5
3 – Holistic Rating Scales use a short narrative of characteristics to award a single score based on an overall impression of a student’s performance on a task. A drawback to using holistic rating scales is that they do not provide specific areas of strengths and weaknesses and therefore are less useful to help you focus your improvement efforts. Use a holistic rating scale when the projects to be assessed will vary greatly (e.g., independent study projects submitted in a capstone course). Or when the number of assignments to be evaluated is significant (e.g., reviewing all the essays from applicants to determine who will need developmental courses).
Rating scale.
Not meeting 1 | Approaching 2 | Meeting 3 | Exceeding 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
The Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric: A Tool for Developing and Evaluating Critical Thinking. Retrieved April 12, 2010 from Insight Assessment . 4 – Analytic Rating Scales are rubrics that include explicit performance expectations for each possible rating, for each criterion. Analytic rating scales are especially appropriate for complex learning tasks with multiple criteria. Evaluate carefully whether this the most appropriate tool for your assessment needs. They can provide more detailed feedback on student performance; more consistent scoring among raters, but the disadvantage is that they can be time-consuming to develop and apply. Results can be aggregated to provide detailed information on the strengths and weaknesses of a program. Example: Critical Thinking Portion of the Gallaudet University Rubric for Assessing Written English
Pre-College Skills 1 | Emerging Skills 2 | Developing Skills 3 | Mastering Skills 4 | Exemplary Skills 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Assignment lacks a central point. | 2. Displays central point, although not clearly developed. | 3. Displays adequately-developed central point. | 4, Displays clear, well-developed central point. | 5. Central point is uniquely displayed and developed. |
1. Displays no real development of ideas. | 2. Develops ideas superficially or inconsistently. | 3. Develops ideas with some consistency and depth. | 4. Displays insight and thorough development of ideas. | 5. Ideas are uniquely developed. |
1. Lacks convincing support for ideas. | 2. Provides weak support for main ideas. | 3. Develops adequate support for main ideas. | 4. Develops consistently strong support for main ideas. | 5. Support for main ideas is uniquely accomplished. |
1. Includes no analysis, synthesis, interpretation, and/or other critical manipulation of ideas. | 2. Includes little analysis, synthesis, interpretation, and/or other critical manipulation of ideas. | 3. Includes analysis, synthesis, interpretation and/or other critical manipulation of ideas in most parts of the assignment. | 4. Includes analysis, synthesis, interpretation, and/or other critical manipulation of ideas, throughout. | 5. Includes analysis, synthesis, interpretation, and/or other critical manipulation of ideas, throughout— leading to an overall sense that the piece could withstand critical analysis by experts in the discipline. |
1. Demonstrates no real integration of ideas (the author’s or the ideas of others) to make meaning. | 2. Begins to integrate ideas (the author’s or the ideas of others) to make meaning. | 3. Displays some skill at integrating ideas (the author’s or the ideas of others) to make meaning. | 4. Is adept at integrating ideas (the author’s or the ideas of others) to make meaning. | 5. Integration of ideas (the author’s or the ideas of others) is accomplished in novel ways. |
There are different ways to approach building an analytic rating scale: logical or organic. For both the logical and the organic model, steps 1-3 are the same.
Determine the best tool.
Not meeting 1 | Approaching 2 | Meeting 3 | Exceeding 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Tip: Adding numbers to the ratings can make scoring easier. However, if you plan to use the rating scale for course-level assessment grading as well, a meaning must be attached to that score. For example, what is the minimum score that would be considered acceptable for a “C.”
Components of Analytic Rating Scales
Criteria | Excellent | Good | Inadequate |
---|---|---|---|
Descriptive characteristics (apply to the appropriate table cell) | |||
Other possible descriptors include:
examples of inconsistent performance characteristics and suggested corrections.
Logical Method | Organic Method |
---|---|
. Each should be mutually exclusive. | |
that distinguish the assignments |
Tips: Keep list of characteristics manageable by only including critical evaluative components. Extremely long, overly-detailed lists make a rating scale hard to use.
