Ina Food Industry

CRITERION

DEFICIENT (1)

NOVICE(2)

JOURNEYMAN (3)

EXPERT (4)

MASTER (5)

PROBLEM DEFINITION

Does not attempt to define the problem.

Identifies the main idea or problem but with few or no examples or explanations; or states the main idea or problem verbatim from the text.

States and effectively defines the problem or question, and defines the problem clearly, but provides no examples or description.

Articulates and defines the problem or question at hand effectively and elaborates with adequate examples or details to help crystalize the issue for the reader.

Articulates the main problem/question with elaboration, and surfaces implicit, unstated, but important aspects of the problem.

PERSPECTIVE

Fails to articulate own point of view and/or does so with no argument or discussion of its merits.

States and elaborates own point of view and at least one major alternative perspective, but fails to articulate relevant arguments (reasons and claims).

States and elaborates own point of view and one major alternative perspective, and adequately articulates relevant arguments (reasons and claims).

States and elaborates own point of view and most major perspectives drawn from outside information, and identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims for each).

States and elaborates own point of view and all major perspectives drawn from outside information, identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims). Shows evidence of research into relevant minority points of view.

ASSUMPTIONS

Does not show any awareness of own assumptions or potential biases.

Identifies at least one important assumption underlying his or her analysis, but fails to consider the effect, if any, that this might have on the analysis.

Identifies at least one important assumption/bias underlying his or her analysis, and considers the effect it might have on the analysis.

Clearly identifies and evaluates the assumptions and biases underlying own perspective and most other perspectives.

Identifies the assumptions and biases underlying own and all alternative perspectives, considers the effect they may have on the analysis, and identifies potential ethical issues.

EVIDENCE

Accepts points of view as evidence, taking them as truth. Does not distinguish between fact, opinion, and value judgments.

Distinguishes between fact, opinion, and value judgments but fails to provide adequate evidence to support facts.

Distinguishes between fact, opinion, and value judgments, but some minor errors in misinterpretation of evidence.

Accurately interprets the evidence provided; clearly distinguishes among fact, opinion, and value judgments.

Examines the evidence and sources of evidence and questions its accuracy, precision, relevance, and completeness. Consults other sources and interpretations for evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Fails to state conclusion of analysis and/or simply defends views based on unexamined preconceptions.

States conclusion of analysis but does not make much of an attempt to explicate the links between evidence, inference, and conclusion.

States conclusion of analysis makes a good attempt to explicate the links between evidence, inference, and conclusion but needs further elaboration and development.

States conclusion, clearly articulating the link between evidence, inference, and conclusion. Demonstrates fair-mindedness by following where evidence and reason lead.

Clearly and logically articulates the link between evidence, inference, and conclusion. Follows where evidence and reason lead but notes differences in own preferences and/or values.

STUDENT NAME:__________________________________________

Adapted from Washington State U. (http://wsuctproject.wsu.edu/ctr.htm and Facione & Facione, 1994)