards

Applies definitions of

standards to correctly sort

information for a given

problem into dichotomous

categories such as

clear/unclear, relevant/

irrelevant, feasible/

impossible, or

effective/ineffective

Explains reasoning for

classifications, but reasoning

is incomplete

Uses own words to explain

an intellectual standard

Uses reasoning to discuss the

degree to which individual

pieces of information satisfy

a standard such as clarity,

accuracy, or validity

Uses reasoning to consider

how well an argument or

point of view satisfies a

standard such as fairness or

feasibility

Demonstrates an objective

effort to identify and control

own biases

Assesses how well a set of

intellectual standards is

satisfied

Compares how well

intellectual standards are

satisfied across pieces of

information, information

sets, and points of view

Determines which

intellectual standards are

more relevant or more

important in a given situation


Identifies limitations of

existing intellectual

standards, the definitions of

standards, or the ways in

which standards are applied

Identifies opportunities for

improvement in personal

intellectual standards

11

*More information about Paul & Elder’s Elements of Thought and Intellectual Standards are available at www.CriticalThinking.org.

Definitions of Key Terms: Assumptions are hypotheses, suppositions, conjectures, assertions, presumptions, beliefs, or premises that are taken for granted or that lie behind an argument. Assumptions are

made because of uncertainties; the ―truth‖ cannot be known or proven. Some assumptions are better than others. Better assumptions are more reasonable, logical, comprehensive,

plausible, likely, rational, impartial, objective, justified, credible, and/or believable.

Context refers to the circumstance, background, and/or relevant frameworks for evaluation such as cultural, social, behavioral, political, scientific, economic, ethical, personal, or

theoretical.

Evidence/information may include facts, descriptions, definitions, arguments, opinions, ideas, claims, theories, concepts, observations, research findings, values, perceptions,

beliefs, influences, effects, and so on. Evidence/information can be obtained in many ways such as reading, seeing, hearing, touching, feeling, experiencing, interacting, and

thinking.

Importance is specified using appropriate criteria such as evidence quality, relevance to decision context, or other priorities.

Quality includes factors such as evidence source (e.g., unbiased, academic), accuracy, reliability, completeness, relevance, and sufficiency; Sufficiency focuses on the whether

enough high quality evidence exists to be persuasive and/or convincing.

Reflection involves careful evaluation and reconsideration of alternative arguments, quality of evidence, assumptions, interpretations, assessments of importance, and conclusions.

Uncertainties can relate to many aspects of the problem, including the problem definition, availability of solution alternatives, quality and interpretation of information, effects of

alternatives, priorities and values of the decision maker and others, and so on. Temporary uncertainties relate to conditions that will become known in the future (e.g., experts will

find the answer, information will become available, or effects will be knowable).

Viewpoints/perspectives can relate to any type of grouping that is meaningful to the problem, such as categories of people, cultures, societies, roles, races, genders, hierarchies,

theories, concepts, ideas, beliefs, attitudes, physical locations, time, disciplines, values, or emotions.

http://www.criticalthinking.org/

12

Reading Department Rubric for CSUF Critical Thinking Goals-Draft August 15, 2006 Critical Thinking Goal Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3/4

