The document summarizes feedback from groups assessing a student sample using two different rubrics for critical thinking. For the CT VALUE rubric, groups noted issues with the assignment not requiring critical thinking skills. Most scores were in the lower milestones. For the BHCC rubric, groups had difficulty applying some criteria and noted the assignment did not allow for opposing viewpoints. Most scores were in the lower levels, with comments that the student did not demonstrate understanding of key concepts. Both rubrics revealed limitations of the assignment in fully assessing the student's critical thinking abilities.

1. 1
Summary for Group 1 and Group 4: Scored Sample C for CT
WORKSHEET 1
SAMPLE C
CT VALUE RUBRIC
SUMMARY OF SCORING & REASONS FOR SCORES
General Comment about VALUE Rubric:
there is lack of fit with respect to sample C and the CT VALUE rubric
belief that the student handled the assignment relatively well but scored a bit lower on the
VALUE Rubric than the group thought the student should have scored
Important: how well the student performs seems linked to how well the assignment
positions students with respect to demonstrating the criteria in the VALUE rubric
Critical thinking is learned across courses and in multiple places;
Do assignments actually ask/require/lead students to demonstrate critical thinking
skills?
Does course level work make a difference in evaluation?
Need to add a zero and need to add a N/A column
A. EXPLANATION OF ISSUES:
General Comments: None
Score:
Milestone 2: 9 people
Milestone 3: 3 people
Reasons Noted: No thesis; no problem; some terms described, but not well; definition there but
not comprehensive;
Handled well a very challenging topic; conclusion could have been the
introduction; paragraph 1 was confusing, threw the reader off; ambiguities by
statements that were not to be explicitly argued
B. EVIDENCE:
General Comments: None
Score:
Milestone 3 (or low 4): 4 people
Milestone 2: 5 people
In between Milestone 2 and Benchmark 1 (1.5 score): 1 person
Benchmark 1: 1 person
Reasons Noted: summary; not in the analysis; no interpretation or integration of the evidence
Selection of evidence was okay but it was not tied together; each selected

2. 2
evidence was independent of ideas; not contemplation of why or context
C. INFLUENCE AND CONTEXT OF ASSUMPTIONS:
General Comments:
Not clear what this means; difficult to define context in assignment as student approaches it
There was a lot of variability in our group in scoring and in our discussion; our scoring ranged
from 0  3; unclear
Score:
Milestone 3: 2 people
Milestone 2: 2 people
Benchmark 1: 4 people
Zero: 2 people
Unclear: 2 people
Reasons Noted:
Circular arguments; did not question assumptions; did not explore assumptions; did not
understand the context of assumptions; did not examine or question assumptions in context of
others
D. STUDENT’S POSITION (Perspective, thesis/hypothesis)
General Comments:
The student’s position was not there; the group did not score this because they were not sure
how to with respect to the assignment. No scores given by group 4
Problems in determining the difference between (3) and (4) in the rubric
(Group 1 comment: I (bonnie) am not sure if this refers to (3) or (4) with respect to scoring or
with respect to the criteria)
Score:
Benchmark 1: 5 people
Zero: 1 person
Reasons Noted:
Listing rather than taking a position
E. CONCLUSIONS AND RELATED OUTCOMES (implications and consequences)
General Comments:
None
Score:
Milestone 2: 3 people
Benchmark 1: 9 people
Zero: 1 person
Reasons Noted: Very short with no elaboration or synthesis

3. 3
WORKSHEET 2
SAMPLE C
BHCC CT RUBRIC
SUMMARY OF SCORING & REASONS FOR SCORES
General Comments about BHCC CT RUBRIC:
specificity of rubric: less room for interpreting rubric;
more discipline-specific rubric; major specific;
doesn’t easily apply to this student artifact;
rubric is less helpful
Problems with matching the assignment and the rubric
Assignment issue: problem with using this rubric to assess this assignment
Seemed to be a higher general scoring (when looking at applicable criteria) using the
BHCC rubric than the LEAP VALUE Rubric
Assignment is problematic; not much Critical Thinking Requested
Bunker Hill rubric seemed to be built upon Blooms
A. IDENTIFIES ISSUES
General Comments: none
Score:
Level 1: 1 person
Level 1.5: 3 people
Level 2: 4 people
Level 3: 5 people
Reasons Noted:
Need assistance in understanding; shows minimal understanding of the assignment; says nothing
about the assignment; Mix criteria in description
Clearly addressed the assignment; lacked clarity but had more than a superficial understanding of
the assignment and issues
B. UNDERSTANDS CONNECTIONS:
General Comments: none
The tools did not line up for us
Score:
Level 1: 3 people
Level 1.5: 2 people
Level 2: 6 people
Reasons Noted:
No thesis; little connection of points; connects some points – it is not just a summary; the writer
has an issue but no thesis;
Many in group 4 (4 people) ranked it a level 2 but thought it might be a 2.5 or low 3

