MCCREL Rubrics for Specific Tasks or Situations

The information on this page has been reproduced in electronic format and published on this Web site with permission from the McREL Institute. The information is also available in the print publication, Assessing Student Outcomes, written by Robert J. Marzano, Debra Pickering, and Jay McTighe. The print version is published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; Alexandria, Virginia.

c1993 McREL Institute. Reprinted by permission of McREL.

RUBRICS FOR SPECIFIC TASKS OR SITUATIONS

Content Standards Rubrics:

Declarative Standards
Procedural Standards

LifeLong Learning Rubrics:

Rubrics for Complex Thinking Standards:

Comparison | Classification | Induction | Deduction |
Error Analysis | Constructing Support | Abstracting |
Analyzing Perspectives | Decision Making |
Investigation | Problem Solving |
Experimental Inquiry | Invention |

Rubrics for Information Processing Standards

Rubrics for Effective Communication Standards

Rubrics for Collaboration/Cooperation Standards

Rubrics for Habits of Mind Standards

Rubrics for Content Standards

Generic Rubric for Declarative Standards

4 Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the generalizations, concepts, and facts specific to the task or situation and provides new insights into some aspect of this information.

3 Displays a complete and accurate understanding of the generalizations, concepts, and facts specific to the task or situation.

2 Displays an incomplete understanding of the generalizations, concepts, and facts specific to the task or situation and has some notable misconceptions.

1 Demonstrates severe misconceptions about the generalizations, concepts, and facts specific to the task or situation.

Note that this generic rubric must be rewritten to include the specifics of the information in a declarative standard, as in the example shown here:

Mathematics Example (4^th Grade):

Understands how basic geometric shapes are used in the planning of well-organized communities.

4 Demonstrates a thorough understanding of how basic geometric shapes are used in the planning of well-organized communities and provides new insights into some aspect of their use.

3 Displays a complete and accurate understanding of how geometric shapes are used in the planning of well-organized communities.

2 Displays an incomplete understanding of how basic geometric shapes are used in the planning of well-organized communities and has some notable misconceptions about their use.

1 Has severe misconceptions about how basic geometric shapes are used in the planning of well-organized communities.

Generic Rubric for Procedural Standards

4 Demonstrates mastery over the strategy or skill specific to the task or situation. Can perform the strategy or skill without error and with little or no conscious effort.

3 Carries out the strategy or skill specific to the task or situation without significant error.

2 Makes a number of errors when performing the strategy or skill specific to the task or situation but can complete a rough approximation of it.

1 Makes many critical errors when performing the strategy or skill specific to the task or situation.

Note that this generic rubric must be rewritten to include the specifics of the information in a procedural standard, as in the example shown here:

Mathematics Example (4^th Grade):

Accurately and efficiently converts measurements from the metric system into the English system.

4 Demonstrates mastery over the process of converting measurements from the metric system into the English system. Can perform the process without error and with little or no conscious effort.

3 Carries out the process of converting measurements from the metric system into the English system without significant error.

2 Makes significant errors when converting measurements from the metric system to the English system but can complete a rough approximation of the process.

1 Makes many critical errors when converting measurements from the metric system to the English system.

LIFELONG LEARNING RUBRICS

Rubrics for Complex Thinking Standards

Effectively translates issues and situations into meaningful tasks that have a clear purpose.

4 Translates the issue or situation into a well-articulated task that has clearly defined goals and involves clearly identifiable complex reasoning processes. Anticipates and articulates difficulties that task might present.

3 Translates the issue or situation into a task that has clearly defined goals and involves clearly identifiable complex reasoning processes.

2 Translates the issue or situation into a task that has poorly defined goals.

1 Makes an attempt to translate the issue or situation into a task but provides no understandable description of the nature or purpose of the task or makes no attempt to translate the issue or situation into a task.

REASONING STRATEGY 1: COMPARISON

Comparison involves describing the similarities and differences between two or more items.
The process includes three components that can be assessed:

Selects appropriate items to compare.

Selects appropriate characteristics on which to base the comparison.

Accurately identifies the similarities and differences among the items, using the identified characteristics.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Comparison:
Selects appropriate items to compare.

4 Selects items that are extremely suitable for addressing the basic objective of the comparison and that show original or creative thinking.

3 Selects items that provide a means for successfully addressing the basic objective of the comparison.

2 Selects items that satisfy the basic requirements of the comparison, but create some difficulties for completing the task.

1 Selects items that are inappropriate to the basic objective of the comparison.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Comparison:
Selects appropriate characteristics on which to base the comparison.

4 Selects characteristics that encompass the most essential aspects of the items and present a unique challenge or provide an unusual insight.

3 Selects characteristics that provide a vehicle for meaningful comparison of the items and address the basic objective of the comparison.

2 Selects characteristics that provide for a partial comparison of the items and may include some extraneous characteristics.

1 Selects characteristics that are trivial or do not address the basic objective of the comparison. Selects characteristics on which the items cannot be compared.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Comparison:
Accurately identifies the similarities and differences among the items, using the identifies characteristics.

4 Accurately assesses all identified similarities and differences for each item on the selected characteristic. Additionally, the students provides inferences from the comparison that were not explicitly requested in the task description.

3 Accurately assesses the major similarities and differences among the identified characteristics.

2 Makes some important errors in identifying the major similarities and differences among the identified characteristics.

1 Makes many significant errors in identifying the major similarities and differences among the identified characteristics.

REASONING STRATEGY 2: CLASSIFICATION

Classification involves organizing items into categories based on specific characteristics.
The process includes four components that can be assessed:

Selects significant items to classify.

Specifies useful categories for the items.

Specifies accurate and comprehensive rules for category membership.

Accurately sorts the identified items into the categories.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Classification:
Selects significant items to classify.

4 Specifies the items to be classified and selects significant items that present some interesting challenge in classification.

3 Selects significant items for classification that present some challenge in classification.

2 Selects items of little significance or presents a routine sorting problem.

1 Selects trivial items or items that have no relationship to the task.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Classification:
Specifies useful categories for the items.

4 Creates categories that provide a useful way of looking at the items at an unusual level of depth.

3 Creates categories that focus on the significant characteristics of the items.

2 Creates categories that provide for some analysis of the items but may not include all the important characteristics of the items.

1 Creates categories that address only trivial aspects of the items.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Classification:
Specifies accurate and comprehensive rules for category membership.

4 Provides a clear and complete specification of the defining characteristics of each category. Describes the defining characteristics in such a way as to provide a unique or unusual way of looking at the items.

3 Clearly specifies the defining characteristics of the categories and addresses any questions of overlap in characteristics.

2 Describes the defining characteristics of categories in a way that results in some overlap or confusion between categories, or describes characteristics that are unrelated to the rules for category membership.

1 Identifies characteristics that do not accurately describe the categories.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Classification:
Accurately sorts the identified items into the categories.

4 Correctly sorts each of the items into the categories and describes the extent to which each item has the characteristics ascribed to the categories. Describes insights gained during the sorting process.

