Thinking and Reasoning Skills Rubric                                

Name: _________________ Teacher: Mary Jensen
Date: June 18, 2014 Class: Utah Studies
Description: This rubric will help assess a student's thinking and reasoning skills. Marzano, Robert J. (2000). Transforming Classroom Grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Copyright 2000, McREL. Used by permission of McREL.
4 3 2 1 0
Comparing & Contrasting The student includes all important characteristics on which the items should be compared or contrasted. The student includes the most important but not all characteristics on which the items should be compared or contrasted. The student excludes some critical elements on which the items should be compared or contrasted. The student uses trivial elements to compare or contrast the items. No judgment can be made.
Analyzing Relationships The student identifies the main (superordinate) pattern running through the information along with all minor (subordinate) patterns. The student identifies the main (superordinate) pattern running through the information. The student addresses some of the features of the main (superordinate) pattern running through the information but excludes some critical aspects. The student does not address the main (superordinate) pattern running through the information. No judgment can be made.
Argumentation The student provides a well-articulated and detailed argument containing no errors in logic. The student provides a well-articulated but not detailed argument containing no errors in logic. The student presents an argument that makes a point but is not well articulated or contains some significant errors in logic. The studentís argument makes no clear point or has so many errors in logic that it is invalid. No judgment can be made.
Investigation The student thoroughly and accurately identifies what is known about the subject of the investigation and presents a well-articulated solution to the confusions or contradictions associated with the situation. The student thoroughly and accurately identifies what is known about the subject of the investigation but does not fully address the confusions or contradictions associated with the situation. The student presents a partial description of what is known about the subject of the investigation. The studentís description of what is known about the subject of the investigation is severely flawed. No judgment can be made.