Template for Creating Customized Critical Thinking Rubric

Document Sample
Template for Creating Customized Critical Thinking Rubric Powered By Docstoc
					 Template for Creating a
  Customized Critical
    Thinking Rubric
                           Effective Learning Strategies
                          American Accounting Association
                            New York, August 4, 2009

Susan K. Wolcott, PhD
Thought Leader, CA School of Business
Email: swolcott@WolcottLynch.com
Cell: 425-830-3962
Web site: www.WolcottLynch.com

Note: This document is posted in AAA Commons.

       Using a Rubric to Assess Critical Thinking

Set of scoring guidelines for assessing student performance

Ideally, a Rubric Should:
      Link Evaluation/Grading/Assessment Results to Student Learning

      Provide Students With Useful Feedback

      Provide Faculty With Useful Information for Assignments/Courses/Curricula

       Using a Cognitive Development Model to
       Define Levels of Performance in a Rubric
The attached template uses a model of cognitive development to guide descriptions for each level
of student performance.

Benefits of Rubric Based on Levels of Cognitive Development
      Improve insights into students’ critical thinking strengths and weaknesses

      Identify “next steps” in building student critical thinking skills

      Provide students with more appropriate feedback

      Improve agreement across different raters (i.e. have high inter-rater reliability)

 One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Create a Customized Critical Thinking Rubric
                                                                         (version 7/31/09)
PURPOSE: The purpose of this document is to help you develop a customized critical thinking rubric based on the performance patterns in WolcottLynch’s
“Steps for Better Thinking” model. You might wish to develop a customized rubric because existing rubrics:
     Do not address the specific critical thinking skills you would like to assess
     Include more performance levels than needed, given the skills of your students and the objectives of your course/program/institution
     Use language that is inconsistent with your discipline

CHOOSE ROW(S): The table on the following pages includes rows for a variety of potential critical thinking skills. Choose a subset of the rows corresponding
to the skills you would like to assess (e.g. based on the skills called for in an assignment or the learning objectives of your program or institution). For a classroom
rubric, it is generally best to choose 3 to 7 rows that will fit on a single page.

CHOOSE NUMBER OF COLUMNS: The columns on the following pages correspond to Steps for Better Thinking performance patterns 0 through 4, which
are based on the skills exhibited at stages 3 through 7 of King & Kitchener’s reflective judgment model of cognitive development. (For more details about the
performance patterns, see the materials available under Educator Resources at www.WolcottLynch.com.) For assessing undergraduate student work, it is usually
sufficient for a rubric to include only performance patterns 0 through 2 or performance patterns 0 through 3. For graduate student work, you may wish to use only
performance patterns 0 through 3 or all five patterns.

TITLE THE COLUMNS: You might want to re-label the columns in your rubric. For example, labels for a 3-column rubric might be “Weak, Average, and
Very Good,” or “Limited, Developing, and Advanced.”

MODIFY TERMINOLOGY: If desired, modify the terminology in the rubric to match the language used in your course/discipline/institution. Ensure that the
wording changes do not alter the complexity of thinking described within each column of the rubric.

PROVIDE DEFINITIONS: Consider providing your students with definitions of key terms used in the rubric. See page 7 of this document for ideas.

ADD CITATION: Provide a citation to this document (e.g., at the bottom of your rubric): Developed from Wolcott, S. K., July 31, 2009, One Size Doesn’t Fit
All: Create a Customized Critical Thinking Rubric, Available at www.WolcottLynch.com.

LOOK FOR NEW IDEAS: Over time, additions and changes will be made to this document. Be sure to check for the newest version under “Educator
Resources” at www.WolcottLynch.com.

Thanks to the many educators who have contributed to the content in this document, especially Charlene Grey at Pennsylvania Campus Compact; Jerry Stonewater
and his colleagues at Miami University; JoAnn Carter-Wells, Kathryn Angus, and their colleagues in the Reading Department at California State University-
Fullerton; Beth Honeychurch and other colleagues at CA School of Business; and Dasaratha Rama at Florida International University.

