Critical
thinking skill
|
Exemplary |
Adequate
|
Not
good enough
|
Critical
interpretation of texts
|
- Offers in-depth and
critical interpretation of the document;
- distinguishes sharply between fact and opinion;
- explores reliability of author;
- rigorously compares and contrasts text's point of
view with that of others.
|
- Offers critical interpretation of the
document;
- rarely confuses fact with opinion;
- compares and contrasts text's point of view with
that of others with general accuracy.
|
- Demonstrates a minimal
understanding of the document but offers little or no critical
interpretation of the document;
- often fails to distinguish between fact
and opinion or to accurately describe text's point of view
|
Knowledge
of context(s) of production and/or performance
|
- Shows evidence of thorough
knowledge of context(s) in which source was produced and/or performed;
- relates primary source to specific contexts in which it was
produced
and/or performed
|
- Uses previous knowledge of
context(s) in which source was produced and/or performed to examine
issues included in the document.
|
- Limited or no use of knowledge
of context(s) in which source was produced and/or performed, often
without historical accuracy.
|
Key
Issues/Main Points
|
- Identifies key issues and main
points included in the primary source relevant to the writing
assignment or exam question;
- Does not include material irrelevant or tangential to the
question
|
- Identifies some key issues and
main points included in the primary source relevant to the writing
assignment or exam question;
- Includes little that is irrelevant or tangential to the
question
|
- Describes in general terms an
issue included in the primary source relevant to the writing assignment
or exam question, but is vague;
- Includes much that is irrelevant or tangential to the
question.
|
Generic
conventions/Literary Devices
|
- Accurately analyzes use of literary devices
(such as repetition, irony, analogy);
- identifies generic conventions
and their effect on critical interpretation;
- shows understanding of narratorial/
character perspective and point of view.
|
- Mentions use of literary devices
and/or generic conventions, but does not develop them fully;
- shows awareness of narratorial/character
perspective and point of view.
|
- Does not accurately discuss or demonstrate
awareness of use of literary devices and/or generic conventions;
- does not demonstrate awareness
of narratorial/character perspective and point of view.
|
Reception
|
- Demonstrates strong
understanding of historical audience(s) of the text and analyzes
potential differences in reception and use.
|
- Demonstrates some understanding
of historical audience(s) of the text but does not develop differences
in reception and use fully.
|
- Demonstrates little or no
understanding of historical audience(s) or potential differences in
reception.
|
| Quality
of Argument |
- Constructs a clearly articulated and sophisticated
argument, set forth in a thesis statement, and both cites and explains
evidence from the text in support of the argument;
- shows compelling connections
among key points (e.g., indicates contradictions and continuities;
shows cause & effect relationships)
- demonstrates sound logic leading toward a
generalization; clearly states conclusion and shows convincingly
how conclusion emerges from the evidence.
|
- Constructs a logical argument, set forth in a thesis
statement and supported by evidence from the text;
- shows connections among key
points;
- demonstrates logical
progression of argument;
- shows
how conclusion emerges from the evidence
|
- Constructs a poorly articulated argument with no
identifiable thesis statement and unsupported by evidence from the text;
- Ignores key points or shows
inability to manipulate them;
- shows confusion about relationships among key points;
- shows little or no logical progression and fails to create
order from details;
- Conclusion does not emerge from the evidence.
|