Clarify the facts, concepts,

evidenceA and other forms

of support for a position

Provides very limited support for

OWN thesis, primarily


clichés, expert opinions, or

quotes


provide support for thesis

OTHER THAN OWN if viewed

as ―incorrect‖

Explains support for OWN

thesis, but uses superficially

understood evidence


provide support for thesis

OTHER THAN OWN, or

provides less compelling

evidence and then discounts it

Investigates a range of evidence

supporting multiple viewpointsC

Uses carefully evaluated

evidence to reason logically for a

GIVEN thesis

Provides inadequate support for

OWN thesis in light of

reasonable alternatives and/or

uncertainties

Focuses on the most importantB

relevant evidence and investigates


viewpointsC

Uses carefully evaluated evidence to

reason logically in support of own

thesis; provides reasonable and


interpretations

Articulates how a systematic process

of critical inquiry was used to build a

position

Evaluate the qualityD (i.e.,

the relevance, reliability,

and sufficiency) of

evidence and other forms

of support for a position

Relies on evidence believed to be

―correct,‖ disregarding quality

Repeats evidence or other forms

of support from authoritative

sources, taking it as truth

Relies on poor quality evidence

Superficially interprets evidence

as either supporting or not

supporting a position

Equates unsupported personal


evidence

Focuses on quantity rather than

quality of evidence when

evaluating sufficiency

Evaluates the quality of

evidence, addressing both

strengths and weaknesses

Considers the context of the

problem when analyzing the

quality of evidence


Emphasizes evidence having the

highest quality


addressing importantB limitations of

available evidence

Revise arguments and

findings based on critical

reflectionE

Focuses on correctness of

position, or changes position if

―learns‖ that another position is

the ―right‖ one

Focuses primarily on reinforcing

original position, or changes

position due to a concrete

evidence that another alternative

is better


interpretations of evidence

and/or alternative viewpointsC

Additional analysis reduces

ability to strongly support a

single thesis

Acknowledges limitations of own

analysis and thesis

Systematically reevaluates evidence

and conclusions to address

limitations, consider new

circumstances, reach a better

solution, or achieve greater

confidence

Communicates logical,

organized, and focused

thinking appropriate for

audience

Uses contradictory or illogical

arguments; lacks organization

Uses poor or inconsistent

communication; does not appear

to recognize existence of an

audience

Fails to sufficiently break down

the problem or explore multiple

perspectivesC

Makes comments that appear to

lack objectivity (e.g., uses

pejorative language when

referring to others’

arguments/views)


concepts into viable framework

for exploring realistic

complexities of the problem

Uses objective tone by avoiding

biased language

Provides unnecessary detail due

to inability to prioritize

Organizes information using criteria

that apply across different

viewpointsC and allow for qualitative

comparisons

Uses communication that is

appropriately designed for the

setting and audience (e.g., objective

tone, understandable terminology,

appropriate detail, anticipates

audience needs/questions)

[Definitions are omitted here]

13

Tentative Developmental Progression of UTPB Critical Thinking Learning Outcomes Susan K. Wolcott (June 18, 2009) Performance Pattern 0 Performance Pattern 1 Performance Pattern 2 Performance Pattern 3 Performance Pattern 4

1) Students will

clarify problems,

questions, and

issues, to identify

and eliminate

confusing,

contradictory,

vague, or

ambiguous

information

Portrays problems,

questions, or issues

dichotomously, e.g.,


smart/stupid; Unable to

distinguish to between

relevant and irrelevant

information; Does not

identify ambiguous, vague,

or contradictory statements

beyond lack of personal

understanding

Identifies relevant problems,

questions, and issues, but

does not identify subsidiary,

embedded, or implicit

aspects; May make

unsupported assertions about

the problem, questions, or

issues; Identifies at least

some relevant information;

Sometimes recognizes

confusing, contradictory,

vague, or ambiguous

information

Clearly identifies the main

problems, questions, and

issues, and also addresses

subsidiary, embedded, or

implicit aspects of the

problem; Identifies and

analyzes a wide range of

relevant information;

Identifies and analyzes the

effects of confusing,

contradictory, vague, or

ambiguous information

In addition to previous

level:

Emphasizes and states

criteria for identifying the

most important aspects of

problems, questions, and

issues; Focuses on the most

important relevant

information and/or the most

important implications of

confusing, contradictory,

vague, or ambiguous

information


level:

Anticipates future problems

or questions, and identifies

issues arising from current

limitations; Develops and

implements processes for

generating new relevant

information over time

2) Students will

collect and

organize

information; and

create frameworks

to better

comprehend the

information

gathered.

Repeats evidence or other

forms of support from

authoritative sources, taking

it as truth; Does not use

frameworks to organize or

understand information;

Makes contradictory or

illogical statements; Lacks

basic organization

Provides support for own

opinion rather than

providing a comprehensive

set of information; Fails to

sufficiently break down the

problem or information;

Applies frameworks only

partially

Collects a comprehensive set

of relevant information;


concepts into viable

framework(s) for exploring

realistic complexities


level:

Organizes information using

criteria that allow for

qualitative comparisons

across viewpoints/

alternatives


level:

Describes process for


evidence and/or solutions

over time

3) Students will

consider, analyze

and evaluate

arguments in order

to identify and

weigh assumptions,

biases, emotional

language, and

common fallacies

in reasoning.

Characterizes arguments

dichotomously (e.g. right/

wrong or good/bad); May

fail to identify or address

arguments


analyses; Focuses on

personal opinions about

arguments rather than

objective analysis; May

focus on quantity rather than

quality of supporting

reasons; Identifies highly

obvious assumptions, biases,

emotional language, and

fallacies

Considers, analyzes and

evaluates the quality of

arguments; Identifies and

evaluates the implications of

assumptions, biases,

emotional language, and

common fallacies in

reasoning; Recognizes

limitations about own ability

to evaluate arguments


level:

Weighs the relative merit of

alternative arguments or

sets of assumptions;

Identifies the most important

limitations about own ability

to evaluate arguments


level:

Develops viable strategies

for addressing important

limitations over time (e.g.

approaches for gaining

greater insights into

arguments, assumptions,

biases, language, or quality

of reasoning)

4) Students will

demonstrate that

they are able to

come to a well-

reasoned

conclusion.