3 Correctly sorts each of the items into the categories and, when appropriate, describes the extent to which each item has the characteristics ascribed to the categories.

2 Makes some errors in assigning items to their appropriate categories, or does not describe the extent to which each item has the characteristics of the category, when it is clearly appropriate for the task.

1 Makes frequent and significant errors in assigning items to categories and does not show how the items have the characteristics of their assigned categories.

REASONING STRATEGY 3: INDUCTION

Induction involves creating a generalization from implicit or explicit information and then describing the reasoning behind the generalization.
The process includes three components that can be assessed:

Identifies elements (specific pieces of information or observations) from which to make inductions.

Interprets the information from which inductions are made.

Makes and articulates accurate conclusions (inductions) from the selected information or observations.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Induction:
Identifies elements (specific pieces of information or observations) from which to make inductions.

4 Clearly and accurately identifies all relevant information from which to make inductions. The type of information selected reflects creative insight and a careful analysis of the situation.

3 Specifies all relevant information from which to make inductions. Selects information that is important to the general topic.

2 Includes some information that is not important to the induction or does not accurately identify the important information from which the induction(s) could be made.

1 Selects unimportant or trivial information for the induction.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Induction:
Interprets the information from which inductions are made.

4 Provides accurate interpretations that illustrate insight into the information from which they were made. The interpretations reflect a study of or a familiarity with the particulars of the topic.

3 Provides interpretations that, with few exceptions, are valid and say something important about the topic.

2 Provides some interpretations that are based on significant misunderstandings of the subject matter.

1 Significantly misinterprets the information. Makes interpretations that have no bearing on the area or are clearly illogical.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Induction:
Makes and articulates accurate conclusions (inductions) from the selected information or observations.

4 Draws conclusions that reflect clear and logical links between the information or observations and the interpretations made from them. The rationale for the interpretations shows a thoughtful and accurate attention to the process of induction.

3 Presents conclusions that, with few exceptions, follow logically from the selected information or observations.

2 Presents some conclusions that reflect erroneous interpretations made from the information or observations.

1 Draws many erroneous conclusions from the selected information of observations and cannot satisfactorily describe the rationale behind the conclusions.

REASONING STRATEGY 4: DEDUCTION

Deduction involves identifying implicit or explicit generalizations or principles (premises) and then describing their logical consequences.
The process includes three components that can be assessed:

Identifies and articulates a deduction based on important and useful generalizations or principles implicit or explicit in the information.

Accurately interprets the generalizations or principles.

Identifies and articulates logical consequences implied by the identified generalizations or principles.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Deduction:
Identifies and articulates a deduction based on important and useful generalizations or principles implicit or explicit in the information.

4 Selects generalizations or principles that show extreme insight into the topic.

3 Selects important generalizations or principles that contribute to the understanding of the material being studied.

2 Selects generalizations or principles that generally relate to the information available but that may not have significant explanatory power.

1 Selects generalizations or principles that do not have significant bearing on the material and do not contribute to the understanding of the subject.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Deduction:
Accurately interprets the generalizations or principles.

4 Demonstrates an understanding of the generalizations or principles that is not only accurate but provides a unique perspective on the topic.

3 Demonstrates an understanding of the generalizations or principles that is accurate and contributes to an understanding of the topic.

2 Demonstrates a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the generalizations or principles.

1 Demonstrates an incorrect understanding or interpretation of the generalizations or principles.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Deduction:
Identifies and articulates logical consequences implied by the identified generalizations or principles.

4 Accurately identifies logical conclusions implied by the generalizations or principles. Recognizes more subtle inferences that could have important effects on the subject area.

3 With few errors, accurately identifies the consequences of the generalizations or principles. The consequences relate closely to the subject area and are worthwhile subjects for discussion

2 Accounts for important consequences of the generalizations or principles, but identifies consequences that may not be germane to the topic; or makes logical errors in identifying the consequences.

1 Identifies consequences that have little significance and are not logical or germane to the topic.

REASONING STRATEGY 5: ERROR ANALYSIS

Error analysis involves identifying and describing specific types of errors in information or processes.
It includes three components that can be assessed:

Identifies and articulates significant errors in information or in a process.

Accurately describes the effects of the errors on the information or process.

Accurately describes how to correct the errors.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Error Analysis:
Identifies and articulates significant errors in information or in a process.

4 Accurately identifies all errors in the information or process under study and makes clear why the points identified are errors. Also identifies subtle but important errors that are difficult to recognize.

3 Accurately identifies all critical errors in the information or process under study and makes clear why the points identified are errors.

2 Fails to recognize some important errors or identifies some points that are not errors.

1 Recognizes only insignificant errors or mistakes valid points for errors.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Error Analysis:
Accurately describes the effects of the errors on the information or process.

4 Provides an accurate analysis of the effects of the errors, including a complete description of the ramifications of the errors beyond the most obvious levels of impact.

3 Provides an accurate analysis of the effects of the errors, omitting few details.

2 Describes the effects of the errors, but omits some important consequences; or does not accurately describe all the effects of the errors.

1 Does not correctly assess the effects of the errors, or describes effects that do not exist.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Error Analysis:
Accurately describes how to correct the errors.

4 Provides a highly thoughtful or creative approach for correcting the errors.

3 Provides a workable way of correcting the errors. The response addresses the major concerns raised by the errors.

2 Provides an approach for correcting the errors. The approach addresses some of the major errors, though it may not be the best or most appropriate response to the situation.

1 Does not accurately describe how to correct the errors.

REASONING STRATEGY 6: CONSTRUCTING SUPPORT

Constructing support involves developing a well-articulated argument for or against a specific claim. The process includes three components that can be assessed:

Accurately identifies a claim that requires support rather than a fact that does not require support.

Provides sufficient or appropriate evidence for the claim.

Adequately qualifies or restricts the claim.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Constructing Support:
Accurately identifies a claim that requires support rather than a fact that does not require support.

4 Accurately identifies a claim that requires support. The identified claim has been mistaken by many others for a fact that requires no support.

3 Accurately identifies a claim that requires support and does not confuse the claim with any other information.

2 Identifies a claim that requires support but may mistakenly include information that does not require support.

1 Identifies information that does not require support and fails to identify a claim that should have support.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Constructing Support:
Provides sufficient or appropriate evidence for the claim.

4 Presents a clear and accurate treatment of all available evidence that addresses the central point of the claim. Considers what evidence is missing and how it should affect an evaluation of the claim.

3 With no major errors, presents all relevant evidence needed to support the claim.

2 Provides evidence for the claim, but may not address all necessary aspects.

1 Fails to provide convincing evidence for the claim.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Constructing Support:
Accurately qualifies or restricts the claim.

4 Provides careful and reasoned qualifications or restrictions for the claim in such a way that the argument provides a unique perspective on the claim.

