Grossman School of Business

Rubric: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving 2.3

Rubric: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving - Interpret and evaluate results of analysis

Learning Objective	1.Unacceptable	2.Acceptable	3.Excellent
Reasoned and Logical Conclusion: Identifies and assesses conclusions, implications, and consequences. This dimension focuses on integrating previous dimensions and extending them to draw conclusion(s). Well-developed conclusions do more than summarize. They establish new directions for consideration in light of context and the breadth and depth of the evidence.	Fails to identify conclusions, implications, and consequences of the issue or the key relationships between the other elements of the problem, such as other perspectives, assumptions, or data and evidence. Does not recognize difference between correlation and cause. Considers knowledge as absolute when confirmed by one or another authority.	Conclusions begin to reflect influence of other perspectives, assumptions, and evidence that leads to consequences that extend beyond the borders of a discipline or single issue. May confuse correlation with cause. Considers knowledge as relative collection of opinions and perspectives, and makes little attempt to compare.	Identifies and discusses conclusions, implications, and consequences considering assumptions, data, and evidence. Objectively qualifies own assertions. Recognizes limitations of correlations or association and qualifies implications of assertions accordingly. Views knowledge as the best available evidence within the given context, even in the face of uncertainty and ambiguity.

Learning Objective

1.Unacceptable

2.Acceptable

3.Excellent

Reasoned and Logical Conclusion: Identifies and assesses conclusions, implications, and consequences.

This dimension focuses on integrating previous dimensions and extending them to draw conclusion(s). Well-developed conclusions do more than summarize. They establish new directions for consideration in light of context and the breadth and depth of the evidence.

Fails to identify conclusions, implications, and consequences of the issue or the key relationships between the other elements of the problem, such as other perspectives, assumptions, or data and evidence.

Does not recognize difference between correlation and cause.

Considers knowledge as absolute when confirmed by one or another authority.

Conclusions begin to reflect influence of other perspectives, assumptions, and evidence that leads to consequences that extend beyond the borders of a discipline or single issue.

May confuse correlation with cause.

Considers knowledge as relative collection of opinions and perspectives, and makes little attempt to compare.

Identifies and discusses conclusions, implications, and consequences considering assumptions, data, and evidence.

Objectively qualifies own assertions.

Recognizes limitations of correlations or association and qualifies implications of assertions accordingly.

Views knowledge as the best available evidence within the given context, even in the face of uncertainty and ambiguity.