Critical Thinking Outcome Rubric
Criteria Advanced Proficient Developing Beginning 4 3 2 1 Identify: distinguish Demonstrate a firm grasp of Identify the main argument and Partially able to identify the Unable to identify the main reasoning from other the content, motivation, and distinguish it from supporting argument of a passage and argument from related expository tasks, and significance of an argument in elements, such as assumptions, distinguish it from supporting expository tasks or tributary understand the role of the context of a passage, case tributary arguments,2 elements, such as background, arguments. Confuses 1 reasoning in context. study or conversation. background, excessive detail, excessive detail, and background assumptions, and illustration. illustration. premises, conclusions and their rejected contrast, explanation and inference.
Analyze: employ a Schematize the main argument Schematize all of the main Schematize part but not all of Cannot schematize reasoning model to distinguish the of a passage in a way that argument, clearly labeling the main argument. Basic using the model of an “parts” of an argument demonstrates a mastery of assumptions, premises, other understanding of the structure, argument developed in the (e.g., assumptions, form, the model or apparatus forms of support, the form, or model of an argument. course. support, conclusion, of the course, as well as the conclusion and its rejected 3 rivals). limits of the model. contrast, using the model or apparatus of the course.
Evaluate: distinguish Correctly distinguish good from Adept at identifying inductive Understand that there is a Cannot recognize inductive deductive from inductive bad arguments, and from deductive claims. difference between inductive from deductive, valid from reasoning, and good demonstrate a sensitivity to Understand and accurately and deductive but cannot invalid, sound from unsound, from bad arguments,4 motivation, context, and the employ evaluative concepts, reliably distinguish between strong from weak, plausible including fallacies, given limits of reasoning, given such as validity, soundness, them. Understand evaluative from implausible. Does not differences in knowledge differences in values and strength, plausibility, and concepts and more often than recognize fallacies. and values. background knowledge. fallacy; or is able to rank the not correctly evaluate an conclusion against its rivals, argument or rank the given differences in values and conclusion against its rivals. background knowledge.
Revised December 5, 2018 ; Approved by Curriculum Committee Feb 06, 2019
Criteria Advanced Proficient Developing Beginning 4 3 2 1 Construct: formulate Compellingly develops one’s Provides an argument with Presents an argument with Does not clearly develop one’s original arguments to own position by presenting clear structure, adequate vague structure, inadequate own view in the form of an support one’s own overwhelming evidence, a evidence, and without any support, or some fallacious argument. position. sensitivity to relevance, fallacious or otherwise faulty reasoning. objections, and gaps in one’s reasoning. reasoning.
Rubric Development Process:
The Critical Thinking Rubric was adapted from the original General Studies Critical Thinking Rubric. When that rubric was utilized for an assessment in Spring 2018, the Philosophy department requested to completely rewrite the rubric to better reflect the diversity of teaching pedagogy among their faculty. During the Fall 2018 semester, the Philosophy department worked with the Assessment and Curriculum Committees to rewrite the rubric. The updated rubric was approved by the Curriculum Committee in February 2019.
1 The phrase “expository task” refers to any form of direct communication that describes, explains, illustrates, interprets or evaluates something. Excluded, for example, are fiction and poetry. 2 By “tributary arguments,” we are referring to secondary or tertiary arguments whose conclusions contribute premises to the main argument. 3 An important difference between a course dedicated to logic or critical thinking, as opposed to all other courses which exercise a student’s critical thinking skills, is that the former develops a systematic way of schematizing and analyzing arguments, a model that articulates the general form or structure of an argument, in order to develop an objective or intersubjective way of evaluating arguments. 4 Given differences in the evaluative concepts across instructors and courses, we leave the difference between “good” and “bad” here vague on purpose. Depending on the course, “good” and “bad” can refer to valid/invalid, sound/unsound, strong/weak, cogent or fallacious, justified/unjustified.
Revised December 5, 2018 ; Approved by Curriculum Committee Feb 06, 2019