3 Provides accurate qualifications or restrictions for the claim, with the result being a well-defended claim.

2 Qualifies or restricts the claim, but leaves out important aspects of the qualifications or restrictions.

1 Does not address qualifications or restrictions for the claim.

REASONING STRATEGY 7: ABSTRACTING

Abstracting involves identifying and explaining how the abstract pattern in one situation or set of information is similar to or different from the abstract pattern in another situation or set of information.
The process includes three components that can be assessed:

Identifies a significant situation or meaningful information that is useful as a subject for the abstracting process.

Identifies a representative general or abstract pattern for the situation or information.

Accurately articulates the relationship between the general or abstract pattern and another situation or set of information.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Abstracting:
Identifies a significant situation or meaningful information that is useful as a subject for the abstracting process.

4 Identifies a situation or information that provides a rich source of material for the process of abstracting. The selected information is not commonly used in abstracting tasks but has a pattern that could be quite powerful when abstracted.

3 Identifies significant information that also has a pattern that lends itself to the abstracting process.

2 Identifies information that seems unimportant but does have a pattern that can be used in the abstracting process.

1 Identifies trivial information having no identifiable pattern that can be used in the abstracting process.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Abstracting:
Identifies a representative general or abstract pattern for the situation or information.

4 Identifies a general or abstract pattern that provides unusual or provocative insights into the information under study. The pattern furnishes the means for seeing other material from a unique perspective.

3 Constructs a general or abstract pattern that accurately represents the information from which it came.

2 Creates a general or abstract pattern that may not be a completely accurate representation of the information or situation from which it was drawn but does focus on its most important elements.

1 Does not create a general or abstract pattern that accurately represents the information or situations selected.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Abstracting:
Accurately articulates the relationship between the general or abstract pattern and another situation or set of information.

4 Demonstrates creativity in the selection of another situation or set of information that contains a similar general or abstract form. The situation or information is important and provides a very good subject for analysis.

3 Correctly identifies another situation or set of information that contains the essential characteristics of the general or abstract form and provides a worthwhile subject for study.

2 Identifies another situation or set of information that does perfectly match the general or abstract form but has some similarities.

1 Selects another situation or set of information that does not conform in any way to the general or abstract pattern identified.

REASONING STRATEGY 8: ANALYZING PERSPECTIVES

Analyzing perspectives involves considering one perspective on an issue and the reasoning behind it as well as an opposing perspective and the reasoning behind it.
The process includes three components that can be assessed:

Identifies an issue on which there is disagreement.

Identifies one position on the issue and the reasoning behind it.

Identifies an opposing position and the reasoning behind it.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Analyzing Perspectives:
Identifies an issue on which there is disagreement.

4 Identifies and articulates implicit points of disagreement that are not obvious but are the underlying cause of conflict.

3 Identifies and articulates explicit points of disagreement that cause conflict.

2 Identifies and articulates issues that are not points of disagreement as important issues of disagreement.

1 Ignores explicit and implicit points of disagreement.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Analyzing Perspectives:
Identifies one position on the issue and the reasoning behind it.

4 Articulates a detailed position and the reasoning behind it and, if a strong line of reasoning does not underlie the position, articulates the errors or holes in the reasoning.

3 Articulates a position and the basic reasoning underlying the position. Does not address or incompletely addresses the errors or holes in the reasoning.

2 Articulates a position but does not present a clear line of reasoning behind it.

1 Does not articulate a clear position.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Analyzing Perspectives:
Identifies an opposing position and the reasoning behind it.

4 Articulates a detailed opposing position and the reasoning behind it. If a strong line of reasoning does not underlie the position, articulates the errors or holes in the reasoning.

3 Articulates an opposing position and the basic reasoning underlying it. Does not address or incompletely addresses the errors or holes in the reasoning.

2 Articulates an opposing position but does not present a clear line of reasoning behind it.

1 Does not articulate a clear opposing position.

REASONING STRATEGY 9: DECISION MAKING

Decision making involves selecting among apparently equal alternatives.
It includes four components that can be assessed.

Identifies important and appropriate alternatives to be considered.

Identifies important and appropriate criteria for assessing the alternatives.

Accurately identifies the extent to which each alternative possesses each criteria.

Makes a selection that adequately meets the decision criteria and answers the initial decision question.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Decision Making:
Identifies important and appropriate alternatives to be considered.

4 Presents a comprehensive list of the most important possible alternatives and describes each in detail.

3 Identifies alternatives that represent most of the important possible alternatives.

2 Identifies some alternatives that are important and others that are not.

1 Selects alternatives that are clearly not relevant to the decision.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Decision Making:
Identifies important and appropriate criteria for assessing the alternatives.

4 Clearly identifies the criteria by which the identified alternatives will be assessed. The criteria reflect an unusually thorough understanding of the nature of the decision task.

3 Clearly identifies the criteria by which the identified alternatives will be assessed. With no significant exceptions, the criteria are important to the decision task.

2 Identifies some important criteria by which the identified alternatives will be assessed. However, come important criteria are omitted, or criteria are included that may not be important to the decision task.

1 Identifies few or no criteria that are relevant to the decision task.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Decision Making:
Accurately identifies the extent to which each alternative possesses each criteria.

4 Provides a thorough, fully developed assessment of each alternative based upon the criteria. Exceeds the demands of the decision task by comparing and contrasting the alternatives to provide greater insights.

3 Presents an accurate assessment of the extent to which the alternatives possess the identified criteria.

2 Does not completely address all the criteria; or applies all appropriate criteria to the alternatives but is not completely accurate in assessing how well the criteria have been met.

1 Does not address the extent to which the alternatives meet the criteria or is inaccurate in assessing how well the alternatives meet the criteria.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Decision Making:
Makes a selection that adequately meets the decision criteria and answers the initial decision question.

4 Selects an alternative that meets or exceeds the criteria and that represents a well-supported answer to the initial decision question. Provides a useful discussion of issues and insights that arose during the selection process.

3 Successfully answers the decision question by selecting an alternative that meets or exceeds established criteria.

2 Selects an alternative that does not entirely conform to the students’ assessment of the alternatives.

1 Makes a selection that does not appear reasonable or cannot be justified by the student’s evaluation of the alternatives.

REASONING STRATEGY 10: INVESTIGATION

Investigation is a process involving close examination and systematic inquiry.
There are three basic types of investigation:

Definitional Investigation: Constructing a definition or detailed description of a concept for which such a definition or description is not readily available or accepted.

Historical Investigation: Constructing an explanation for some past event for which an explanation is not readily available or accepted.

Projective Investigation: Constructing a scenario for some future event or hypothetical past event for which a scenario is not readily available or accepted.

Each type of investigation includes three components that can be assessed:

Accurately identifies what is already known or agreed upon about the concept (definitional investigation), the past event (historical investigation), or the future event (projective investigation).

Identifies and explains the confusions, uncertainties, or contradictions about the concept (definitional investigation), the past event (historical investigation), or the future event (projective investigation).

Develops and defends a logical and plausible resolution the confusions, uncertainties, or contradictions about the concept (definitional investigation), the past event (historical investigation), or the future event (projective investigation).