                                   Performance Pattern 0              Performance Pattern 1             Performance Pattern 2              Performance Pattern 3            Performance Pattern 4
Overall approach to the            Attempts to find the single        Appears to begin with            Appears to perform                 Appears to develop well-          Proceeds as if goal is to
problem/question                   "correct" answer to open-          conclusion and then stack up     comprehensive and objective        founded conclusions based on      construct knowledge, to move
                                   ended questions/problems           evidence/arguments to            analyses from different            comprehensive and objective       toward better conclusions or
                                   (e.g. focuses on definitions,      support it (i.e. focuses on a    viewpoints, but unable to          comparison of viable              greater confidence in
                                   computational results, or          single recommendation with       reach or strongly defend           alternatives                      conclusions as the problem is
                                   experts’ opinions)                 little or no consideration of    conclusions                                                          addressed over time
Identifies and summarizes the      Does not identify and              Identifies the main problem;     Clearly identifies the main        In addition to previous level,    In addition to previous level,
problem/question in readings       summarize the problem, or          but does not identify            problem and subsidiary,            emphasizes and states criteria    anticipates future problems
or other sources of                identifies an inappropriate        subsidiary, embedded, or         embedded, or implicit aspects      for identifying the most          and addresses issues arising
information                        problem                            implicit aspects of the          of the problem                     important aspects of the          from current limitations
                                                                      problem                                                             problem
Identifies and addresses           Ignores uncertainty, or            Identifies at least one reason   Addresses significant and          Identifies and discusses the      Develops viable strategies for
uncertainties (i.e., reasons       attributes uncertainty to          for significant and permanent    permanent uncertainties when       significance of the most          minimizing the most
why the problem is open-           temporary lack of information      uncertainty, but does not        interpreting and analyzing         important uncertainties           important uncertainties over
ended)                             or to own lack of knowledge        integrate uncertainties into     information                                                          time
Identifies information/            Identifies irrelevant             Identifies at least some          Explores a wide range of           Focuses on the most important     Develops viable strategies for
evidence that is relevant to the   information                       information that is relevant to   relevant information               relevant information              generating important relevant
problem                                                              the problem                                                                                            information over time
Clarify the facts, concepts,       Provides very limited support     Explains support for OWN          Investigates a range of            Focuses on the most important     Articulates how a systematic
evidence and other forms of        for OWN thesis, primarily         thesis, but uses superficially    evidence supporting multiple       relevant evidence and             process of critical inquiry was
support for a position             unexamined prior beliefs,         understood evidence; Fails to     viewpoints; Uses carefully         investigates evidence             used to build a position
                                   clichés, expert opinions, or      acknowledge and/or provide        evaluated evidence to reason       supporting multiple
                                   quotes; Fails to acknowledge      support for thesis OTHER          logically for a GIVEN thesis;      viewpoints; Uses carefully
                                   and/or provide support for        THAN OWN, or provides less        Provides inadequate support        evaluated evidence to reason
                                   thesis OTHER THAN OWN if          compelling evidence and then      for OWN thesis in light of         logically in support of own
                                   viewed as “incorrect”             discounts it                      reasonable alternatives and/or     thesis; provides reasonable and
                                                                                                       uncertainties                      substantive justification for
Clarifies and analyzes the         Provides very limited support,    Provides support, but uses        Explores support for multiple      Uses carefully evaluated          Articulates how a systematic
information/evidence               primarily unexamined prior        superficially understood          viewpoints, but fails to clearly   evidence to reason logically in   process of critical inquiry was
supporting OWN                     beliefs, clichés, expert          evidence                          identify or provide adequate       support of position/ thesis       used to build position/thesis
position/thesis                    opinions, or quotes                                                 support for own
Clarifies and analyzes the         Fails to acknowledge and/or       Fails to acknowledge and/or       Investigates a range of            Focuses on the most important     Articulates how a systematic
information/evidence               provide support; characterizes    provide support for other         evidence supporting a given        relevant evidence for             process of critical inquiry was
supporting a position/ thesis      other positions as incorrect or   positions, or provides limited    position                           evaluating another position       or can be used to evaluate
with which one disagrees           wrong                             support and then discounts it                                                                          another position
Identifies and explores            Portrays viewpoints               Acknowledges more than one        Explores arguments and             Evaluates information using       In addition to previous level,
information/evidence               dichotomously, e.g.,              potential viewpoint, but          evidence supporting multiple       general principles that allow     articulates a systematic
supporting multiple                right/wrong, good/bad,            provides superficial analyses     viewpoints                         comparisons across                process for evaluating
viewpoints (or solutions,          smart/stupid                                                                                           viewpoints                        viewpoints over time
approaches, perspectives)