Provides facts, definitions, or

other ―authoritative‖

information that mask as

conclusions instead of own

conclusion

Clearly states conclusion and

reasons, but limited to

supporting primarily one

perspective

Reluctant to select and defend a

single overall conclusion in

light of viable alternatives; May

provide conclusion with

inadequate support

Articulates criteria that apply

across viable alternatives to

reach a well-reasoned

conclusion


level: Articulates how problem

solving approach and criteria

can be refined, leading to better

solutions or greater confidence

over time

14

NOTE: The numbered levels in this rubric are one higher than the numbers in Steps for Better Thinking (e.g., Level 1 in this rubric is Performance Pattern 0).

CA School of Business Critical Thinking Rubric (version April 2010) Skill Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

F –

Critical

Thinking

Overall Evaluation:

The response does not identify

sufficient information and lacks

analysis and judgement.

Overall Evaluation:

The response is partially complete and

contains some professional insights,

but requires increased objectivity and

depth of analysis.

Overall Evaluation:

The response contains thorough

analysis, but lacks focus on the most

important issues and criteria for

drawing conclusions.

Overall Evaluation:

The response is complete and

insightful and could be used as a

model response to the task.

Common Characteristics:

Identifies primarily

quantitative data, rules, and/or

standards

Provides naïve interpretations

of quantitative data (e.g. a

negative inventory turnover trend

proves a misstatement)

Does not identify qualitative

factors, or addresses qualitative

factors simplistically (e.g.

student identifies financial

statement users without linking

the users to any other aspect of

the analysis)

Cites irrelevant information,

such as unnecessary definitions

Provides contradictory or

illogical statements


Identifies relevant data, rules,

and/or standards

Only partially identifies

qualitative factors

Discusses relevant qualitative

factors in a generic manner without consideration of details

that are important to the situation

at hand

Omits important relevant

information, particularly

information that might contradict

conclusions

Provides an incomplete analysis

Provides arguments that

support conclusions, but that are

biased because alternatives are

not considered objectively


Identifies a comprehensive

range of relevant data, rules or

standards, and qualitative factors

Provides thorough, logical,

objective, and critical analysis of the advantages and

disadvantages of each viable

alternative

While presenting a thorough

analysis, fails to adequately

prioritize the most important

factors and issues; thus may fail

to provide well-supported

conclusions and/or

recommendations

Provides an excessively long

response


Focuses attention appropriately

on the most important

information and issues for the

situation

Highlights the most significant

advantages and disadvantages of each viable alternative

following a thorough, logical,

objective, and critical analysis

Addresses underlying issues that are made apparent only

through careful and insightful

analysis

Provides reasonable support

for recommendations and/or

conclusions

Identifies solution limitations

Deals appropriately with

solution limitations

Reader’s Impression:

The response seems to proceed as if

the goal is to provide a single,

―correct‖ answer that does not involve

analysis or judgement.



the goal is to prematurely reach a

conclusion; one that is supported by

evidence but that ignores

contradictory information or

alternatives.



the goal is to fully analyze relevant

information and to provide a balanced

view of alternatives.



the goal is to provide well-founded

recommendations and/or conclusions

based on thorough and objective

analysis of information and

alternatives.

Copyright 2010 – CA School of Business. All rights reserved. Materials herein may be reproduced within the context of professional practice or classroom education, provided

that reproduced materials are not in any way directly offered for sale or profit.

15

Grading Rubric for an Assignment This rubric was designed by Susan Wolcott to assess and grade a classroom assignment in a junior-level

cost accounting course. Students were evaluated on two criteria in addition to critical thinking skills. The

―weak‖ column corresponds to Performance Pattern 0, ―average‖ corresponds to Performance Pattern 1,

and ―professional‖ corresponds to Performance Patterns 2 and 3.

Professor Instructions: Circle the relevant descriptions and assign points for each criterion (i.e., row). If

a student’s performance for a criterion spans two columns, assign points accordingly.

Weak Average Professional

Computations

and Data

Schedule Maximum 30 points

Points Earned: _

Up to 20 points

Fails to correctly distinguish

between relevant and

irrelevant costs

Fails to adjust cost data for

number of months

Fails to present data schedule,

or presents schedule that is

difficult to understand

25 points

Correctly distinguishes


irrelevant costs

Adjusts costs data for number

of months, but provides no

justification for method used

Presents data schedule, but

fails to provide supporting

details for calculations

Up to 30 points

Correctly distinguishes


irrelevant costs

Applies & justifies a

reasonable approach for

adjusting costs data for

number of months

Presents data schedule, along

with supporting details;

schedule and details are easy

to understand

Written

Communication Maximum 30 points

Points Earned: _

Up to 20 points

Spelling or grammar errors

interfere with

understandability

Unprofessional language

and/or improper memo

format

Difficult to understand; poor

organization

Fails to explain calculations,

relevant information, and/or

recommendations

25 points

Minor spelling and/or

grammar errors, which do not

interfere with

understandability

Uses proper memo format,

but uses some unprofessional

language

Organizes memo into

paragraphs that enable reader

to understand calculations,

relevant information, and

recommendations

Up to 30 points

No spelling or grammar

errors (or very minor)