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Investigation:
Accurately identifies what is already known or agreed upon about the concept (definitional investigation), the past event (historical investigation), or the future event (projective investigation).

4 Presents a thorough and correct account of what is already known. Supplies information that may not be commonly known, but that has some bearing on the topic being studied.

3 Presents an accurate account, with no important omissions, of what is already known or agreed upon about the topic being studied.

2 Presents information on what is already known or agreed upon about the topic being studied; however, the information may not be complete in all particulars, or the student may introduce some inaccuracies.

1 Presents little or no accurate and important information about what is already known or agreed upon about the topic.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Investigation:
Identifies and explains the confusions, uncertainties, or contradictions about the concept (definitional investigation), the past event (historical investigation), or the future event (projective investigation).

4 Identifies the important confusions, uncertainties, or contradictions surrounding the topic. Brings to light misconceptions or confusions that are commonly overlooked.

3 Identifies, with no important errors, significant confusions, uncertainties, or contradictions surrounding the topic.

2 Identifies confusions, uncertainties, or contradictions associated with the topic. The problems identified include some, but not all, of the most critical issues.

1 Fails to accurately identify any important confusions, uncertainties, or contradictions surrounding the topic

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Investigation:
Develops and defends a logical and plausible resolution to the confusions, uncertainties, or contradictions about the concept (definitional investigation), the past event (historical investigation), or the future event (projective investigation).

4 Provides a logical and well-developed resolution to the confusions, uncertainties, or contradictions. The resolution reflects creative thinking as well as thoughtful attention to the details of the problem.

3 Presents a clear resolution to the problems associated with the concept. The resolution is a logical and plausible outcome of the investigation.

2 Develops and presents a resolution to the problems associated with the concept. The resolution is satisfactory, but lacks thorough treatment and accuracy.

1 Presents an unsubstantiated and implausible resolution to the confusions, uncertainties, or contradictions.

REASONING STRATEGY 11: PROBLEM SOLVING

Problem solving involves developing and testing a method or product for overcoming obstacles or constraints to reach a desired outcome.
It includes four components that can be assessed:

Accurately identifies constraints or obstacles.

Identifies viable and important alternatives for overcoming the constraints or obstacles.

Selects and adequately tries out alternatives.

If other alternatives were tried, accurately articulates and supports the reasoning behind the order of their selection, and the extent to which each overcame the obstacles or constraints.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Problem Solving:
Accurately identifies constraints of obstacles.

4 Accurately and thoroughly describes the relevant constraints or obstacles. Addresses obstacles or constraints that are not immediately apparent.

3 Accurately identifies the most important constraints or obstacles.

2 Identifies some constraints or obstacles that are accurate along with some that are not accurate.

1 Omits the most significant constraints or obstacles.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Problem Solving:
Identifies viable and important alternatives for overcoming the constraints or obstacles.

4 Identifies creative but plausible solutions to the problem under consideration. The solutions address the central difficulties posed by the constraint of obstacle.

3 Proposes alternative solutions that appear plausible and that address the most important constraints or obstacles.

2 Presents alternative solutions for dealing with the obstacles or constraints, but the solutions do not all address the important difficulties.

1 Presents solutions that fail to address critical parts of the problem.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Problem Solving:
Selects and adequately tries out alternatives.

4 Engages in effective, valid, and exhaustive trials of the selected alternatives. Trials go beyond those required to solve the problem and show a commitment to an in-depth understanding of the problem.

3 Puts the selected alternatives to trials adequate to determine their utility.

2 Tries out the alternatives, but the trials are incomplete and important elements are omitted or ignored.

1 Does not satisfactorily test the selected solutions.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Problem Solving:
If other alternatives were tried, accurately articulates and supports the reasoning behind the order of their selection, and the extent to which each overcame the obstacles or constraints.

4 Provides a clear, comprehensive summary of the reasoning that led to the selection of secondary solutions. The description includes a review of the decisions that produced the order of selection and how each alternative fared as a solution.

3 Describes the process that led to the ordering of secondary solutions. The description offers a clear, defensible rationale for the ordering of the alternatives and the final selection.

2 Describes the process that led to the ordering of secondary solutions. The description does not provide a clear rationale for the ordering of the alternatives, or the student does not address all the alternatives that were tried.

1 Describes an illogical method for determining the relative value of the alternatives. The student does not present a reasonable review of the strengths and weaknesses of the alternative solutions that were tried and abandoned.

REASONING STRATEGY 12: EXPERIMENTAL INQUIRY

Experimental inquiry involves testing hypotheses that have been generated to explain a phenomenon.
It includes four components that can be assessed:

Accurately explains the phenomenon initially observed using appropriate and accepted facts, concepts, or principles.

Makes a logical prediction based on the facts, concepts, or principles underlying the explanation.

Sets up and carries out an activity or experiment that effectively tests the prediction.

Effectively evaluates the outcome of the activity or experiment in terms of the original explanation.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Experimental Inquiry:
Accurately explains the phenomenon initially observed using appropriate and accepted facts, concepts, or principles.

4 Provides an accurate explanation of the phenomenon. The facts, concepts, or principles used for the explanation are appropriate to the phenomenon and accurately applied. The explanation reflects thorough and careful research or understanding.

3 Provides an accurate explanation of the phenomenon. The facts, concepts, or principles used in the explanation are appropriate to the phenomenon and accurately applied, with no significant errors.

2 Explains the phenomenon but misapplies or omits some facts, concepts or principles that are important for understanding the phenomenon.

1 Leaves out key facts, concepts, or principles in explaining the phenomenon, or does not use appropriate facts, concepts, or principles to explain the phenomenon.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Experimental Inquiry:
Makes a logical prediction based on the facts, concepts, or principles underlying the explanation.

4 Makes a verifiable prediction that reflects insight into the character of the phenomenon. The prediction is entirely appropriate to the facts, concepts, or principles used to explain the phenomenon.

3 Makes a prediction that follows from the facts, concepts, or principles used to explain the phenomenon. The prediction can be verified.

2 Makes a prediction that reflects a misunderstanding of some aspects of the facts, concepts, or principles used to explain the phenomenon, or makes a prediction that presents difficulties for verification.

1 Makes a prediction that cannot be verified.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Experimental Inquiry:
Sets up and carries out an activity or experiment that effectively tests the prediction.

4 Sets up and carries out an activity or experiment that is a complete and valid test of the prediction and addresses all important questions raised by the prediction. The activity or experiment is designed to provide complete and accurate data and a model of the experimental design.

3 Sets up and carries out an activity or experiment that is a fair test of the prediction and addresses the most important questions raised by the prediction. The activity or experiment provides accurate data for evaluation.

2 Sets up and carries out an activity or experiment that addresses some important aspects of the prediction, but omits others. The design of the activity or experiment produces some errors in data collection or interpretation.

1 Sets up and carries out an activity or experiment that does not test the central features of the prediction. The experimental design is seriously flawed and the collection of accurate data is unlikely.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Experimental Inquiry:
Effectively evaluates the outcome of the activity or experiment in terms of the original explanation.

