Module
5

Critical Thinking: Learning, Teaching and Assessment

decorative

Introduction

The Critical Thinking Assessment Rubric was developed as a key deliverable of the ‘Building Capacity to Measure Essential Employability Skills’ project funded by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) . This handbook serves as a resource to teachers in using the Critical Thinking Assessment Rubric.

Critical thinking is one of the six skill categories within the ‘essential employability skills’ (EES) curriculum requirements for Ontario college programs – specifically, EES numbers 4 and 5. Each of these essential employability skills must be addressed (learned, practiced, evaluated) within a program. How and when these are implemented should be based on decisions regarding the program as a whole and by individual teachers.

The wording of the learning outcomes associated with the critical thinking essential employability skill: ‘Apply a systematic approach to solve problems’ and ‘Use a variety of thinking skills to anticipate and solve problems’ are too vague for direct measurement in an assignment; more concrete and measurable learning outcomes are needed.

In this project we used the skill of critical thinking as an example to demonstrate possible ways of incorporating a broadly described essential employability skill into the curriculum – what needs to be taught and practiced, how it can be demonstrated by the learner, and how it can be measured by the teacher.

We aimed to develop a common language with which teachers could talk about critical thinking in the classroom. Our objective was to create a practical critical thinking measurement or marking tool, grounded in the literature, and developed by George Brown College teachers, which would have sufficient flexibility to allow it to be adapted by teachers for use in any college classroom in which critical thinking is being taught and measured.

decorative

Six Critical Thinking Constructs

The project began with a review of the literature about critical thinking. While there are many valid definitions of critical thinking, we chose the following three definitions in the earliest discussions with faculty about the development of the first version of the critical thinking rubric.

‘Purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual and methodological considerations on which a judgment is based’ (American Philosophical Association)

‘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’

(American Association of Colleges and Universities, Critical Thinking Value Rubric)

‘[Critical thinking] entails (1) identifying assumptions that frame our thinking and determine our actions, (2) checking out the degree to which these assumptions are accurate and valid, (3) looking at our ideas and decisions (intellectual, organizational, and personal) from several different perspectives, and (4) on the basis of all this, taking informed actions’ (Brookfield, 2012)

The literature confirmed that there is no single standard definition of critical thinking, which results in a wide range of critical thinking constructs being taught and evaluated. Faculty in Phase 1 of the project agreed on six relevant, concrete and measurable critical thinking constructs which could be taught, and then evaluated within an assignment. These were the critical thinking constructs that were already most commonly taught and evaluated, according to project faculty.

  1. Clarifies the issue to be discussed and/or the position to be argued in this paper
  2. Identifies the sources of ideas or evidence used in developing the argument or conclusions
  3. Analyses the ideas or evidence to develop the argument or conclusions
  4. Critiques contradictory evidence, information, experts’ opinions and/or methodologies
  5. Acknowledges personal biases or assumptions
  6. Describes conclusions

During the project, we recognized that a student’s mastery of the English language, as used in their assignment, could strongly influence the teacher’s rating of critical thinking skills, and provide a focus other than specifically on the critical thinking skills. For this reason, English language-specific criteria were excluded from this rubric.

decorative

About the critical thinking rubric

The Critical Thinking Assessment Rubric:

  • Is brief and easy for a marker to use
  • Has demonstrated high inter-rater reliability through a validation process with George Brown faculty
  • Focuses on only a select and manageable number of the many possible critical thinking constructs identified in the literature—uses six distinct critical thinking criteria (i.e. constructs) judged by GBC faculty to be most relevant to the types of assignments used at George Brown
  • Provides meaningful descriptors for a range of performance levels, clearly distinguishing from inadequate to exemplary performance in regard to expectations (which, in turn, would be identified in the assignment instructions).
  • Uses 4 distinct levels of performance for each construct:
    • Inadequate
    • Below expectations
    • Meets expectations
    • Exemplary/exceeds expectations
  • Includes a description or example of performance in each of the 24 cells to assist the marker in differentiating the 4 levels of performance for each criterion
  • Uses sufficiently generic language in the descriptors allowing applicability to different types of assignments
  • Provides sufficient flexibility to be used either as a stand-alone rubric (with the addition of a grading scheme and criteria weights) or to be integrated into and existing rubric whenever relevant
  • Can be used for formative feedback
  • May be adapted to use some but not all of the criteria, depending upon what is taught in the course.
decorative

How To Use The Critical Thinking Assessment Rubric

The Critical Thinking Assessment Rubric can be used to develop or modify curriculum, both teaching and learning activities, and assignments. The six constructs can inform what is to be discussed, taught and practiced about critical thinking in a course or across courses in a program.

