CT Rubric V.2 ACCEPTABLE (3)

Transcription

1 CT Rubric V.2 OVERALL COMPREHENSION Subject provides evidence of clearly understanding the main points raised by the text s author, as well as his or her position and main arguments. Subject leaves evaluator uncertain he or she has clear understanding of the author s main points, position, or arguments. Responds tangentially or indirectly to the author. Subject misses the point entirely or focuses on irrelevancies, by, e.g., addressing the wrong issue, mischaracterizing the author s purpose, or misstating his or her conclusions or supporting arguments. SLO 1. Can identify issues Subject clearly identifies the main problem addressed by the text s author. clear identification of the main problem addressed by the text s author. Responds tangentially or indirectly to the main problem that is focus of text. Subject misidentifies the problem entirely, addressing the wrong issue, mischaracterizing the author s purpose and the problem focus of the text. SLO 2. Can distinguish between clarification, argument, persuasion and other ways of relating to an issue

2 Subject clearly identifies the principal approaches of the author toward the problem that is the focus of the text. clear identification of the principal approaches of the author toward the problem that is the focus of the text. approaches of the author toward the problem that is the focus of the text. May confuse persuasion with clarification, for example. SLO 3. Can recognize the difference between conclusions and the arguments for them Subject clearly identifies the principal conclusions reached by the author and identifies the arguments used to reach these conclusions. clear identification of the principal conclusions reached by the author and identifies the arguments used to reach these conclusions. conclusions reached by the author and/or the arguments used to reach these conclusions. Does not distinguish between argument and conclusion. SLO 4. Can distinguish between factual judgments and non-factual judgments Subject clearly identifies the focus of text as involving questions of empirical fact versus value judgments. clear identification of the focus of text and whether this involves questions of empirical fact versus value judgments. focus of text as involving questions of empirical fact versus value. Does not distinguish between empirical and normative issues.

3 OVERALL REASONING Subject successfully detects specious reasoning, irrelevancies, questionable assumptions, and missing information in the text. Responds to the author s arguments rather than to his or her rhetoric. Does not confuse truth with logic (e.g., does not agree with an argument merely because its conclusion is true or reject it as illogical merely because it contains a false statement). Subject has only partial success in detecting specious reasoning, irrelevancies, questionable assumptions, and missing information in the text. Leaves evaluator unsure if he or she has been influenced more by the author s rhetoric than by his or her reasoning, or cannot distinguish between truth and logic. Subject fails to recognize specious reasoning, irrelevancies, questionable assumptions, or missing information (or sees problems where none exist). Seems more influenced by the author s rhetoric than by his or her reasoning; or seems unable to distinguish between truth and logic. SLO 5. Can distinguish between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning Subject can successfully distinguish between deductive or inductive reasoning in the text under examination. Subject has only partial success in distinguishing between deductive and inductive reasoning in the text under examination. Subject fails to distinguish between deductive or inductive reasoning in the text under examination. No evidence that subject can clearly distinguish inductive versus deductive reasoning. SLO 6. Can distinguish between truth and logic

4 Subject does not confuse truth with logic, e.g. does not agree with an argument merely because its conclusion is true or reject it as illogical merely because it contains a false statement. Subject has only partial success in distinguishing between truth from logic, e.g. does not always clearly distinguish issues of sound reasoning from the truth or falsity of the statements comprising the argument. Subject confuses truth with logic, e.g. does not recognize the difference between sound reasoning and truth/falsity of statements. SLO 7. Can determine whether a consideration is relevant Subject can recognize relevant from irrelevant information in an argument and distinguish rhetoric from evidence. Subject has only partial success in recognizing relevant from irrelevant information in an argument and distinguishing rhetoric from evidence. Subject fails to recognize relevant from irrelevant information in an argument and can not distinguish rhetoric from evidence. SLO 8. Can recognize questionable assumptions and missing information Subject can recognize when questionable assumptions have been made in an argument or when information is inadequate to support the author s conclusions. Subject has only partial success in recognizing when questionable assumptions have been made in an argument or when information is inadequate to support the author s conclusions. Subject fails to recognize when questionable assumptions have been made in an argument or when information is inadequate to support the author s conclusions. SLO 9. Can evaluate the credibility of statements and sources

5 Subject can evaluate the credibility of sources, e.g. distinguish scholarly literature from popular literature, as well as evaluate the credibility of a statement, regardless of source. Subject has only partial success in evaluating the credibility of sources, e.g. distinguishing scholarly literature from popular literature, as well as evaluating the credibility of a statement, regardless of source. Subject fails to recognize variation in the credibility of sources and is unable to distinguish credible from questionable statements. SLO 10. Can identify ambiguity, vagueness, and common fallacies in reasoning Subject can identify ambiguous, vague and misleading passages in the text as well as recognize common fallacies in reasoning. Subject has only partial success in identifying ambiguous, vague and misleading passages in the text or recognizing common fallacies in reasoning. Subject fails to identify ambiguous, vague and misleading passages in the text or recognize common fallacies in reasoning.