Student Learning Outcomes – Critical Thinking

Section 1 – state the issue

0-5 points fails to clearly state the issue at hand or lacks completeness in its description

6-10 points offers minimum level of description, includes terms that are undefined or objectives that are ambiguous

11-15 points description of the issue is reasonably clear but may be subject to bias or lacks some critical aspect of the issue

16-20 points issue is clearly defined; clear statement of objective inquiry and intent to consider all sides of the issue

Section 2 – present evidence

0-5 points lack of any evidence, reliance on personal perspective or hearsay

6-10 points very little objective findings or references; clear bias towards evidence supporting only side of the issue

11-15 points although sufficient findings presented, lack of depth and breadth

16 - 20 points cited evidence embraces conflicting views with depth and breadth of analysis

Section 3 – identifying assumptions and context

0-5 points lack of any identified assumptions or prejudices in evidence

6-10 points identifies some assumptions, but fails to question or analyze them

11 – 15 points identifies several assumptions or positions and critiques them somewhat

16 – 20 points identifies most assumptions/contexts and critiques them sufficiently

Section 4 – author’s position on the issue

0 – 5 points failure to state personal view or view stated simplistically

6 – 10 points takes a position and acknowledges other views superficially

11 – 15 points takes a position while acknowledging the complexities and nuances involved; other points of view are acknowledged with sufficient explanation

16 – 20 points specific position is well-stated, imaginative, and reasonably considers the complexities; recognizes other points of view in the process

Section 5 – Conclusions & related outcomes

0 – 5 points lack of clearly stated position or inconsistent statements

6 – 10 points position stems from biased evidence, reflecting a position taken a priori

11 – 15 points conclusion matches logically with evidence presented; related outcomes are clearly identified

16 – 20 points position is stated clearly and logically reflecting author’s priorities; related outcomes and possibilities are also clearly stated