Name:Quantitative Reasoning Assessment Rubric—Question 2*Higher Order Skill / Not Attempted (0) / Emerging (1, 2) / Developing (3, 4) / Mastering (5, 6)
Evaluating evidence provided
Identifying relevant evidence, evaluating evidencecredibility, reliability, relevance. / Mentions 1 or 2 documents with:
no or wrong evaluation on both (1)
cursory–to-OK evaluation on one and no or flawed evaluation on the other (2) / Mentions 2 documents with:
cursory–to-OK evaluation on both (3)
more than 2 documents but evaluation is wrong on half or more (3)
Good evaluations on both documents (4)
more than 2 documents with OK-to-good evaluation on the majority (4) / Asserts the relevance of 2+ docs (must include D) with:
ok reasons on all (5)
good reasons on all (6)
0 for not attempting a conclusion or for making a conclusion that isn't relevant to the question (eg. concludingon the chance that Sauer might be successful, ignoring the issues of whether or not it would make sense to be successful).
Implying both sides of argument (and not clear which is favored) is a 0.
0 on conclusion means 0 on acknowledging alternatives
Trying to make a conclusion is a 1. / Incorrectly agrees with ban but offers no (1) or weak reason (2). Ignores part of claim about the benefits of sucralose. / Uses C or F to argue against ban and provides ok reasons (3). Also uses D to argue for plausible benefits of sucralose (4) / Uses C, F to argue against claim and provides good reasons and notes B favors ban but is weak and notes D is consistent with sucralose benefits (5). Also uses A to question Sauer’s motives or questions source of D (6).
Presenting/”creating” evidence / Tries to reorganize information to new format but does so poorly. (1) / Makes some reasonable effort to reorganize information but could do more/better. (2) / Reorganizes information to create good graphs/tables/alternative math approach. (3)
Acknowledging alternatives to their conclusion
0 on conclusion means 0 on acknowledging alternatives / Notes B favors ban but gives no analysis (1) / Notes B favors ban but analysis is weak/incomplete (2). / Notes B favors ban and gives good reasons (3). (eg n=1, presence of multiple confounds.)
Wanting more on sucralose studies is a “cherry,” still need the other discussion, or “cake” to get a 5. / Makes conclusion about one part of the claim--banning aspertame or replacement with sucralose (1) and provides evidence (2)
only talks about evidence and not about the claim (1) / Makes a conclusion about both parts of the claim with:
no or flawed evidence (3)
providesgood evidence on at least one (4). / Makes a conclusion about both parts of the claim, with evidence and attempts an answer to “Is there a better solution . . .” (5). Answer notes reasons for further research (6).
Exhibiting facility with the English language, especially sentence structure and overall organization / Distracting errors, poor sentence structure, poor organization(1). / Few errors, generally well-constructed sentences, fair-good organization(2). / Hardly any errors, good sentence structure, good overall organization(3).
- Note that “presenting/creating evidence”, “acknowledging alternatives” and “mechanics/persuasiveness” have 0-3 scales.