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.