In addition to having descriptions brief, the language should be consistent. Below are several ideas to keep descriptors consistent:
3 | 2 | 1 |
---|---|---|
the effect of … | the effects of … | the effects of … |
Keep the aspects of a performance stay the same across the levels but adding adjectives or adverbial phrases to show the qualitative difference
3 | 2 | 1 |
---|---|---|
provides a | provides a | provides a |
shows a | shows a | shows a |
3 | 2 | 1 |
---|---|---|
uses correctly and independently | uses with occasional peer or teacher assistance | uses only with teacher guidance |
A word of warning: numeric references on their own can be misleading. They are best teamed with a qualitative reference (eg three appropriate and relevant examples) to avoid ignoring quality at the expense of quantity.
3 | 2 | 1 |
---|---|---|
provides examples | provides examples | provides example |
uses relevant strategies | uses relevant strategies | uses relevant strategies |
Use rating scales for program-level assessment to see trends in strengths and weaknesses of groups of students.
For more information on using course-level assessment to provide feedback to students and to determine grades, see University of Hawaii’s “ Part 7. Suggestions for Using Rubrics in Courses ” and the section on Converting Rubric Scores to Grades in Craig A. Mertler’s “Designing Scoring Rubrics for Your Classroom”.
Adapted from sources below:
Allen, Mary. (January, 2006). Assessment Workshop Material . California State University, Bakersfield. Retrieved DATE from http://www.csub.edu/TLC/options/resources/handouts/AllenWorkshopHandoutJan06.pdf
http://www.uhm.hawaii.edu/assessment/howto/rubrics.htm
http://www.teachervision.fen.com/teaching-methods-and-management/rubrics/4523.html?detoured=1
Mueller, Jon. (2001). Rubrics. Authentic Assessment Toolbox. Retrieved April 12, 2010 from http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/rubrics.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubric_(academic)
Tierney, Robin & Marielle Simon. (2004). What’s Still Wrong With Rubrics: Focusing on the Consistency of Performance Criteria Across Scale Levels . Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(2).
Gallaudet University, chartered in 1864, is a private university for deaf and hard of hearing students.
Copyright © 2024 Gallaudet University. All rights reserved.
800 Florida Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002
The VALUE rubrics were developed by teams of faculty experts representing colleges and universities across the United States through a process that examined many existing campus rubrics and related documents for each learning outcome and incorporated additional feedback from faculty. The rubrics articulate fundamental criteria for each learning outcome, with performance descriptors demonstrating progressively more sophisticated levels of attainment. The rubrics are intended for institutional-level use in evaluating and discussing student learning, not for grading. The core expectations articulated in all 16 of the VALUE rubrics can and should be translated into the language of individual campuses, disciplines, and even courses. The utility of the VALUE rubrics is to position learning at all undergraduate levels within a basic framework of expectations such that evidence of learning can by shared nationally through a common dialog and understanding of student success.
Preview the Critical Thinking VALUE Rubric:
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Using the Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric. 1. Understand What this Rubric is Intended to Address. Critical thinking is the process of making purposeful, reflective and fair‐minded judgments about what to believe or what to do. Individuals and groups use critical thinking in problem solving and decision making.
Code §4.28(2021)). Further, the Association of American Colleges & Universities' Critical Thinking VALUE Rubric defines critical thinking as "a habit of the mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion.".
1. Understand the Construct. This four level rubric treats critical thinking as a set of cognitive skills supported by certain personal dispositions. To reach a judicious, purposive judgment a good critical thinker engages in analysis, interpretation, evaluation, inference, explanation, and meta-cognitive self-regulation.
Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric. Does not attempt to or fails to identify and summarize accurately. Summarizes issue, though some aspects are incorrect or confused. Nuances and key details are missing or glossed over. Clearly identifies the challenge and subsidiary, embedded, or implicit aspects of the issue.
Critical thinking is a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion. Framing Language This rubric is designed to be transdisciplinary, reflecting the recognition that success in all disciplines requires habits of inquiry and analysis ...
1. Understand what the Rubric is intended to Address. Critical thinking is the process of making purposeful, reflective and fair-minded judgments about what to believe or what to do. It is used in problem solving and decision making. This four level rubric treats this process as a set of cognitive skills supported by certain personal dispositions.