                                   Performance Pattern 0              Performance Pattern 1               Performance Pattern 2               Performance Pattern 3            Performance Pattern 4
Evaluate the quality (i.e., the   Repeats evidence or other          Superficially interprets            Evaluates the quality of            In addition to previous level,    In addition to previous level,
relevance, reliability, and       forms of support from              evidence as either supporting       evidence, addressing strengths,     emphasizes the highest quality    develops viable strategies for
sufficiency) of                   authoritative sources, taking it   or not supporting a position;       weaknesses, and context of the      evidence                          addressing important
evidence/support for a            as truth                           equates unsupported personal        problem                                                               limitations of evidence over
position                                                             opinion with other forms of                                                                               time
                                                                     evidence; focuses on quantity
                                                                     rather than quality of evidence
Evaluate similarities and         Focuses on definitions or          Provides superficial                Provides accurate and detailed      In addition to Level 2:           In addition to Level 3:
differences in points of view     descriptions OR describes          comparison; focuses primarily       assessment of similarities and      Develops new insights based       Develops viable strategies for
                                  alternative viewpoints as right    on own agreement or                 differences                         on complex comparisons of         gaining new knowledge to
                                  and wrong                          disagreement                                                            multiple viewpoints               more clearly identify
                                                                                                                                                                               similarities and differences
Compare and contrast two          Focuses on definitions or          Provides superficial                Provides accurate and detailed      In addition to Level 2:           In addition to Level 3:
things, ideas, theories, or       descriptions OR describes          comparison; focuses primarily       assessment of similarities and      Discusses whether the             Develops viable strategies for
points of view                    ideas, theories, or points of      on own agreement or                 differences                         similarities or the differences   gaining new knowledge to
                                  view as right and wrong            disagreement with ideas,                                                are more important in a given     more clearly identify
                                                                     theories, or points of view                                             context                           similarities and differences
Identifies and evaluates key      Does not acknowledge                Does not acknowledge               Identifies assumptions related       In addition to previous level,   In addition to previous level,
assumptions                       assumptions; if explicitly          assumptions; if explicitly         to multiple perspectives;            addresses the most important     develops strategies for
                                  asked to address assumptions,       asked to address assumptions,      evaluates the reasonableness         or critical assumptions          addressing limitations related
                                  responds inappropriately (e.g.,     focuses on others’                 of assumptions                                                        to assumptions over time
                                  provides definition or asserts a    assumptions, OR identifies
                                  “correct” answer)                   some assumptions but fails to
                                                                      analyze them, OR provides
                                                                      superficial analysis of
Monitor one's own                 Equates learning with knowing      Fails to recognize qualitative      Considers a wide range of           In addition to Level 2: Views     In addition to Level 3:
comprehension and apply           the correct solution; Fails to     differences in learning effort or   learning strategies; Recognizes     learning as a process that can    Spontaneously addresses ways
various strategies to clarify     recognize own role in              performance; equates learning       qualitative differences in effort   be improved strategically over    to improve learning or
one's own thoughts and            comprehension and thoughts         with “doing the work”; Ignores      and performance; Evaluates          time                              performance
actions                           other than simplistic aspects      or seems discouraged by             the quality of learning
                                  (e.g., time spent studying)        information suggesting that         strategies in relation to own
                                                                     own learning approach is            preferences and skills
Identifies and considers the      Does not address context            Acknowledges the existence         Identifies and considers the        Analyzes the issue with a         Identifies and addresses long-
influence of the context          beyond dichotomous                  of different contexts, but         influence of context when           clear sense of scope and          term considerations related to
(including audience) on the       characterizations such as           focuses on context in support      analyzing perspectives and          context, including an             the scope, context, and
issue                             right/wrong, good/bad,              of own opinion                     data/evidence                       assessment of the audience of     audience
                                  smart/stupid                                                                                               the analysis
Identifies and evaluates          Does not address implications      Considers implications and          Analyzes implications and           In addition to previous level,    In addition to previous level,
implications and                  or consequences beyond             consequences only                   consequences for multiple           establishes criteria to           identifies processes for
consequences of alternatives      dichotomous characterizations      superficially; ignores negative     alternative                         prioritize implications and       addressing implications and
                                  such as right/wrong,               consequences of own position                                            consequences across               consequences over time
                                  good/bad, smart/stupid                                                                                     alternatives