4 Provides a complete and accurate explanation of the outcome of the activity or experiment and does so in terms of the relevant facts, concepts, or principles. Provides insights into the nature of the phenomenon studied or the facts, concepts, and principles used to explain it.

3 Provides a complete explanation of the outcome of the activity or experiment with no important errors. Presents the explanation in terms of the relevant facts, concepts, or principles.

2 Provides a general explanation of the outcome of the activity or experiment but omits one or two important aspects, or may not effectively relate the outcome to the facts, concepts, or principles used to generate the prediction.

1 Provides an inaccurate, highly flawed explanation of how the outcome relates to the original explanation.

REASONING STRATEGY 13: INVENTION

Invention involves developing something unique or making unique improvements to a product or process to satisfy an unmet need.
It includes four components that can be assessed:

Identifies a process or product to develop or improve to satisfy an unmet need.

Identifies rigorous and important standards or criteria the invention will meet.

Makes detailed and important revisions in the initial process or product.

Continually revises and polishes the process or product until it reaches a level of completeness consistent with the criteria or standards identified earlier.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Invention:
Identifies a process or product to develop or improve to meet an unmet need.

4 Proposes a process or product that provides a unique solution to an unmet need. The proposed process or product reflects a high level of creativity.

3 Proposes a process or product that provides a good answer to the unmet need.

2 Proposes a process or product that will not adequately satisfy the unmet need.

1 Proposes a process or product that has little or no relation to the unmet need.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Invention:
Identifies rigorous and important standards or criteria the invention will meet.

4 Sets out rigorous criteria well suited to the purpose of the invention. The student identifies only the highest achievable standards of quality as acceptable outcomes.

3 Establishes an appropriate set of criteria for the invention.

2 Identifies criteria for the invention that may not be completely appropriate for the product or sets standards that do not ensure a worthwhile or completed product.

1 Establishes criteria that fail to address the most important purposes of the invention. Sets standards so low that little quality can be expected.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Invention:
Makes detailed and important revisions to the initial process or products.

4 Reviews the process or product at a considerable level of detail. The revisions or improvements clearly bring the process or product closer to fulfilling the purpose for which it is designed. The student’s attention to the details of the draft or model makes a high-quality product likely.

3 Revises the process or product in ways that serve the purpose of the process or product.

2 Revises the process or product but attempts to address only the most obvious difficulties.

1 Makes few, if any, attempts at revision and appears satisfied with the initial process or product, although obvious difficulties still remain.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies.
Invention:
Continually revises and polishes the process or product until it reaches a level of completeness consistent with the criteria or standards articulated earlier.

4 Develops a final process or product that meets the criteria established at a demanding level of quality. The process or product fulfills the purpose for which it was designed. In addition, the process or product reflects creativity and establishes a model for creative work of high quality.

3 Continues revising the process or product until it meets all standards and criteria. The process or product successfully serves the purpose for which it was designed.

2 Revises the process or product until it meets minimum standards.

1 Finishes revising the process or product before it has met minimum standards. The process or product does not meet many important criteria and fails in its purpose.

Rubrics for Information Processing Standards

Effectively interprets and synthesizes information.

4 Interprets the information gathered for a task in accurate and highly insightful ways. Provides a highly creative and unique synthesis of the information.

3 Accurately interprets information gathered for a task and concisely synthesizes it.

2 Makes significant errors in interpreting the information gathered for a task or synthesizes the information imprecisely or awkwardly.

1
Grossly misinterprets the information gathered for the task or fails to synthesize it.

Effectively uses a variety of information-gathering techniques and information resources.

4 Uses the important information-gathering techniques and information resources necessary to complete the task. Identifies little-known information resources or uses unique information-gathering techniques.

3 Uses the important information-gathering techniques and information resources necessary to complete the task.

2 Fails to use some significant information-gathering techniques and information resources necessary to complete the task.

1 Fails to use the most important information-gathering techniques or the major information resources necessary to complete the task.

Accurately assesses the value of information.

4 Analyzes information in detail, accurately and insightfully determining whether it is credible and relevant to a specific task.

3 Accurately determines whether information is credible and relevant to a specific task.

2 Makes some significant errors in determining whether information is credible and relevant to a specific task.

1 Makes little or no attempt to determine whether information is credible and relevant to a specific task or totally misjudges the relevance and credibility of information.

Recognizes where and how projects would benefit from additional information.

4 Insightfully determines the types of information that will benefit a task and effectively seeks out that information.

3 Accurately assesses a task to identify areas requiring additional information for clarification or support and seeks out the needed information.

2 Does not accurately assess the information needs of the task or fails to seek out needed information.

1 Makes little or no attempt to assess whether a task would benefit from additional information.

Rubrics for Effective Communication Standards

Expresses ideas clearly.

4 Clearly and effectively communicates the main idea or theme and provides support that contains rich, vivid, and powerful detail.

3 Clearly communicates the main idea or theme and provides suitable support and detail.

2 Communicates important information but not a clear theme or overall structure.

1
Communicates information as isolated pieces in a random fashion.

Effectively communicates with diverse audiences.

4 Presents information in a style and tone that effectively capitalize on the audience’s level of interest and level of knowledge or understanding.

3 Presents information in a style and tone consistent with the audience’s level of interest and level of knowledge or understanding.

2 Presents information in a style and tone inappropriate for the audience’s level of interest or the audience’s level of knowledge.

1 Presents information in a style and tone inappropriate for both the audience’s level of interest and level of knowledge.

Effectively communicates in a variety of ways.

4 Uses multiple methods of communication, applying the conventions and rules of those methods in highly creative and imaginative ways.

3 Uses two different methods of communication, applying the conventions and rules of those methods in customary ways.

2 Attempts to use two methods of communication but does not apply the conventions and rules of those methods.

1 Uses only one method of communication when more than one method is clearly needed or requested and does not correctly apply the conventions and rules of that method.

Effectively communicates for a variety of purposes.

4 Clearly communicates a purpose in a highly creative and insightful manner.

3 Uses effective techniques to communicate a clear purpose.

2 Demonstrates an attempt to communicate for a specific purpose but makes significant errors or omissions.

1 Demonstrates no central purpose in the communication or makes no attempt to articulate a purpose.

Creates quality products.

4 Creates a product that exceeds conventional standards.

3 Creates a product that clearly meets conventional standards.

2 Creates a product that does not meet one or a few important standards.

1 Creates a product that does not address the majority of the conventional standards.

Rubrics for Collaboration/Cooperation Standards

Works towards the achievement of group goals.

4 Actively helps identify group goals and works hard to meet them.

3 Communicates commitment to the group goals and effectively carries out assigned roles.

2 Communicates a commitment to the group goals but does not carry out assigned roles.

1 Does not work toward group goals or actively works against them.

Demonstrates effective interpersonal skills.

4 Actively promotes effective group interaction and the expression of ideas and opinions in a way that is sensitive to the feelings and knowledge base of others.

3 Participates in group interaction without prompting. Expresses ideas and opinions in a way that is sensitive to the feelings and knowledge base of others.

