Critical Thinking Rubric
Overview
Critical thinking is a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion.
| 3. Exceeds Expectations | 2. Meets Expectations | 1. Needs Improvement | 0. Not Demonstrated* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explanation of issues | Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding. | Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated but description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities unexplored, boundaries undetermined, and/or backgrounds unknown. | Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated without clarification or description. | No reference to the issue or problem. |
| Argument (thesis/perspective) | Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is imaginative, taking into account the complexities of an issue. Limits of position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) are acknowledged. Other points of view are synthesized within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) | Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) acknowledges different sides of an issue. | Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is stated but is simplistic and obvious. | Specific position is not stated. |
| Evidence
Selecting and using information to investigate a point of view or conclusion |
Information is taking from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are evaluated thoroughly. | Information is taking from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are taken mostly as fact, with little questioning. | Information is taking from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation. Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact, without question. | There is no reference to evidence. |
| Influence of context and assumptions | Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others鈥� assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position. | Questions some assumptions. Identifies several relevant contexts when presenting a position. May be aware of others鈥� assumptions than one鈥檚 own (or vice versa). | Shows an emerging awareness of present assumptions (sometimes labels assertions as assumptions). Begins to identify some contexts when presenting a position. | There is no reference to assumptions. |
| Conclusions and related outcomes (implications and consequences) | Conclusions and related outcomes (consequences and implications) are logical and reflect student鈥檚 informed evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order. | Conclusion is logically tied to information (because information is chosen to fit desired conclusion); some related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified clearly. | Conclusion is inconsistently tied to some of the information discussed; related outcomes (consequences and implications) are oversimplified. | There is no conclusion. |
*There is no evidence for this dimension