4. 4
Three concepts presented but no there was no thesis statement; no connections; no synthesis; no
discussion of each concept/characteristic of post-modern ideas
C. PROVIDES SUPPORT
General Comments:
What is evidence: linked to discipline?
Group 4 eliminated the bottom bullet
Score:
Level 1: 1 person
Level 2: 4 people
Level 2.5: 1 person
Level 3: 6 people (all group 4 people)
Reasons Noted:
No opposing evidence presented; evidence as examples only; opposing evidence not relevant to
assignment; okay support
Very …… on sub points;
Not all arguments/critical thinking require an opposing viewpoint(s); this should be noted on the
VALUE rubric as well.
D. CONSIDERS COMPLEXITY
General Comments:
The nature of the assignment  no opposing perspectives used; ―conclusions‖ should be in next
category
Score:
Level 1: 3 people
Level 2: 3 people
N/A as defined: group 4 did not think this criterion as defined applied
Reasons group 4 gave:
Limited complexity asked for;
student was performing conceptual analysis;
the student opens the door to introducing complexity/deepening the argument but the student
does not actually do so, doesn’t follow through or walk through the door;
student did not unpack the context;
here we thought it important to note the difference between context versus opposition;
Also, we thought it important to distinguish between the complexity in the object of study versus
the complexity in the student’s analysis; we discussed that the complexity in the object of study
contributed to demonstrating the complexity in student’s thinking
Definition of complexity is problematic: complexity in student’s thinking versus the complexity
in the topic the student is attempting to understand

5. 5
E. DRAWS INFERENCES:
General Comments:
Score 2 and Score 3 are too similar to discriminate between
Score:
Level 1: 1 person
Level 2: 8 people
Level 3: 2 people (2.5 to 3)
Reasons Noted:
Superficial Conclusion; No meta-cognitive activity
Conclusions were based upon evidence but were very superficial
F. UNDERSTANDS ASSUMPTIONS:
General Comments:
Inconsistency in the rubric descriptors; rubric is confusing
Group 4 did not score; the group thought that this was not applicable; N/A the group was not
sure how to assess; student’s assumptions? Assumption of authors of the readings the student
was referring to; student’s state assumptions versus challenge assumptions of others
There appears to be two separate processes here: stating/recognizing assumptions; challenging
assumptions
Score:
Level 1: 1 person
Level 2: 1 person
Not Applicable: 10 people
Reasons Noted:
G. IDENTIFIES IMPLICATIONS:
General Comments:
Group 4 noted a lot of variability in scoring here: scores ranged from N/A to level 2 to level 3 to
level 4
Score:
Level 1: 6 people
Level 2: 2 people
Level 3: 3 people
Level 4: 1 person
Reasons Noted:

6. 6
No thesis
WORKSHEET 3: COMPARING RUBRICS
Group 1 completed Worksheet 3
Specificity of criteria makes the Bunker Hill rubric harder to apply;
BHCC asks about adherence to the assignment – VALUE Rubric does not
BHCC rubric seems to be discipline-specific in its criteria; seems like a research paper rubric
Group 4 completed Summary Report (not Worksheet 3)
Criteria that aligned:
Generally speaking, the BHCC rubric yielded higher ratings (at least in our discussion and
general impression)
Broad categories align, but the specifics vary
Rhetorical feature versus CT feature of BHCC rubric
BHCC rubric was more suited to the Humanities versus the Social Sciences or Sciences; the
BHCC rubric was less institutionally applicable than the VALUE rubric
The BHCC rubric specifically asks if the product/artifact addresses the assignment where the
VALUE rubric does not
GENERAL COMMENT:
We should also consider rating the applicability of the assignment with respect to the
rubric to be used in assessing the assignment

