Content-Free Critical Thinking Tests to Assess Programs and Courses Several commercially available tests attempt to assess critical thinking in a content-free critical thinking rubrics middle school that is, they do not assess thinking in nursing or biology or business management courses but instead assess the student’s recognition of the use of evidence to support a claim, the validity of reasoning, logical fallacies, soundness of interpretations, drawing conclusions, and the like.

The Critical Thinking Rubric presented in this CTL Bulletin was created to facilitate embedded assessment of goal 2 of the Gen-Ed program. A random set of student papers across our Gen-Ed courses will be selected and.

A review of critical thinking tests can be found at the web site of the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative US Department of Education at http: Often such tests are used by departments to assess whether their programs or courses have improved students’ thinking.

Departments typically use the A version as a pre-test before students begin the program or course and the B version as a post-test. Critical thinking occurs in the context of a course, so there is a a trend for developing context-specific thinking tests. Insight Assessment has a test that measures reasoning in the health sciences. Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric Peter to assess the critical thinking skills and some of the dispositions identified by the Delphi project as these skills are demonstrated by by students in essays, projects, presentations, critical thinking rubrics middle school practices, and critical thinking rubrics middle school.

The Facione and Facione Holistic Scoring Rubric is copied below and is available free, with a page of instructions, at http: Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.

Identifies the salient arguments reasons and claims pro and con. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view.

Using Rubrics to Assess Critical Thinking

Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Justifies key results and procedures, explains assumptions and reasons. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead. Identifies relevant arguments reasons and claims pro and con. Offers analyses and evaluations of obvious Abnormal psychology critical thinking questions points of view.

Justifies some results or procedures, explains reasons. Fairmindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead. Does most or many of the following: Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Fails to identify strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Justifies few results or procedures, seldom explains reasons.

Regardless of the evidence or reasons maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions. Offers biased interpretations of evidence, statements, graphics, questions, information, or the points of view of others. Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments. Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view Argues using fallacious or irrelevant reasons, and unwarranted claims.

Exhibits close-mindedness or hostility to reason. Analytical Critical Thinking Scoring Rubrics Analytical rubrics provide more information than holistic rubrics. The holistic rubric illustrated above combines five different kinds of thinking into a single category. Instead of the holistic rubric’s lumping of several critical thinking rubrics middle school traits into one category, an analytical rubric separates them.

A lthough they take more time to score because how to write a professional essay raters sometimes have to examine the essay, project, or performance more than critical thinking rubrics middle school, analytical rubrics can be useful to departments assessing student’s thinking skills in assignments and projects in multi-section courses to determine which areas of student thinking need more attention in the course.

The WSU rubric specifies only the highest and lowest levels of performances, leaving it to faculty adapting it to describe the intervening levels. Emerging Does not identify and summarize the problem, is confused or identifies a different and inappropriate problem. Does not identify or is confused by the issue, or represents the issue inaccurately.

Identifies the main problem and subsidiary, embedded, or implicit aspects of the problem, and identifies them clearly, addressing their relationships to each the issue.

Addresses perspectives noted previously, and additional diverse perspectives drawn from outside information. Emerging Mastering Does not surface the assumptions and ethical issues that underlie the issue, or does so superficially.

Identifies and questions the validity of the assumptions and addresses the ethical dimensions that underlie the issue. Emerging Mastering Merely repeats information provided, taking it as truth, or denies evidence without adequate justification.

Confuses associations and correlations with cause and effect. Does not distinguish critical thinking rubrics middle school fact, opinion, and value judgments. Examines the evidence and source of evidence; questions its accuracy, precision, relevance, completeness.

Observes cause and effect and addresses existing or potential consequences. Emerging Discusses the problem only in egocentric or sociocentric terms. Does not present the problem as having connections to other contexts–cultural, political, etc.

Analyzes the issue with a critical thinking rubrics middle school sense of scope and context, including an assessment of the audience of the analysis. Considers other pertinent contexts. Identifies and assesses conclusions, implications and consequences. Emerging Mastering Fails to identify conclusions, implications, and consequences of the issue or the key relationships between the other elements of the problem, such as context, implications, or data and evidence.

Identifies and discusses conclusions, implications, and consequences considering context, assumptions, data, and evidence. Objectively reflects upon the their own assertions.

Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, seldom explains reasons! Accurately interprets evidence, non-fallacious conclusions, seldom explains reasons, seldom explains reasons, seldom explains reasons.