California State University, Fresno Critical Thinking Scoring Guide. Relevant/penetrating questions clarify facts, concepts, and relationships. Questions are insightful and go beyond the obvious. Detects sources of bias even subtle or well-disguised. Uses principles of logic to explain fallacies in "if/then" statements.
The Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric (HCTSR) is a rating measure used to assess the quality of critical thinking displayed in a verbal presentation or written text. One would use the HCTSR to rate a written document or presentation where the presenter is required to be explicit about their thinking process. It can be used in any ...
How to Use The Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric 1. Understand what the Rubric is intended to Address. Critical thinking is the process of making purposeful, reflective and fair-minded judgments about what to believe or what to do. Individuals and groups use critical thinking in problem solving and decision making.
Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric 1. Understand the construct. This four level rubric treats critical thinking as a set of cognitive skills supported by certain personal dispositions. To reach a judicious, purposive judgment a good criti-cal thinker engages in analysis, interpretation, evaluation, inference, explanation, and
The effects of using a critical thinking scoring rubric to assess undergraduate students' reading skills. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 43(1), 31-58. Crossref. Google Scholar. National Education Goals Panel. (1991). The national education goals report: Building a nation of learners. U.S. Government Printing Office.
19 How To Use The Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric 1. Understand what the Rubric is intended to Address. Critical thinking is the process of making purposeful, reflective and fair-minded judgments about what to believe or what to do. Individuals and groups use critical thinking in problem solving and decision making.
Critical thinking is a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion. Framing Language . This rubric is designed to be transdisciplinary, reflecting the recognition that success in all disciplines requires habits o f inquiry and ...
The critical thinking rubric developed by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) as part its Valid Assessment of ... & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7, 1-11. Google Scholar Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don't learn ...
The Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric - HCTSR A Tool for Developing and Evaluating Critical Thinking The Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric (HCTSR) is an internationally known rating tool used to assess the quality of thinking displayed in verbal presentations or written reports. The HCTSR can be used in any training program or ...
Developing Critical Thinking Skills: The Key to Professional Competencies. A tool kit. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association. Skills in the Scoring Manual for the Reflective Judgment Interview Rubrics Based on a Model of Open-Ended Problem Solving Skills: Steps for Better Thinking Rubric Steps for Better Thinking Competency Rubric
The Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric: A Tool for Developing and Evaluating Critical Thinking. Retrieved April 12, 2010 from Insight Assessment. 4 - Analytic Rating Scales are rubrics that include explicit performance expectations for each possible rating, for each criterion.Analytic rating scales are especially appropriate for complex learning tasks with multiple criteria.
the critical thinking scoring rubric, rating form, or instructions herein for local teaching, assessment, research, or other educational and non-commercial uses, provided that no part of the scoring rubric is altered and that "Facione and Facione" are cited as authors. (PAF49:R4.2:062694).
Noreen Facione and I developed the Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric (HCTSR) in 1994 in response to requests for a tool which (a) could be used to evaluate a variety of educational work products including essays, presentations, and demonstrations, and (b) works as both a pedagogical device to guide people to know ...
VALUE Rubrics - Critical Thinking. The VALUE rubrics were developed by teams of faculty experts representing colleges and universities across the United States through a process that examined many existing campus rubrics and related documents for each learning outcome and incorporated additional feedback from faculty.
The Critical Thinking Analytic Rubric (CTAR): Investigating intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of a scoring mechanism for critical thinking performance assessments ... Furthermore, the use of holistic rubrics to score critical thinking implies the expectation that students will likely perform similarly across the cognitive skills that ...
two-day in-person scoring session in June 2024 using a locally-developed writing rubric. This rubric was divided into four separate domains: (1) Ideas/Critical Thinking/Synthesis; (2) Style; (3) Organization; and (4) Conventions. A copy of this rubric is provided in the Appendix. This
The prompt and rubric were used throughout the semester to provide formative reading assessment. The scoring rubric, which is responsive to reading as a cognitive process, was also used for precourse and postcourse assessment to provide a unique measure of reading achievement that incorporates the university's critical thinking initiative.
1. Understand the Construct. This four level rubric treats critical thinking as a set of cognitive skills supported by certain personal dispositions. To reach a judicious, purposive judgment a good critical thinker engages in analysis, interpretation, evaluation, inference, explanation, and meta-cognitive self-regulation.