06/05/2019
downloaded from http://www.nadn.navy.mil/CTL/CTRubric.htm
Return to Critical Thinking resources.
Criterion
INFORMATION COLLECTION
Observes accurately, collects data,
identifies facts, recognizes patterns;
Identifies concepts, objectives,
issues, or themes; identifies relevant
information.
ORGANIZATION
Identifies unknowns; distinguishes
between data and inferences;
organizes information systematically
with accurate relationships; identifies
reasonable outcomes/conclusions
APPLICATION
Uses appropriate tools, techniques,
and models; uses a variety of sources
for information; applies
knowledge/experience to practical
situations
ANALYSIS
Connects data to conclusions;
articulates expected results;
defends/justifies conclusions;
compares results/conclusions to
expected outcomes
SYNTHESIS
Makes appropriate generalizations;
designs and executes
projects/experiments; formulates and
tests hypotheses; formulates thesis
and organizes supporting material;
identifies and solves 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
OVERALL EVALUATION
file:///D:/Leonor Rocha/Users/USER/Documents/Escola da Moita/comp transversais/EVALUATING CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS.html
EVALUATING CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS
EVALUATING CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS
Poor (1)
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”.
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.
Randomly applies models and
problem-solving tools; does not
seek out additional information;
unable to identify solvable
problems in practical situations.
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.
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.
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.
Below Ave. (2) Ave (3) Above Ave. (4) Excellent (5) Score
Excellent basic knowledge of
subject; consistently observes
and identifies important
data/facts and patterns;
accurately interprets evidence;
easily sees the “big picture”
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.
Identifies appropriate models and
problem-solving tools; routinely
seeks out additional information;
able to simplify practical
situations to solvable problems.
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.
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.
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.
1/1