                                  Performance Pattern 0              Performance Pattern 1             Performance Pattern 2            Performance Pattern 3             Performance Pattern 4
Clearly presents and supports     Provides facts, definitions, or    Clearly states conclusions and    Reluctant to select and defend   Articulates criteria that apply   In addition to previous level,
conclusions                       other “authoritative”              reasons, but limited to           a single overall conclusion in   across viable alternatives to     articulates how problem
                                  information that mask as           supporting primarily one          light of viable alternatives;    reach well-founded                solving approach and criteria
                                  conclusions instead of own         perspective                       may provide conclusion with      conclusions                       can be refined, leading to
                                  conclusion                                                           inadequate support                                                 better solutions or greater
                                                                                                                                                                          confidence over time
Clearly organizes and presents    Makes contradictory or             Clearly presents own              Organizes information and        Organizes information using       In addition to previous level,
information                       illogical statements; lacks        arguments, but fails to           concepts into viable             criteria that allow for           describes process for
                                  organization                       sufficiently break down the       framework for exploring          qualitative comparisons across    systematically reinterpreting
                                                                     problem                           realistic complexities of the    viewpoints/ alternatives          evidence and/or solutions over
                                                                                                       problem                                                            time
Identifies limitations of         Does not acknowledge               Acknowledges at least one         Articulates connections          Adequately describes relative     In addition to previous level,
position/thesis and establishes   significant limitations beyond     limitation or reason for          among underlying                 importance of solution            identifies viable processes for
plans for addressing those        temporary uncertainty; next        significant and enduring          contributors to limitations;     limitations when compared to      strategically generating new
limitations                       steps articulated as finding the   uncertainty; if prompted, next    articulates next steps as        other viable options; next        information/knowledge to aid
                                  “right” answer (often by           steps generally address           gathering more information       steps focus on efficiently        in addressing significant
                                  experts)                           gathering more information        and looking at problem more      gathering more information to     limitations over time
                                                                                                       complexly and/or thoroughly      address significant limitations
Ranks/prioritizes issues and      Does not prioritize issues;        Focuses on arguments to           Addresses a wide range of        Identifies important issues and   In addition to previous level,
potential solutions               States or implies that one         support one solution rather       issues and discusses the         preferred solutions or ranks      identifies ways to reduce
                                  solution is “correct” without      than on weighing the              strengths and weaknesses of      potential solutions, providing    uncertainties about the most
                                  adequate support                   importance of various issues      alternatives, but does not       reasonable criteria and support   important issues and/or best
                                                                     or assessing the strengths and    provide clear criteria for       for relative importance.          solution
                                                                     weaknesses of alternatives.       ranking/prioritization
Establishes implementation        Ignores implementation or          Fails to adequately address       Establishes overly               Develops implementation           Develops implementation
plans for recommended             creates illogical                  alternative viewpoints in         complicated implementation       plans that address multiple       plans that address multiple
solution                          implementation plan                implementation plans              plans OR delays                  issues and viewpoints; focuses    issues and viewpoints;
                                                                                                       implementation process in        on pragmatic issues               addresses current as well as
                                                                                                       search of additional                                               long-term issues
Adapts communication for the      Does not appear to recognize       Provides insufficient             Provides audience with too       Uses communication that is        In addition to previous level,
setting and audience              existence of an audience           information or motivation for     much information (unable to      appropriately designed for the    encourages others to address
                                                                     audience to adequately            adequately prioritize)           setting and audience (e.g.,       long-term issues and concerns
                                                                     understand alternatives and                                        objective tone, understandable
                                                                     complexity                                                         terminology, appropriate
                                                                                                                                        detail, anticipates audience
Identifies and controls for       Does not appear to recognize       Acknowledges the existence        Identifies and describes         In addition to previous level,    In addition to previous level,
own biases                        existence of bias                  of potential biases, but does     methods to control for own       identifies and addresses the      describes process for
                                                                     not recognize bias in own         biases; uses objective tone by   most important sources of         systematically identifying and
                                                                     analysis or conclusions;          avoiding biased language         potential bias                    reducing bias over time
                                                                     makes comments that appear
                                                                     to lack objectivity (e.g., uses
                                                                     pejorative language when
                                                                     referring to others’ arguments)

                               Performance Pattern 0              Performance Pattern 1           Performance Pattern 2            Performance Pattern 3            Performance Pattern 4
Use reflection to revise      Expresses confusion about          Exhibits overconfidence in      Explores alternative             Acknowledges limitations;         Systematically reevaluates
interpretations and           need to reflect; focuses on        own performance; focuses        interpretations of evidence      reevaluates interpretations and   interpretations and
conclusions                   correctness of position; revises   primarily on reinforcing        and/or alternative viewpoints;   conclusions when prompted;        conclusions to address
                              conclusion based on learning       original position, or changes   additional analyses may reduce   does not automatically engage     limitations, consider new
                              “correct” information              position due to concrete        ability to strongly support a    in reflection                     circumstances, reach a better
                                                                 evidence that another           single position; may be overly                                     solution, or achieve greater
                                                                 alternative is better           self-critical                                                      confidence