7. 7
GROUP 6 SCORED UMASS BOSTON SAMPLE
WORKSHEET 1
SAMPLE: UMASS BOSTON STUDENT SAMPLE
CT VALUE RUBRIC
SUMMARY OF SCORING & REASONS FOR SCORES
A. EXPLANATION OF ISSUES:
Score:
Milestone 3: 3 people
Milestone 4(3.5 -4): 3 people
Reasons Noted:
Demonstrated meaning of ―comprehensive: and ―all‖; strong piece
B. EVIDENCE:
Score:
Milestone 3: 7 people
Reasons Noted:
Use of superlatives; nature of timing and how to fulfill the assignment
C. INFLUENCE AND CONTEXT OF ASSUMPTIONS:
Score:
Capstone 4: 3 people
Milestone 3.5: 2 people
Milestone 2: 2 people
Reasons Noted:
Comparison of authors, put in historical time; interpretation as optimistic
D. STUDENT’S POSITION (Perspective, thesis/hypothesis)
Score:
Capstone 4: 3 people
Milestone 3.5: 1 person
Milestone 3: 3 people
Reasons Noted:
Confidence in perspective; throws in side issue – militarism; because of timing wasn’t able to
fully discuss limitations
E. CONCLUSIONS AND RELATED OUTCOMES (implications and consequences)
Score:
Capstone 4: 1 person

8. 8
Milestone 3.5: 1 person
Milestone 3: 5 people
Reasons Noted: difficult to know if accurate use of sources
GROUP 6 SCORED UMASS BOSTON SAMPLE
WORKSHEET 2
UMASS BOSTON SAMPLE
BHCC CT RUBRIC
SUMMARY OF SCORING & REASONS FOR SCORES
A. IDENTIFIES ISSUES
Score:
Level 1: 4 people
Reasons Noted:
All issues in the assignment or all issues in the topic
B. UNDERSTANDS CONNECTIONS:
Score:
Level 1: 5 people
Level 2: 3 people
Reasons Noted:
Depends on how many times the essay is read for the smaller threads to fit
C. PROVIDES SUPPORT
Score:
Level 1: 6 people
Level 2: 2 people
Reasons Noted:
Taking timing into consideration; easier to learn to 4 because of the descriptors in the rubric;
more accurate descriptors to decide 3 or 4
A few times wanted more information
D. CONSIDERS COMPLEXITY
Score:
Level 2: 8 people
Reasons Noted:
Difference between 2 and 3 is too great
E. DRAWS INFERENCES:
General Comments:

9. 9
Rubric is constrictive
Score:
Level 1: 8 people
F. UNDERSTANDS ASSUMPTIONS:
Score:
Level 1: 4 people
Level 2: 4 people
Reasons Noted:
Nothing seen as misrepresentations; assumptions clearly identified and built into the conclusion
Superlatives were too extreme
G. IDENTIFIES IMPLICATIONS:
Score:
Level 1: 7 people
High Level 2/Low Level 1: 1 person
Reasons Noted:
Use of ―most‖ significant wording in rubric
WORKSHEET 3: COMPARING RUBRICS
Group 6 completed this worksheet, not the summary sheet
Ways in which criteria are similar:
BH level 4 is closer to a 3 on the VALUE
BH 1 is the zero category
Categories are similar
Ways in which criteria differ:
Clearly addresses assignment – on BHCC ; not on VALUE
Easier to make differences in 3 and 4 by descriptors on the BHCC rubric
BHCC distinctions in all categories easier to make
VALUE rubric is broader
BH language is more useful, VALUE Rubric language is ―too nice‖

