Critical Thinking Point Scale
Student’s
Rubric Component
4
3
2
1
Identifies and
summarizes the
problem/question at
issue.
Accurately identifies
the problem/question
and provides a welldeveloped summary.
Accurately identifies
the problem/question
and provides a brief
summary
Identifies the
problem/question
and provides a poor
summary or
identifies an
inappropriate
problem/question.
Does not identify or
summarize the
problem/question
accurately if at all.
Identifies and
assesses the quality
of supporting
data/evidence
Provides a welldeveloped
examination of the
evidence and
questions its
accuracy, relevance,
and completeness.
Clearly distinguishes
between fact and
opinion.
Examines evidence
and questions the
quality.
Distinguishes
between fact and
opinion
Merely repeats
information
provided. Does not
justify position or
distinguish between
fact and opinion.
Does not identify or
assess the quality of
supporting evidence
Identifies and
considers the
influence of the
context* on the issue
Accurately identifies
and provides a welldeveloped
explanation of
contextual issues
with a clear sense of
scope.
Accurately identifies
and provides an
explanation of
potential contextual
issues.
Does not explain
contextual issues;
provides inaccurate
information; or
merely provides a
list.
Does not identify or
consider any
contextual issues.
Demonstrates higher
level thinking by
interpreting the
author’s meaning or
potential bias.
Accurately identifies
the author’s meaning
and/or potential bias
and provides a welldeveloped
explanation
Accurately identifies
meaning and/or bias
and provides a brief
explanation.
Does not explain,
provides inaccurate
information, or
merely lists potential
bias or inferred
meanings.
Does not identify
potential bias or
inferred meanings.
Identifies and
evaluates
conclusions,
implications, and
consequences.
Accurately identifies
conclusions,
implications, and
consequences with a
well-developed
explanation.
Provides an
objective reflection
of own assertions
Accurately identifies
conclusions,
implications, and
consequences with a
brief evaluative
summary.
Does not explain,
provides inaccurate
information, or
merely provides a
list of ideas; or only
discusses one area.
Does not identify or
evaluate any
conclusions,
implications or
consequences.
Score
* Context may include cultural/social, scientific, educational, economic, technological, ethical, political, and personal experience issues. Global Thinking Student essay responses to a global scenario will be assessed using the following rubric: Response # ________________
Accounting major or not? : Y
N
You will use the matrix (rubric) below to score the responses to the Global competency assessment. You will score them on:
1. Identification of Factor
Did the student identify a factor at all? If so, how relevant is the factor to the particular scenario defined in the question? Students should not simply regurgitate
every factor they can remember regardless of the scenario.
2. Importance of Factor
Did the student demonstrate some understanding of the importance of the factor in this scenario? That is, if the student chose the “political stability” factor, did
he/she provide a plausible explanation of why political stability would be important? If so, the student would receive at least a 1 and possibly a 2 if the response
demonstrated particular insight.
Type
International
Factor
Identification of Factor
No response
Identifies a
Very important,
or identifies
somewhat
salient factor
unimportant
important
identified (2)
factor (0)
factor (1)
Importance of Factor to Decision Making
Omitted or
Somewhat
Insightful
completely lacks cognizant of
understanding of
understanding (0) importance of
importance of factor
factor (1)
(2)
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
Factor 6
Factor 7
Factor 8
Factor 9
Factor 10
Total per category
Total Score (Sum of two totals – Identification Total and Importance Total):
Using the Total Score from last row of the table, determine which category the response falls into: Unacceptable, Acceptable/Meets Expectations, or Excellent. Then put a 0, 1, or 2 into the Final score on global goal column. Global Goal
Applies knowledge of political, legal,
economic, and cultural country
differences to develop competitive
strategies in foreign, regional, and
global markets
Unacceptable
0
If total on the scoring key
is 0-17
=
Unacceptable (0)
Acceptable
1
If total on the scoring
key is 18-31
=
Acceptable (1)
Excellent
2
If total on the scoring key is
32-40
=
Very good/Excellent (2)
Final score on global goal
(0, 1 or 2)
Written Communication The University and the College are committed to prepare our graduates to succeed in their careers and offer the services of the Center for Excellence in Writing. Students may register at http://undergrad.fiu.edu/learning/lab‐writing‐brochure.html . Indicators of Effective
Writing
Meaning &
Development:
ideas, examples, reasons &
evidence, point of view
Levels of Achievement Adapted from http://valenciacc.edu/learningevidence/
0
1
2
3
Inappropriate
Appropriate
Effective
Insightful
No viable point of view;
little or no evidence;
weak critical thinking,
providing inappropriate
or insufficient examples,
reasons, or other
evidence of support
Develops a point of
view, demonstrating
some critical thinking;
may have inconsistent or
inadequate examples,
reasons, & other
evidence of support;
support tends towards
general statements or
lists
Develops a point of view
& demonstrates
competent critical
thinking; enough
supporting detail to
accomplish the purpose
of the paper
Ideas are fresh, mature
& extensively
developed; insightfully
develops a point of view
& demonstrates
outstanding critical
thinking
Organization:
Lacking Structure
Mostly Structured
Structured
Perceptively
Structured
focus, coherence,
progression of ideas, thesis
developed
Disorganized &
unfocused; serious
problems with coherence
and progression of ideas;
weak or non-existent
thesis
Limited organization &
focus; may demonstrate
some lapses in
coherence or progression
of ideas; generally,
neither sufficient nor
clear enough to be
convincing
Generally organized &
focused, demonstrating
coherence & progression
of ideas; presents a
thesis and suggests a
plan of development
which is mostly carried
out
Language:
Inadequate
Adequate
Proficient
Sophisticated
word choice, & sentence
variety
Displays frequent &
fundamental errors in
vocabulary; sentences
may be simplistic and
disjointed
Developing facility in
language use, sometimes
uses weak vocabulary or
inappropriate usage or
word choice; sentence
structure tends to be
pedestrian & often
repetitious
Competent use of
language and sometimes
varies sentence
structure; generally
focused
Choice of language &
sentence structure;
precise & purposeful,
demonstrating a
command of language
and variety of sentence
structures
Conventions:
Distracting
Fundamental
Controlled
Polished
grammar, punctuation,
spelling, paragraphing,
format
Errors interfere with
writer’s ability to
consistently
communicate purpose;
pervasive mechanical
errors obscure meaning;
inappropriate format
Errors interfere with the
writer’s ability to
communicate purpose;
contains an
accumulation of errors;
some weakness in
format
Occasional errors do not
interfere with writer’s
ability to communicate
purpose; generally
appropriate format
Control of conventions
contribute to the writer’s
ability to communicate
purpose; free of most
mechanical errors;
appropriate format
Thesis presented or
implied with noticeable
coherence; provides
specific & accurate
support
Oral Communication The College is committed to prepare our graduates to succeed in their careers and offers the services of the Oral Lab. Students may register at http://www.fiu.edu/~orallab/. Indicators of Effective
Content
Introduction:
gains attention, connects to
topic, establishes credibility
Beginning (0)
No attention getting
strategy was evident. No
clear or relevant
connection to topic or
speech purpose. No
credibility was
established.