Definitions of Key Terms:
Assumptions are hypotheses, suppositions, conjectures, assertions, presumptions, beliefs, or premises that are taken for granted or that lie behind an argument. Assumptions are
made because of uncertainties; the “truth” cannot be known or proven. Some assumptions are better than others. Better assumptions are more reasonable, logical, comprehensive,
plausible, likely, rational, impartial, objective, justified, credible, and/or believable.
Context refers to the circumstance, background, and/or relevant frameworks for evaluation such as cultural, social, behavioral, political, scientific, economic, ethical, personal, or
Evidence/information may include facts, descriptions, definitions, arguments, opinions, ideas, claims, theories, concepts, observations, research findings, values, perceptions,
beliefs, influences, effects, and so on. Evidence/information can be obtained in many ways such as reading, seeing, hearing, touching, feeling, experiencing, interacting, and
Importance is specified using appropriate criteria such as evidence quality, relevance to decision context, or other priorities.
Quality includes factors such as evidence source (e.g., unbiased, academic), accuracy, reliability, completeness, relevance, and sufficiency; Sufficiency focuses on the whether
enough high quality evidence exists to be persuasive and/or convincing.
Reflection involves careful evaluation and reconsideration of alternative arguments, quality of evidence, assumptions, interpretations, assessments of importance, and conclusions.
Uncertainties can relate to many aspects of the problem, including the problem definition, availability of solution alternatives, quality and interpretation of information, effects of
alternatives, priorities and values of the decision maker and others, and so on. Temporary uncertainties relate to conditions that will become known in the future (e.g., experts will
find the answer, information will become available, or effects will be knowable).
Viewpoints/perspectives can relate to any type of grouping that is meaningful to the problem, such as categories of people, cultures, societies, roles, races, genders, hierarchies,
theories, concepts, ideas, beliefs, attitudes, physical locations, time, disciplines, values, or emotions.

         Reading Department Rubric for CSUF Critical Thinking Goals-Draft August 15, 2006
  Critical Thinking Goal                     Level 0                                Level 1                             Level 2                                 Level 3/4
Clarify the facts, concepts,    Provides very limited support for    Explains support for OWN            Investigates a range of evidence      Focuses on the most importantB
evidenceA and other forms        OWN thesis, primarily                 thesis, but uses superficially       supporting multiple viewpointsC         relevant evidence and investigates
of support for a position        unexamined prior beliefs,             understood evidence                 Uses carefully evaluated                evidence supporting multiple
                                 clichés, expert opinions, or         Fails to acknowledge and/or          evidence to reason logically for a
                                                                                                                                                  Uses carefully evaluated evidence to
                                 quotes                                provide support for thesis           GIVEN thesis                            reason logically in support of own
                                Fails to acknowledge and/or           OTHER THAN OWN, or                  Provides inadequate support for         thesis; provides reasonable and
                                 provide support for thesis            provides less compelling             OWN thesis in light of                  substantive justification for
                                 OTHER THAN OWN if viewed              evidence and then discounts it       reasonable alternatives and/or          interpretations
                                 as “incorrect”                                                             uncertainties                         Articulates how a systematic process
                                                                                                                                                    of critical inquiry was used to build a
Evaluate the qualityD (i.e.,    Relies on evidence believed to be  Relies on poor quality evidence       Evaluates the quality of             In addition to Level 2:
the relevance, reliability,      “correct,” disregarding quality    Superficially interprets evidence      evidence, addressing both             Emphasizes evidence having the
and sufficiency) of             Repeats evidence or other forms     as either supporting or not            strengths and weaknesses                highest quality
                                                                                                                                                  Develops viable strategies for
evidence and other forms         of support from authoritative       supporting a position                 Considers the context of the
                                                                                                                                                    addressing importantB limitations of
of support for a position        sources, taking it as truth        Equates unsupported personal           problem when analyzing the              available evidence
                                                                     opinion with other forms of            quality of evidence
                                                                    Focuses on quantity rather than
                                                                     quality of evidence when
                                                                     evaluating sufficiency
Revise arguments and            Focuses on correctness of          Focuses primarily on reinforcing      Explores alternative                  Acknowledges limitations of own
findings based on critical       position, or changes position if    original position, or changes          interpretations of evidence            analysis and thesis
reflectionE                      “learns” that another position is   position due to a concrete             and/or alternative viewpointsC        Systematically reevaluates evidence
                                                                                                                                                   and conclusions to address
                                 the “right” one                     evidence that another alternative     Additional analysis reduces
                                                                                                                                                   limitations, consider new
                                                                     is better                              ability to strongly support a          circumstances, reach a better
                                                                                                            single thesis                          solution, or achieve greater
Communicates logical,           Uses contradictory or illogical      Fails to sufficiently break down    Organizes information and             Organizes information using criteria
organized, and focused           arguments; lacks organization         the problem or explore multiple      concepts into viable framework         that apply across different
thinking appropriate for        Uses poor or inconsistent             perspectivesC                        for exploring realistic                viewpointsC and allow for qualitative
audience                         communication; does not appear       Makes comments that appear to        complexities of the problem
                                                                                                                                                  Uses communication that is
                                 to recognize existence of an          lack objectivity (e.g., uses        Uses objective tone by avoiding        appropriately designed for the
                                 audience                              pejorative language when             biased language                        setting and audience (e.g., objective
                                                                       referring to others’                Provides unnecessary detail due        tone, understandable terminology,
                                                                       arguments/views)                     to inability to prioritize             appropriate detail, anticipates
                                                                                                                                                   audience needs/questions)
[A, B, C, D: Definitions are omitted here]