2 Participates in group interaction with prompting or expresses ideas and opinions without considering the feelings and knowledge base of others.

1 Does not participate in group interaction, even with prompting, or expresses ideas and opinions in a way that is insensitive to the feelings or knowledge base of others.

Contributes to group maintenance.

4 Actively helps the group identify changes or modifications necessary in the group process and works toward carrying out those changes.

3 Helps identify changes or modifications necessary in the group process and works toward carrying out those changes.

2 When prompted, helps identify changes or modifications necessary in the group process, or is only minimally involved in carrying out those changes.

1 Does not attempt to identify changes or modifications necessary in the group process, even when prompted, or refuses to work toward carrying out those changes.

Effectively performs a variety of roles within a group.

4 Effectively performs multiple roles within the group.

3 Effectively performs two roles within the group.

2 Makes an attempt to perform more than one role within the group but has little success with secondary roles.

1 Rejects opportunities or requests to perform more than one role in the group.

Rubrics for Habits of Mind Standards

Is aware of own thinking.

4 Explains in detail the sequence of thoughts he or she used when facing a task or problem. Provides a detailed analysis of how an awareness of his or her own thinking has enhanced performance.

3 Describes how he or she thought through a task or problem. Provides some ideas about how an awareness of his or her own thinking has enhanced performance.

2 Provides a vague or incomplete description of how he or she thought through a task or problem. Provides only few ideas about how an awareness of his or her own thinking has enhanced performance.

1
Provides a confusing report of the thinking he or she used in completing a task or problem. Cannot describe how performance has been improved.

Makes effective plans.

4 Sets a precise goal. Considers and carries out all necessary subgoals. Creates and adheres to a detailed time line.

3 Sets a goal. Considers and carries out some subgoals. Creates and carries out a useful time line.

2 Begins tasks without a completely defined goal. Makes little attempt to define subgoals or develop a time line.

1
Makes no effort to identify a goal or its related subgoals and time line.

Is aware of and uses necessary resources.

4 Performs a careful detailed assessment of resource needs before beginning a task. Reviews available resources and considers alternatives. Anticipates steps in the process that might require additional demands on resources.

3 Assesses a project to identify areas that require resources. Reviews available and alternative resources to determine whether they are suitable for the project.

2 Considers resource needs as they come up, creating situations in which difficulties that could have been anticipated will stop or hamper a project. Overlooks alternative resources.

1
Does not consider resource needs. Decides to use whatever resources are easily available. Overlooks obvious and necessary resources.

Evaluates the effectiveness of own actions.

4 Is sensitive to a wide variety of feedback. Responds promptly when the current approach is clearly not working. Seeks out advice and responses from knowledgeable sources.

3 Is aware of major sources of feedback. Responds and adjusts when correction is needed. Listens to the advice of others.

2 Is insensitive to some important sources of feedback. Rejects some negative feedback. Has difficulty accepting advice.

1 Ignores major sources of feedback. Responds negatively to unfavorable information.

Is sensitive to feedback.

4 Reviews actions thoroughly and from as many points of view as is useful. Reviews actions for both immediate and long-term effects. Finds value in lessons learned from both success and failure.

3 Reviews actions from a reasonably objective perspective. Considers short-term effects. Finds lessons in what worked well.

2 Reviews actions from highly subjective perspective. Rarely considers the effects of actions. Gleans few lessons from the task.

1 Makes no effort to review actions.

Is accurate and seeks accuracy.

4 Pays close attention to detail when appropriate. Checks against all important sources. Recognizes inaccuracies quickly and makes corrections that not only clear up the identified errors, but add greater clarity to the whole.

3 Pays adequate attention to detail. Checks several sources. Recognizes and corrects major inaccuracies.

2 Tries to be accurate but overlooks important details. Doesn’t check enough sources to assure accuracy of important points. Doesn’t recognize and correct some important errors.

1 Does not check important details for accuracy. Makes little effort to review for accuracy.

Is clear and seeks clarity.

4 The student’s entire work is free of confusing parts or elements.

3 The most important elements of the student’s work are free of confusion.

2 The student’s work has some confusing components that significantly affect the clarity of the whole.

1 The student’s entire work is confusing.

Is open-minded.

4 Seeks out different and opposing points of view. Considers alternative views impartially and rationally.

3 Is aware of points of view that differ from own. Makes a concerted effort to consider alternative views.

2 Is aware that his or her perspective is not completely shared by all. Pays mild attention to alternative viewpoints.

1 Assumes his or her own perspective is universally accepted. Deliberately avoids other perspectives.

Restrains impulsivity.

4 Carefully considers a situation to determine if more study is required before acting. When further study is required, investigates thoroughly before acting.

3 Considers whether more study is required before acting. When further study is required, gathers sufficient information before acting.

2 Cursorily considers whether more study is required before acting. When further study is required, gathers sufficient information before acting.

1 Does not consider whether more study is required before acting.

Takes a position when the situation warrants it.

4 Takes a position that is appropriate for the circumstances and introduces a valuable and unrepresented perspective. Provides strong supporting evidence for the position.

3 Takes a position that is appropriate for the circumstances and supports an underrepresented perspective. Provides sufficient justification for the position.

2 Takes a position that the situation does not completely warrant or that is redundant. Does not provide sufficient supporting evidence for the position.

1
Takes a position that is inappropriate for the situation. Presents a position that cannot be supported by evidence.

Is sensitive to the feelings and level of knowledge of others.

4 Demonstrates insight concerning the feelings and levels of knowledge of others and exhibits this insight while communicating. Encourages respect for individual differences and sensitivities.

3 Shows the ability to communicate with persons of diverse knowledge and sensitivities. Encourages respect for the feelings, knowledge, and abilities of others.

2 Has difficulty adjusting communications to accommodate persons of diverse knowledge and sensitivities. Does little to encourage respect in others for individual differences.

1
Demonstrates an inability to work or communicate with others of differing knowledge and abilities. Work reflects apathy or callousness towards the feelings of others.

Engages intensely in tasks even when answers or solutions are not immediately apparent.

4 Demonstrates strong determination in the pursuit of a solution. Monitors his or her level of involvement and develops and uses a number of strategies to keep self on task.

3 Shows determination in the pursuit of a solution. Uses strategies to keep self on track.

2 Makes some effort to resolve a difficult problem but does not spend sufficient time and effort on the problem. Is easily derailed and does not use strategies to keep self on task.

1 Shows evidence of quitting the challenge early, before really trying to solve a problem.

Pushes the limits of own knowledge and ability.

4 Seeks out a highly challenging task and works on the task until it is completed or until attaining significant understandings from the task.

3 Accepts the challenge presented and works on the task until it is completed or until attaining significant understandings from the task.

2 Accepts the challenge presented and makes an initial attempt to complete the task, but quits before completing it or attaining significant understandings.

1 Does not accept the challenge.

Generates, trusts, and maintains own standards of evaluation.

4 Generates personal standards for completion of the task that significantly raise the quality level of the task. Incorporates those standards into the final product.

