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.
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.