Uses proper memo format

including useful headings,

and uses professional

language

Concisely and clearly

presents purpose,

calculations, relevant

information, and

criteria/process Janet should

use for making her decision

Critical Thinking Maximum 40 points

Points Earned: _

Up to 20 points

30 points

Up to 40 points

Overall approach Focuses primarily on

computations in making a

recommendation

Focuses primarily on

supporting a single

recommendation; appears to

ignore or discount

information that contradicts

the recommendation

Focuses primarily on

providing Janet with the

information she needs to

make a decision, including

criteria for weighing the

options

Identification &

analysis of relevant

information

Makes erroneous statements

about costs and/or qualitative

factors

Correctly interprets cost data

and addresses at least some

qualitative factors

Correctly interprets cost data

and incorporates a wide range

of cost and qualitative factors

that were not explicitly

presented in the assignment

Identification of

uncertainties/risks


uncertainty about the costs

and/or qualitative factors

Identifies at least some

uncertainties exist about the

costs and/or qualitative

factors

Describes a range of

important issues & risks that

Janet should consider

16

Grading Rubric for an Assignment Assessment of Critical Thinking in an Ethics Dilemma

Below is a rubric used by Susan Wolcott at Helsinki School of Economics—Mikkeli to grade an introductory

financial accounting case assignment involving the financial reporting fraud at WorldCom. The relevant

descriptions were circled, and the rubric was returned with each student’s paper (which included additional grading

comments).

In Part 3 (Ethical Reasoning), the ―weak‖ column corresponds to Performance Pattern 0, ―average‖ corresponds to

Performance Pattern 1, and ―professional‖ corresponds to Performance Patterns 2 and 3.

Weak Average Professional

Part 1:

Motivation

Behind Fraud

Maximum 5

points

Points Earned: _

Points: 0 or 1

Little or no understanding

of the motivation behind

the fraud

Points: 2 or 3

Focus on a small subset of

motivations behind the fraud

OR copied issues from

assignment rather than explain

in own words

Points: 4 or 5

Identify a wide range of

reasons for the fraud

Motivations cited in the case materials include:

Link between reported financial results and stock price

o Company growth strategy, in which shares of stock were used to acquire other

companies, depended on continued increase in stock price

o Top executives had personal wealth tied to stock price (stock options, borrowings against

stock value)

Industry-wide downturn occurred, impairing ability to meet growth forecasts

Corporate culture that denied reality; Top executive continued to announce high growth

forecasts

Part 2: Effect

on Financial

Statements

Maximum 7

points

Points Earned: _

Points: 0 or 1

Unable to properly explain

the effect of capitalizing

rather than expensing the

line costs

Points: 2 to 4

Explains ONLY the direct

effect on the balance sheet and

income statement OR copies

passages from assignment

rather than explaining in own

words

Points: 5 to 7

Properly explains the direct

effect on the balance sheet,

income statement, and

statement of cash flows and

ALSO explains:

Effects of capitalization on

depreciation expense

Effects of capitalization on

income taxes

Part 3: Ethical

Reasoning

Essay

Maximum 13

points

Points Earned: _

Points: 0 to 3

Identifies only one or

two alternatives

Unable to identify

uncertainties about how

to respond

Provides disconnected

or illogical arguments

Does not directly

describe effects of

decision on others

Describes only the most

obvious effects for self

Unable to explain how

factors were weighed in

proposing a course of

action

Points: 4 to 8

Identifies only a small

number of alternatives

(usually 2-3)

Identifies only a small

number of uncertainties

about how to respond

(usually 2-4)

Provides logical arguments,

focused primarily on

supporting the conclusion

Provides little or only

superficial discussion of

effects of decision on others

Describes effects on self in a

superficial way

Conclusion lacks an

objective evaluation of

alternatives; weighing of

factors unclear

Points: 9 to 13

Identifies a wide range of

viable alternatives

Incorporates

understanding of

uncertainties into

evaluation of alternatives

Provides arguments, but

also discusses assumptions

and implications of

uncertainties

Identifies a range of other

stakeholders and addresses

their interests

Demonstrates complex

understanding of how the

decision might affect self

Clarifies values and trade-

offs made in reaching a

conclusion

Documents

Customized Rubric With Examples€¦ · Customized Rubric With Examples Version: October 2010 ... implementation process in search of additional information; provides audience with