3 Generates personal standards for completion of the task and incorporates those standards into the final product.

2 Generates personal standards for the task but does not incorporate them into the final product.

1 Does not generate personal standards for the task.

Generates new ways of viewing a situation outside the boundaries of standard convention.

4 Explores as many alternatives as time and resources will allow and analyzes how alternatives will affect the outcome of the task. The alternatives examined illustrate extremely diverse but highly useful ways of looking at the situation.

3 Generates alternative ways of approaching the task and analyzes how the task would be affected by each. Some alternatives show originality in the approach to the task.

2 Considers few alternative ways of viewing the situation; those identified are highly predictable.

1 Remains inflexible. Applies conventional approaches to the situation even when the results are clearly not satisfactory.

Generic Rubric for Declarative Standards
4	Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the generalizations, concepts, and facts specific to the task or situation and provides new insights into some aspect of this information.
3	Displays a complete and accurate understanding of the generalizations, concepts, and facts specific to the task or situation.
2	Displays an incomplete understanding of the generalizations, concepts, and facts specific to the task or situation and has some notable misconceptions.
1	Demonstrates severe misconceptions about the generalizations, concepts, and facts specific to the task or situation.

Generic Rubric for Procedural Standards
4	Demonstrates mastery over the strategy or skill specific to the task or situation. Can perform the strategy or skill without error and with little or no conscious effort.
3	Carries out the strategy or skill specific to the task or situation without significant error.
2	Makes a number of errors when performing the strategy or skill specific to the task or situation but can complete a rough approximation of it.
1	Makes many critical errors when performing the strategy or skill specific to the task or situation.

4	Demonstrates mastery over the process of converting measurements from the metric system into the English system. Can perform the process without error and with little or no conscious effort.
3	Carries out the process of converting measurements from the metric system into the English system without significant error.
2	Makes significant errors when converting measurements from the metric system to the English system but can complete a rough approximation of the process.
1	Makes many critical errors when converting measurements from the metric system to the English system.

