General Education Competency Rubric: Critical Thinking

Learning Outcome Exemplary Proficient Marginal Unacceptable
For normalized learning gains (Hake gains) following pre/post- test assessment High normalized learning gain. Medium normalized learning gain. No significant gain nor loss. Any significant normalized loss.
1. Students will identify and summarize, or explain the main question(s), problem(s), issue(s), points and/or argument(s). Comprehensively and accurately identifies and summarizes, interprets or explains the main question(s), problem(s), issue(s), point(s), and/or argument(s) as well as secondary or implicit aspects. Clearly and accurately identifies and summarizes, interprets or explains the main question(s), problem(s), issue(s), point(s), and/or argument(s) but does not explore secondary or implicit aspects. Minimally identifies and summarizes key aspects of the main question(s), problem(s), issue(s), point(s), and/or argument(s); or, identifies them with some inaccuracies or confusion. Does not identify nor interpret, summarize, or explain the main question(s), problem(s), issue(s), point(s), and/or argument(s); is confused or identifies a different or inappropriate problem(s); or represents the issue(s) inaccurately.
2. Students will evaluate the quality of supporting data or evidence. Clearly distinguishes between facts and opinions, and provides additional data/evidence related to the issue. Demonstrates a comprehensive ability to evaluate relevant information sources. Evaluates information thoroughly and effectively for reliability, validity, accuracy, authority, timeliness, point of view and/ or bias. Distinguishes facts from opinions. Adequately evaluates information sufficiently for reliability, validity, accuracy, authority, timeliness, point of view, and/or bias. Looks at the credibility and relevance of information sources. Confuses facts and opinions. Inconsistently evaluates information sources for reliability, validity, accuracy, authority, timeliness, point of view, and/or bias. Needs to evaluate relevance and credibility. Considers all information as factual and does not distinguish it from opinion. Does not evaluate information sources for reliability, validity, accuracy, authority, timeliness, point of view, and/or bias.
3. Students will analyze and evaluate the context, assumptions, and/or bias regarding the main problem, issue, or arguments. Identifies and questions the validity of the assumptions and bias. Analyzes the issue with a clear sense of scope and context, including the audience. Identifies the relevant contexts, assumptions, and/or bias but may not fully question or analyze beyond their personal perspective. Presents a singular, often personal perspective that is simplistic or obvious and has little acknowledgement of context, assumptions, and/or bias. Does not identify any contexts nor show awareness of assumptions or bias.
4. Students will state a position, perspective, thesis, hypothesis, argument, or findings, based on a line of reasoning and/or evidence. Specific position, perspective, thesis or hypothesis is clearly stated and takes into account the complexities of an issue. Connections to reasoning or evidence are astute. Specific position, perspective, thesis or hypothesis is clear but may not take into account the complexities of an issue. Connections to reasoning or evidence are present. Position, perspective, thesis, hypothesis, or argument is stated, but is simplistic and obvious. Connections to reasoning or evidence are inconsistent. Position, perspective, thesis, hypothesis, or argument is incomplete or incoherent. Does not show connections to reasoning or evidence.
5. Students will identify and evaluate relevant and valid points of view, including cultural values, conceptual models, theoretical frameworks, or different methodologies. Identifies salient points of view. Meaningfully evaluates the relevance and validity of other points of view and frames their interpretation within that context. Identifies other points of view. Successfully evaluates the relevance and validity of those other viewpoints. Identifies other points of view but is limited to majority/popular points of view or reflects a superficial evaluation that takes into account either relevance or validity, but not both. Does not identify other points of view.
6. Students will draw valid conclusions. Formulates conclusions that are clear, complete, and show logical reasoning that is consistent with data or evidence and addresses the nuances or deeper implications.  Formulates conclusions that are clear and mostly consistent but misses some of the nuances or deeper implications of the data or evidence. Formulates conclusions that are simplistic or stated as an absolute and show little logical reasoning, or are inconsistent with data or evidence. Fails to identify valid conclusions; or conclusions are completely illogical and inconsistent with data or evidence.
7. Students will discuss the implications and consequences of their own work, including conclusions, findings, projects, or products. Thoroughly discusses the implications and consequences of their work, including both advantages and disadvantages.  Discusses the majority of implications or consequences of their work; mostly focuses on the advantages and may not address disadvantages.  Suggests a few implications or consequences but without a clear tie to their work.  Fails to discuss or misidentifies implications or consequences of their work. 
8. Students will develop a logical conclusion based on a solution to a problem or an outcome of an experiment. Uses well-reasoned logic that is consistent with the problem or outcome of an experiment and explains the conclusion in context of the problem or experiment.  Formulates a general conclusion but does not explain the conclusion in context, or does not clearly communicate or demonstrate the conclusion and the problem or experiment.  Oversimplifies the conclusion which may include inconsistent solutions to the problem or experiment, or unclear explanations and/or descriptions. Fails to identify the valid conclusion or the conclusion is not logical and lacks reasoning.  Does not develop a logical conclusion based on a solution to a problem or an outcome of an experiment.