downloaded from http://www.nadn.navy.mil/CTL/CTRubric.htm

Return to Critical Thinking resources.

EVALUATING CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

 

Criterion

Poor (1)

Below Ave. (2)

Ave (3)

Above Ave. (4)

Excellent (5)

Score

INFORMATION COLLECTION

Observes accurately, collects data, identifies facts, recognizes patterns; Identifies concepts, objectives, issues, or themes; identifies relevant information.

Poor basic knowledge of subject; misses or unable to identify important data/facts or patterns; sometimes misinterprets evidence; often focuses on details and misses the “big picture”.

 

 

 

Excellent basic knowledge of subject; consistently observes and identifies important data/facts and patterns; accurately interprets evidence; easily sees the “big picture”

 

ORGANIZATION

Identifies unknowns; distinguishes between data and inferences; organizes information systematically with accurate relationships; identifies reasonable outcomes/conclusions

Summarizes data/knowledge in a disorganized fashion; has difficulty identifying unknown factors; confuses assumptions with facts; misses important relationships; needs to be guided to reasonable conclusions.

 

 

 

Systematically organizes data /knowledge; focuses on the important unknown factors; does not confuse assumptions with facts; accurately describes relationships; able to independently draw reasonable conclusions.

 

APPLICATION

Uses appropriate tools, techniques, and models; uses a variety of sources for information; applies knowledge/experience to practical situations

Randomly applies models and problem-solving tools; does not seek out additional information; unable to identify solvable problems in practical situations.

 

 

 

Identifies appropriate models and problem-solving tools; routinely seeks out additional information; able to simplify practical situations to solvable problems.

 

ANALYSIS

Connects data to conclusions; articulates expected results; defends/justifies conclusions; compares results/conclusions to expected outcomes

Often fails to identify strong relevant counter-arguments; justifies few results or procedures; seldom explains reasons; poor ability to use data/facts to justify conclusion; rarely compares results/conclusion to expected or true outcomes.

 

 

 

Identifies the salient arguments pro and con; justifies key results and procedures; explains assumptions and reasons; consistently justifies conclusion with data/facts; thoughtfully analyzes unexpected outcomes.

 

SYNTHESIS

Makes appropriate generalizations; designs and executes projects/experiments; formulates and tests hypotheses; formulates thesis and organizes supporting material; identifies and solves problems.

Unable to generalize specific cases; has difficulty designing methods to test hypotheses; rarely sees the “next step”; often draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions; can solve assigned problems with guidance.

 

 

 

Sees connections between specific and general cases; can generate different methods to test hypothesis; easily sees the “next step”; draws warranted, judicious,  conclusions; can identify and independently solve problems.

 

APPLICATION

Compares different ideas, analyses, solution techniques, and theses; identifies bias/subjectivity; recognizes effects from different assumptions, theories, and models; evaluates different approaches using reasoned argument

Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view; maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions with little regard for evidence; unable to explain how different conclusions could be reached.

 

 

 

Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view; fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead; able to analyze source of differences in conclusions and objectively choose best answer.

 

OVERALL EVALUATION