Effectively translates issues and situations into meaningful tasks that have a clear purpose.
4	Translates the issue or situation into a well-articulated task that has clearly defined goals and involves clearly identifiable complex reasoning processes. Anticipates and articulates difficulties that task might present.
3	Translates the issue or situation into a task that has clearly defined goals and involves clearly identifiable complex reasoning processes.
2	Translates the issue or situation into a task that has poorly defined goals.
1	Makes an attempt to translate the issue or situation into a task but provides no understandable description of the nature or purpose of the task or makes no attempt to translate the issue or situation into a task.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Comparison: Selects appropriate items to compare.
4	Selects items that are extremely suitable for addressing the basic objective of the comparison and that show original or creative thinking.
3	Selects items that provide a means for successfully addressing the basic objective of the comparison.
2	Selects items that satisfy the basic requirements of the comparison, but create some difficulties for completing the task.
1	Selects items that are inappropriate to the basic objective of the comparison.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Comparison: *Selects appropriate characteristics on which to base the comparison.*
4	Selects characteristics that encompass the most essential aspects of the items and present a unique challenge or provide an unusual insight.
3	Selects characteristics that provide a vehicle for meaningful comparison of the items and address the basic objective of the comparison.
2	Selects characteristics that provide for a partial comparison of the items and may include some extraneous characteristics.
1	Selects characteristics that are trivial or do not address the basic objective of the comparison. Selects characteristics on which the items cannot be compared.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Comparison: *Accurately identifies the similarities and differences among the items, using the identifies characteristics.*
4	Accurately assesses all identified similarities and differences for each item on the selected characteristic. Additionally, the students provides inferences from the comparison that were not explicitly requested in the task description.
3	Accurately assesses the major similarities and differences among the identified characteristics.
2	Makes some important errors in identifying the major similarities and differences among the identified characteristics.
1	Makes many significant errors in identifying the major similarities and differences among the identified characteristics.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Classification: Selects significant items to classify.
4	Specifies the items to be classified and selects significant items that present some interesting challenge in classification.
3	Selects significant items for classification that present some challenge in classification.
2	Selects items of little significance or presents a routine sorting problem.
1	Selects trivial items or items that have no relationship to the task.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Classification: Specifies useful categories for the items.
4	Creates categories that provide a useful way of looking at the items at an unusual level of depth.
3	Creates categories that focus on the significant characteristics of the items.
2	Creates categories that provide for some analysis of the items but may not include all the important characteristics of the items.
1	Creates categories that address only trivial aspects of the items.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Classification: Specifies accurate and comprehensive rules for category membership.
4	Provides a clear and complete specification of the defining characteristics of each category. Describes the defining characteristics in such a way as to provide a unique or unusual way of looking at the items.
3	Clearly specifies the defining characteristics of the categories and addresses any questions of overlap in characteristics.
2	Describes the defining characteristics of categories in a way that results in some overlap or confusion between categories, or describes characteristics that are unrelated to the rules for category membership.
1	Identifies characteristics that do not accurately describe the categories.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Classification: Accurately sorts the identified items into the categories.
4	Correctly sorts each of the items into the categories and describes the extent to which each item has the characteristics ascribed to the categories. Describes insights gained during the sorting process.
3	Correctly sorts each of the items into the categories and, when appropriate, describes the extent to which each item has the characteristics ascribed to the categories.
2	Makes some errors in assigning items to their appropriate categories, or does not describe the extent to which each item has the characteristics of the category, when it is clearly appropriate for the task.
1	Makes frequent and significant errors in assigning items to categories and does not show how the items have the characteristics of their assigned categories.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Induction: Identifies elements (specific pieces of information or observations) from which to make inductions.
4	Clearly and accurately identifies all relevant information from which to make inductions. The type of information selected reflects creative insight and a careful analysis of the situation.
3	Specifies all relevant information from which to make inductions. Selects information that is important to the general topic.
2	Includes some information that is not important to the induction or does not accurately identify the important information from which the induction(s) could be made.
1	Selects unimportant or trivial information for the induction.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Induction: Interprets the information from which inductions are made.
4	Provides accurate interpretations that illustrate insight into the information from which they were made. The interpretations reflect a study of or a familiarity with the particulars of the topic.
3	Provides interpretations that, with few exceptions, are valid and say something important about the topic.
2	Provides some interpretations that are based on significant misunderstandings of the subject matter.
1	Significantly misinterprets the information. Makes interpretations that have no bearing on the area or are clearly illogical.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Induction: Makes and articulates accurate conclusions (inductions) from the selected information or observations.
4	Draws conclusions that reflect clear and logical links between the information or observations and the interpretations made from them. The rationale for the interpretations shows a thoughtful and accurate attention to the process of induction.
3	Presents conclusions that, with few exceptions, follow logically from the selected information or observations.
2	Presents some conclusions that reflect erroneous interpretations made from the information or observations.
1	Draws many erroneous conclusions from the selected information of observations and cannot satisfactorily describe the rationale behind the conclusions.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Deduction: Identifies and articulates a deduction based on important and useful generalizations or principles implicit or explicit in the information.
4	Selects generalizations or principles that show extreme insight into the topic.
3	Selects important generalizations or principles that contribute to the understanding of the material being studied.
2	Selects generalizations or principles that generally relate to the information available but that may not have significant explanatory power.
1	Selects generalizations or principles that do not have significant bearing on the material and do not contribute to the understanding of the subject.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Deduction: Accurately interprets the generalizations or principles.
4	Demonstrates an understanding of the generalizations or principles that is not only accurate but provides a unique perspective on the topic.
3	Demonstrates an understanding of the generalizations or principles that is accurate and contributes to an understanding of the topic.
2	Demonstrates a somewhat inaccurate understanding of the generalizations or principles.
1	Demonstrates an incorrect understanding or interpretation of the generalizations or principles.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Deduction: Identifies and articulates logical consequences implied by the identified generalizations or principles.
4	Accurately identifies logical conclusions implied by the generalizations or principles. Recognizes more subtle inferences that could have important effects on the subject area.
3	With few errors, accurately identifies the consequences of the generalizations or principles. The consequences relate closely to the subject area and are worthwhile subjects for discussion
2	Accounts for important consequences of the generalizations or principles, but identifies consequences that may not be germane to the topic; or makes logical errors in identifying the consequences.
1	Identifies consequences that have little significance and are not logical or germane to the topic.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Error Analysis: Identifies and articulates significant errors in information or in a process.
4	Accurately identifies all errors in the information or process under study and makes clear why the points identified are errors. Also identifies subtle but important errors that are difficult to recognize.
3	Accurately identifies all critical errors in the information or process under study and makes clear why the points identified are errors.
2	Fails to recognize some important errors or identifies some points that are not errors.
1	Recognizes only insignificant errors or mistakes valid points for errors.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Error Analysis: Accurately describes the effects of the errors on the information or process.
4	Provides an accurate analysis of the effects of the errors, including a complete description of the ramifications of the errors beyond the most obvious levels of impact.
3	Provides an accurate analysis of the effects of the errors, omitting few details.
2	Describes the effects of the errors, but omits some important consequences; or does not accurately describe all the effects of the errors.
1	Does not correctly assess the effects of the errors, or describes effects that do not exist.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Error Analysis: Accurately describes how to correct the errors.
4	Provides a highly thoughtful or creative approach for correcting the errors.
3	Provides a workable way of correcting the errors. The response addresses the major concerns raised by the errors.
2	Provides an approach for correcting the errors. The approach addresses some of the major errors, though it may not be the best or most appropriate response to the situation.
1	Does not accurately describe how to correct the errors.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Constructing Support: Accurately identifies a claim that requires support rather than a fact that does not require support.
4	Accurately identifies a claim that requires support. The identified claim has been mistaken by many others for a fact that requires no support.
3	Accurately identifies a claim that requires support and does not confuse the claim with any other information.
2	Identifies a claim that requires support but may mistakenly include information that does not require support.
1	Identifies information that does not require support and fails to identify a claim that should have support.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Constructing Support: Provides sufficient or appropriate evidence for the claim.
4	Presents a clear and accurate treatment of all available evidence that addresses the central point of the claim. Considers what evidence is missing and how it should affect an evaluation of the claim.
3	With no major errors, presents all relevant evidence needed to support the claim.
2	Provides evidence for the claim, but may not address all necessary aspects.
1	Fails to provide convincing evidence for the claim.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Constructing Support: Accurately qualifies or restricts the claim.
4	Provides careful and reasoned qualifications or restrictions for the claim in such a way that the argument provides a unique perspective on the claim.
3	Provides accurate qualifications or restrictions for the claim, with the result being a well-defended claim.
2	Qualifies or restricts the claim, but leaves out important aspects of the qualifications or restrictions.
1	Does not address qualifications or restrictions for the claim.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Abstracting: Identifies a significant situation or meaningful information that is useful as a subject for the abstracting process.
4	Identifies a situation or information that provides a rich source of material for the process of abstracting. The selected information is not commonly used in abstracting tasks but has a pattern that could be quite powerful when abstracted.
3	Identifies significant information that also has a pattern that lends itself to the abstracting process.
2	Identifies information that seems unimportant but does have a pattern that can be used in the abstracting process.
1	Identifies trivial information having no identifiable pattern that can be used in the abstracting process.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Abstracting: Identifies a representative general or abstract pattern for the situation or information.
4	Identifies a general or abstract pattern that provides unusual or provocative insights into the information under study. The pattern furnishes the means for seeing other material from a unique perspective.
3	Constructs a general or abstract pattern that accurately represents the information from which it came.
2	Creates a general or abstract pattern that may not be a completely accurate representation of the information or situation from which it was drawn but does focus on its most important elements.
1	Does not create a general or abstract pattern that accurately represents the information or situations selected.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Abstracting: Accurately articulates the relationship between the general or abstract pattern and another situation or set of information.
4	Demonstrates creativity in the selection of another situation or set of information that contains a similar general or abstract form. The situation or information is important and provides a very good subject for analysis.
3	Correctly identifies another situation or set of information that contains the essential characteristics of the general or abstract form and provides a worthwhile subject for study.
2	Identifies another situation or set of information that does perfectly match the general or abstract form but has some similarities.
1	Selects another situation or set of information that does not conform in any way to the general or abstract pattern identified.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Analyzing Perspectives: Identifies an issue on which there is disagreement.
4	Identifies and articulates implicit points of disagreement that are not obvious but are the underlying cause of conflict.
3	Identifies and articulates explicit points of disagreement that cause conflict.
2	Identifies and articulates issues that are not points of disagreement as important issues of disagreement.
1	Ignores explicit and implicit points of disagreement.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Analyzing Perspectives: Identifies one position on the issue and the reasoning behind it.
4	Articulates a detailed position and the reasoning behind it and, if a strong line of reasoning does not underlie the position, articulates the errors or holes in the reasoning.
3	Articulates a position and the basic reasoning underlying the position. Does not address or incompletely addresses the errors or holes in the reasoning.
2	Articulates a position but does not present a clear line of reasoning behind it.
1	Does not articulate a clear position.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Analyzing Perspectives: Identifies an opposing position and the reasoning behind it.
4	Articulates a detailed opposing position and the reasoning behind it. If a strong line of reasoning does not underlie the position, articulates the errors or holes in the reasoning.
3	Articulates an opposing position and the basic reasoning underlying it. Does not address or incompletely addresses the errors or holes in the reasoning.
2	Articulates an opposing position but does not present a clear line of reasoning behind it.
1	Does not articulate a clear opposing position.

Effectively uses a variety of complex reasoning strategies. Decision Making: Identifies important and appropriate alternatives to be considered.
4	Presents a comprehensive list of the most important possible alternatives and describes each in detail.
3	Identifies alternatives that represent most of the important possible alternatives.
2	Identifies some alternatives that are important and others that are not.
1	Selects alternatives that are clearly not relevant to the decision.