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. |