Levels of Achievement
Developing (1)
Competent (2)
Effective strategy to
Use of attention getting
strategy, but did not
capture listeners’
seem to adequately
attention. Adequate
capture audience
introduction of the topic.
attention and/ or lead to
Credibility was
desired outcome.
established by the
Credibility was implied.
speaker.
Thesis Statement:
explicit, identifies topic,
previews main points
No thesis statement.
Main points are not
clearly identified,
audience unsure of the
direction of the message.
Thesis is implied,
although not explicitly
stated. Topic is clearly
identified, but main
points are not clearly
previewed.
Thesis statement
identifies topic and
lists/previews main
points.
Connection to Audience:
needs & interest,
demonstrates understanding
Topic seems irrelevant
to audience needs and
interests. No attempt
made to connect topic to
audience.
Topic seems somewhat
relevant to audience.
Vague reference to
audience needs and or
interests. Identifies
target audience.
Clearly stated the
relevance of topic to
audience needs and
interests. Expresses an
understanding of their
target audience.
Subject Knowledge:
depth of content, relevant
support, clear explanation
Provides irrelevant or no
support. Explanation of
concepts is inaccurate or
incomplete.
Provides some support
for main points, but
needed to elaborate
further with
explanations, examples,
descriptions, etc.
Support is relevant, but
not timely
Main points adequately
substantiated with
timely, relevant and
sufficient support.
Accurate explanation of
key concepts.
Organization:
main points distinct from
support, transitions,
coherence
Lack of structure. Ideas
are not coherent. No
transitions. Difficult to
identify introduction,
body, and conclusion.
General
structure/organization
seems adequate.
Difference between
main points and
supporting details is
blurred. Logical flow,
but no clear signposts
for transitions.
Clear organizational
pattern. Main points are
distinct from supporting
details. Smooth
transitions differentiate
key points.
Accomplished (3)
Creative attention
getting strategy captures
listeners’ attention to
introduce the topic. It is
relevant to the topic and
clearly gains the desired
response from the
audience. Credibility
was established by
speaker.
Speaker clearly stated a
well formulated thesis
statement during the
speech introduction.
Thesis statement
identifies topic and
lists/previews main
points.
Connection of topic to
audience needs and
interests is stated with
sophistication. Identifies
and expresses a deep
understanding of their
target audience.
Depth of content reflects
thorough understanding
of topic. Main points
well supported with
timely, relevant and
sufficient support.
Provided precise
explanation of key
concepts.
Effective organization
well suited to purpose.
Main points are clearly
distinct from supporting
details. Graceful
transitions create
coherent progress
toward conclusion
Ethics Acceptable
Unacceptable
0 points
1 point
Outstanding
2 points
Identifies Dilemma(s)
Has no idea or only a vague idea of the ethical
dilemma(s).
Identifies the ethical dilemma or
dilemmas.
Describes the dilemma(s) in detail,
including most or all pertinent
facts. Clarifies why it is an ethical
dilemma.
Considers Stakeholders
Is unsure about who the stakeholders are or
does not identify any stakeholders.
Accurately identifies at least one
important stakeholder who would
be affected by the decision.
Accurately identifies several
important stakeholders who would
be affected by the decision and
describes how they would be
affected.
Analyzes Alternatives and
Consequences
Does not identify alternatives and
consequences or suggests alternatives that are
not reasonable.
Identifies at least one reasonable
alternative and its possible
consequences.
Identifies at least two reasonable
alternatives and their possible
consequences.
Recommends a decision
Does not recommend a decision or
recommends a decision that does not reflect
careful thought.
Recommends a decision that
demonstrates some careful thought.
Recommends a well thought out,
coherent, logical decision.
Provides a rationale for the
decision
Provides no rationale or an inadequate
rationale for the decision.
Provides an adequate rationale for
the decision.
Provides a strong rationale for the
decision.
Total Points Overall Evaluation 0-3 – Earns 1 or 2 pts in MAN 4720 Unacceptable
4-7 – Earns 3 or 4 pts in MAN 4720 Acceptable
8-10 – Earns 5 pts in MAN 4720
Outstanding
*Adapted from the Kania School of Management, University of Scranton, PA Score