Rubric
Evaluation of Evidence |
Mastering |
Developing |
Emerging |
·
Considers all the evidence, and determines what information is
or is not pertinent to the task at hand. ·
Distinguishes between rational claims and emotional ones, fact
from unsupported opinion. Is able to avoid purely egocentric
perspectives. ·
Recognizes the ways in which the evidence might be limited or
compromised. ·
Spots and explains deception and holes in the arguments of
others. |
·
Considers some of the evidence, but does not use all of the
relevant sources of evidence. ·
Moves away from egocentric perspective towards a focus on the
evidence presented. ·
Claims that the evidence might be limited or compromised but
does not explain why. ·
Mentions deception and holes in the arguments of others. |
·
Does not address relevant documents or employs irrelevant
documents (or parts of the document). Writes in generalities. ·
Uses primarily personal experience/feelings/beliefs in lieu of
data or evidence; fabricates information as sole means to support
position. Does not distinguish between fact, opinion, and value
judgments. |
|
Analysis & Synthesis of
Evidence |
·
Presents own analysis of the data or information (rather than
accepting it “as is”). ·
Recognizes and avoids logical flaws (e.g., distinguishing
correlation from causation). ·
Addresses the evidence and breaks it down into specific,
component parts. ·
Draws explicit connections between the data and information
from different documents. ·
Attends to contradictory, inadequate or ambiguous information
with explanation. |
· Provides
a cursory and superficial analysis of the evidence. · States
that there are errors in the evidence but addresses them generally. · Loosely
ties the data and information from different documents. · Points
out general contradictions, inadequacies, or ambiguities in the information
without explaining the specifics. |
· Merely
repeats information provided, taking it as truth; denies evidence without adequate
justification. · Does
not demonstrate an understanding of the flaws in the evidence. · Does
not address the evidence or interprets it incorrectly. · Does
not make connections among the different documents. · Ignores
information and maintains or defends views based on self-interest or
preconceptions. |
Drawing Conclusions |
·
Constructs cogent arguments rooted in data and information
rather than speculation and unsupported opinion; avoids overstated or
understated conclusions. ·
Selects the strongest and most relevant set of supporting data
and information. ·
Identifies holes in the evidence and subsequently suggests
additional information that might resolve the issue. |
· Conclusions
present a mix of unsupported opinion and evidence from the documents. · Selects
some data and information to support conclusions, but may also include extraneous or irrelevant data. · Identifies
holes in the evidence. |
· Conclusions
draw heavily or completely on unsupported opinion. Draws unwarranted or
fallacious conclusions. · Does
not use data and information to support conclusion(s), or reiterates a flawed
claim already made. · Suggests
no need for further exploration. |
Acknowledging Alternative Explanations or Viewpoints |
·
Recognizes that the problem is complex with no clear answer;
qualifies responses and acknowledges the need for additional information in
making an absolute determination. ·
Proposes other specific options and weighs them in the
decision. ·
Considers all stakeholders or affect parties in suggesting a
course of action. |
· Recognizes
that the problem is complex with no clear answer. · Mentions
the possibility of alternative options, without providing details. · Suggests
other stakeholders might be affected but doesn’t specify who or why. |
· Treats
the problem as a simple one requiring an uncomplicated response. · Fails
to identify or hastily dismisses alternative options. · Does
not consider the impact on other stakeholders. |