2
Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences (IAS)
Critical Thinking Rubric
2005 Assessment Committee: Bruce Burgett, Diane Gillespie, Mike Gillespie, Michael Goldberg, Martha Groom, Cinnamon Hillyard, Sarah Leadley, Kari Lerum, Becky Rosenberg, Linda Watts
Critical Thinking (CT) Learning Objective:
The IAS program offers students multiple opportunities to acquire and hone the cognitive processes and attitudinal qualities characteristic of advanced critical thinking. We help students to develop the creative and self-reflexive habits of mind associated with inquiry- and research-based critical thinking by focusing on diverse (written, performative, visual, and
material) practices of interpretation, analysis, argumentation, application, synthesis, and evaluation. We foster attitudinal qualities that generate in students a willingness to consider and assess multiple perspectives, draw informed conclusions, and value intellectual exploration and risk taking.
IAS Assessment Process and Rubric for CT:
Directions to Assessment Committee: You have packets containing two sources of information on which to base your ratings: 1) the student’s two-page reflective essay in which s/he describes and identifies the critical thinking attitudes and cognitive processes that s/he has acquired and/or honed through the IAS program and 2) the two projects submitted by the student as evidence of his/her learning with regard to critical thinking. You are being asked to use the projects and reflection to evaluate the alignment between the student’s learning and the specific critical thinking skills identified in the general statement above and the rubrics listed below.
A) After reading the essay and papers, please rate the student’s overall cognitive processes and attitudinal abilities with respect to critical thinking. (You may choose to do this overall rating before or after you have completed the sub-ratings below.)
Scant Substantially Developed
1 2 3 4 5
B) Please break down your overall rating with regard to the following characteristics of the students’ critical thinking:
1) The student demonstrates the ability to formulate relevant and challenging questions.
Scant Substantially Developed
1 2 3 4 5
Does not pose and/or contextualize a question. Does not identify or is confused by the issues raised by the question. Represents the question and issues related to it inaccurately / Poses and justifies a challenging question with appropriate development/contextualization.Recognizes relationships of subparts/nuances of the question and the issues it raises
2) The student demonstrates the ability to analyze and synthesize materials and data using appropriate sources and methods.
Scant Substantially Developed
1 2 3 4 5
Merely repeats information or presents data as truth. Denies or ignores counter-evidence.Confuses associations and correlations with cause and effect.
Presents biased interpretations of evidence, misrepresents other points of view, and/or conflates different types of sources and data. / Thoroughly examines information and data. Considers source of evidence for its accuracy, relevance, and completeness. Observes cause and effect, and addresses existing and/or potential consequences.
3) The student demonstrates the ability to interpret and/or argue, using and evaluating relevant evidence and data.
Scant Substantially Developed
1 2 3 4 5
Offers biased interpretations of evidence and data. Ignores or superficially evaluates alternative interpretations. Argues using fallacious or irrelevant reasoning and unwarranted claims and assumptions. / Accurately interprets evidence and data. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative interpretations. Justifies key results and procedures; explains and reasons creatively and persuasively.4) The student considers and assesses multiple perspectives and approaches to the material at hand.
Scant Substantially Developed
1 2 3 4 5
Deals only with a single perspective or approach. Fails to discuss other possibilities, especially those salient to the issue or question at hand. Falls into simplistic, opinion-based or relativistic thinking. / Addresses multiple perspectives and approaches and viewpoints, including diverse possibilities drawn from the student’s own research and/or experience.5) The student is able to draw informed conclusions, to evaluate those conclusions, and/or to apply them in and across other contexts.[1]
Scant Substantially Developed
1 2 3 4 5
Fails to identify conclusions, implications, and consequences of the problem, question, and/or research. Fails to consider key relationships between other elements of the problem, such as context, implications, assumptions, data, and/or evidence. / Identifies and discusses conclusions, implications, and consequences, taking context, assumptions, data, and evidence into consideration. Reflects critically upon his/her own assertions.[1] The 2004-2005 committee borrowed heavily from Washington State University’s “Critical Reasoning Rubric.” We also borrowed from Facione’s and Facione’s “Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric” for the “interpret/argue” criteria.