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. |