This rubric should be used to evaluate only those assignments that have specifically incorporated the relevant critical thinking criteria from the rubric. It is assumed that the constructs to be evaluated have been discussed/taught/practiced by students, that students already know the specific performance expectations for each critical thinking construct (criterion) to be evaluated, and that this information is clearly identified in the assignment instructions.

Options for using the Critical Thinking Assessment Rubric:

  1. The rubric can be used as a stand-alone marking rubric either for formative/teaching purposes or for summative evaluation with the addition of a grading scheme and criteria weights.
  2. No specific weight is currently attached to the six criteria in this rubric. Teachers may choose to attach relative weights or a grading scheme to the rubric.
  3. Any or all of the six critical thinking constructs (criteria) as relevant to the assignment can be incorporated into an existing grading rubric.
  4. Teachers may choose to use fewer than the six criteria provided in this rubric, as is relevant to the specifics of their assignment.
  5. Teachers may add additional critical thinking criteria, reflecting other relevant critical thinking constructs, as needed.

Critical Thinking Assessment Rubric

Descriptions of Levels
CRITERIAEXEMPLARY/ EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONSMEETS EXPECTATIONSBELOW EXPECTATIONSINADEQUATE
Clarifies the issue to be discussed and/or the position to be argued in this paperClearly states the specific issue/position to be discussed or argued in the paper

Provides additional information about why and how this issue was selected
Clearly states the specific issue/ position to be discussed or argued in the paperIdentifies but does not clearly state the specific issue/position to be discussed or argued in the paperDoes not acknowledge the issue/position to be discussed or argued in the paper
Identifies the sources of ideas or evidence used in developing the argument 
or conclusions
Identified sources of ideas/evidence are relevant to the assignment and credible

Identifies a broader or more comprehensive range of sources than is required
Identified sources of ideas/ evidence are relevant to the assignment and credibleSome identified sources are either irrelevant to the assignment, questionable or not credibleDoes not identify the sources of ideas/evidence
Analyses the ideas or evidence to develop the argument or conclusionsAnalysis both integrates and synthesizes all of the identified sources of ideas/evidence

Analysis is logical

Analysis is on topic

Analysis leads to, strengthens and focuses the argument or conclusions
Analysis includes all the identified sources of ideas/evidences 
Analysis is logical
Analysis is on topic
Analysis leads to and supports the argument or conclusions
Analysis reflects some but not all of the identified sources of ideas/ evidences 
Analysis is not logical
Analysis is not on topic
Analysis does not lead to or support the argument or conclusions
Does not include an analysis
Critiques contradictory evidence, information, experts’ opinions and/or methodologiesIdentifies and questions/ challenges contradictory evidence, information, experts’ opinions and/or methodologies as presented
Analyses the strengths and limitations of the evidence being challenged
Identifies and questions/ challenges contradictory evidence, information, experts’ opinions and/ or methodologies as presentedAccepts contradictory evidence, information, experts’ opinions and/ or methodologies without question or criticismDoes not acknowledge contradictory evidence, information, experts’ opinions and/or methodologies
Acknowledges personal biases or assumptionsArticulates/ explains personal biases or assumptions 

Acknowledges the relevance or impact of personal biases or assumptions on their analysis or conclusions
Articulates/ explains personal biases or assumptionsAcknowledges but does not articulate personal biases or assumptionsDoes not mention or recognize personal biases or assumptions
Describes conclusionsConclusion is logical 
Conclusion arises from effectively synthesized and thoroughly evaluated evidence in the argument
Solutions are prioritized where there is more than one
Conclusion is logical 

Conclusion is rooted in/linked to the evidence in the argument 
Solutions are prioritized where there is more than one
Conclusion lacks logic
Conclusion is weakly linked, if at all, to evidence in the argument
Where an attempt has been made to prioritize solutions, there are gaps in logic and/or understanding
Conclusion is absent, incorrect or irrelevant to the evidence in the argument
Where there is more than one solution presented, these are incorrectly or not at all prioritized

Examples of assignments using the Critical Thinking Assessment Rubric

The following are real examples of five course assignments which were developed or modified by the project faculty to incorporate the critical thinking constructs. To illustrate and assist you in identifying this, we have purposely colour-coded the relevant sections of these assignments to demonstrate where the critical thinking constructs are incorporated.

Criterion #1Identify the issue/position
Criterion #2Support sources
Criterion #3Analysis
Criterion #4Contradictory evidence
Criterion #5Personal bias
Criterion #6Conclusions
Module 6

Designing Assessments

Go there