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 alsoinclude 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. |