    Customized Rubric for an Assignment
This rubric was designed by Susan Wolcott to assess and grade a classroom assignment in a
junior-level cost accounting course. Students were evaluated on two criteria in addition to
critical thinking skills. For critical thinking skills, the “weak” column corresponds to
Performance Pattern 0, “average” corresponds to Performance Pattern 1, and “professional”
corresponds to Performance Patterns 2 and 3.

Professor Instructions: Circle or highlight the relevant descriptions and assign points for each
criterion (i.e., row). If a student’s performance for a criterion spans two columns, assign points

                                     Weak                                 Average                              Professional
Computations                      Up to 20 points                             25 points                          Up to 30 points
                        Fails to correctly distinguish         Correctly distinguishes between        Correctly distinguishes between
and Data                 between relevant and irrelevant         relevant and irrelevant costs           relevant and irrelevant costs
Schedule                 costs                                  Adjusts costs data for number of       Applies & justifies a reasonable
                        Fails to adjust cost data for           months, but provides no                 approach for adjusting costs data
Maximum 30 points        number of months                        justification for method used           for number of months
Points Earned: _        Fails to present data schedule, or     Presents data schedule, but fails      Presents data schedule, along
                         presents schedule that is difficult     to provide supporting details for       with supporting details; schedule
                         to understand                           calculations                            and details are easy to understand
Written                           Up to 20 points                             25 points                          Up to 30 points
                        Spelling or grammar errors             Minor spelling and/or grammar          No spelling or grammar errors (or
Communication            interfere with understandability        errors, which do not interfere          very minor)
Maximum 30 points       Unprofessional language and/or          with understandability                 Uses proper memo format
                         improper memo format                   Uses proper memo format, but            including useful headings, and
Points Earned: _        Difficult to understand; poor           uses some unprofessional                uses professional language
                         organization                            language                               Concisely and clearly presents
                        Fails to explain calculations,         Organizes memo into paragraphs          purpose, calculations, relevant
                         relevant information, and/or            that enable reader to understand        information, and criteria/process
                         recommendations                         calculations, relevant                  Janet should use for making her
                                                                 information, and                        decision
Critical Thinking                Up to 20 points                            30 points                            Up to 40 points
Maximum 40 points
Points Earned: _

Overall approach        Focuses primarily on                   Focuses primarily on supporting        Focuses primarily on providing
                         computations in making a                a single recommendation;                Janet with the information she
                         recommendation                          appears to ignore or discount           needs to make a decision,
                                                                 information that contradicts the        including criteria for weighing
                                                                 recommendation                          the options
Identification &        Makes erroneous statements             Correctly interprets cost data and     Correctly interprets cost data and
analysis of relevant     about costs and/or qualitative          addresses at least some                 incorporates a wide range of cost
                         factors                                 qualitative factors                     and qualitative factors that were
information                                                                                              not explicitly presented in the
Identification of       Does not appear to recognize           Identifies at least some               Describes a range of important
uncertainties/risks      uncertainty about the costs and/or      uncertainties exist about the costs     issues & risks that Janet should
                         qualitative factors                     and/or qualitative factors              consider