0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
81 просмотров1 страница
The document provides a rubric for assessing critical thinking skills. It evaluates skills such as identifying the main problem, examining the quality of evidence, considering contextual influences, interpreting potential bias, and evaluating conclusions. Proficient performance involves accurately outlining key information in brief summaries, while advanced performance provides well-developed explanations that clearly distinguish facts from opinions.
The document provides a rubric for assessing critical thinking skills. It evaluates skills such as identifying the main problem, examining the quality of evidence, considering contextual influences, interpreting potential bias, and evaluating conclusions. Proficient performance involves accurately outlining key information in brief summaries, while advanced performance provides well-developed explanations that clearly distinguish facts from opinions.
The document provides a rubric for assessing critical thinking skills. It evaluates skills such as identifying the main problem, examining the quality of evidence, considering contextual influences, interpreting potential bias, and evaluating conclusions. Proficient performance involves accurately outlining key information in brief summaries, while advanced performance provides well-developed explanations that clearly distinguish facts from opinions.
Identifies and Does not identify or Identifies the problem/ Accurately identifies the Accurately identifies the summarizes the summarize question and provides a problem/question and problem/question and provides problem/question the problem/question poor summary or identifies provides a brief summary. a well-developed at issue. accurately if at all. (5) an inappropriate (15) summary. (20) problem/question. (10) Identifies and Does not identify or Merely repeats Examines evidence and Provides a well-developed assesses the quality assess the quality of information questions the examination of the evidence of supporting data/ evidence used. provided. Does not justify quality. Distinguishes and questions its data/evidence position or distinguish between accuracy, relevance, between fact and opinion. fact and opinion. (15) and completeness. (10) Clearly distinguishes between fact and opinion. (20) Identifies and Does not identify or Does not explain Accurately identifies Accurately identifies and considers the consider any contextual issues; and provides an provides a well-developed influence of contextual issues. (5) provides inaccurate explanation of potential explanation of contextual issues the context* on information; or merely contextual issues. (15) with a clear sense of scope. (20) the issue provides a list. (10) Demonstrates higher Does not provide any Provides inaccurate Identifies meaning and/or Identifies meaning and/or level information. (5) information, or merely bias and provides a brief potential bias and provides a thinking by lists potential bias or explanation. (15) well-developed interpreting inferred meanings. (10) explanation. (20) the author’s meaning or the potential bias Identifies and Does not identify or Does not explain, provides Accurately identifies Accurately identifies evaluates evaluate any inaccurate information, or conclusions, implications, conclusions, implications, and conclusions, conclusions, merely provides a list of and consequences with a consequences with a well- implications, implications or ideas; or only discusses brief evaluative summary. developed explanation. Provides and consequences consequences. (5) one area. (10) (15) an objective reflection of own assertions. (20)