10. 10
Summary of Groups 2 and 3
WORKSHEET 1
SAMPLE C
CT VALUE RUBRIC
SUMMARY OF SCORING & REASONS FOR SCORES
General Comments about VALUE rubric:
Assignment is a big part of the problem. Need professional development for faculty on
how to elicit critical thinking since some assignments do not ask for CT
Need N/A
A. EXPLANATION OF ISSUES
Score:
Benchmark 1 person
Milestone 2: 9 people
Milestone 3: 4 people
Reasons Noted: Issues undefined—gives list of examples—no real analysis
B. EVIDENCE:
General Comments: None
Score:
Benchmark 1: 5 people
Milestone 2: 7 people
Milestone 3: 2 people
Reasons Noted: Only asked to reference 1 source; has some interpretation
Student did not address either topic but rather bits of each
C. INFLUENCE AND CONTEXT OF ASSUMPTIONS:
Score:
Benchmark 1: 5 people
Milestone 2: 6 people
2.5: 1 person
Zero: 1 person
Reasons Noted: Had relevant quotations that aligned with assertions—didn’t question
assumptions
No questioning of assumptions

11. 11
D. STUDENT’S POSITION (Perspective, thesis/hypothesis)
Score:
Benchmark 1: 9 people
Milestone 2: 3 people
Milestone 3: 2 people
Reasons Noted:
Didn’t find a coherent starting off point, so can’t get where he needs to be.
Assignment is poorly designed
This is basically a description of postmodernism with examples
E. CONCLUSIONS AND RELATED OUTCOMES (implications and consequences)
Score:
Level 1: 7 people
Milestone 2: 8 people
Zero: 3 people
Reasons Noted: Clear conclusion but no opposing viewpoints—simplistic conclusion
Also assignment issue
If we were looking at a sample of papers that are representative of this sample,
then students are not demonstrating critical thinking skills
Question arose from group regarding appropriateness of assignment itself
for critical thinking—i.e., lack of outside evidence
Describe knowledge necessary to make evaluations based on some
characteristics
We don’t know if sample reflects thinking on behalf of the student or a
regurgitation of what was said in class
“Zero” rating vs. “unable to rate” because it’s not applicable, etc.
WORKSHEET 2
SAMPLE C
BHCC CT RUBRIC
SUMMARY OF SCORING & REASONS FOR SCORES
A. IDENTIFIES ISSUES
General Comments: none

12. 12
Score:
Level 1: 3 people
Level 2: 9 people
Reasons Noted:
Didn’t show understanding of assignment
B. UNDERSTANDS CONNECTIONS:
General Comments: none
The tools did not line up for us
Score:
Level 1: 6 people
Level 2: 6 people
Reasons Noted:
No real thesis; however, did connect key points
C. PROVIDES SUPPORT
General Comments:
Score:
Level 1: 4 people
Level 2: 1 person
Level 2.5: 1 person
Level 3: 2 people
N/A: 2 people
Reasons Noted:
N/A. This is not an assignment permitting opposing viewpoints
D. CONSIDERS COMPLEXITY
Score:
Level 1: 5 people
Level 2: 7 people
Reasons Noted:
No multiple perspectives—student does not understand notion of complexity and does
understand postmodernism
No focus on how examples do or don’t illustrate

13. 13
E. DRAWS INFERENCES:
Score:
Level 1: 1 person
Level 2: 7 people
Level 3: 3 people
Level 4: 1 person
Reasons Noted:
Conclusions are consistently drawn even if somewhat simplistic
F. UNDERSTANDS ASSUMPTIONS:
Score:
Level 1: 1 person
Level 2: 3 people
Level 3: 7 people
Reasons Noted:
Good coherence; set groundwork for conclusions
Logical and consistent argument
G. IDENTIFIES IMPLICATIONS:
Score:
Level 1: 2 people
Level 2: 5 people
Level 3: 5 people
Reasons Noted:
We felt the assignment didn’t ask for this
Do we need more than the assignment—maybe a checklist form of sorts or narrative
that “instructor” has identified appropriateness of assignment for particular
assessment
If we were doing this assessment ―for real,‖ we would disqualify the assignment because
it is not appropriate for critical thinking
Or if critical thinking is the outcome, should we even consider the original assignment?
Not knowing what was covered in lecture does not allow for some sense of exit thinking
or repeating lecture
Bullets within ratings for each characteristic ask if both or if just one achieved—what
does that mean for the rating assigned to it?

14. 14
Worksheet 3 (from groups 2 and 3)
Identify Ways in Which Criteria are Similar (AAC&U and BHCC rubric)
o Both look at identification of issues
o Both include student perspective/position
o Both ask about evidence/support
o Elements of AAC&U are included in Bunker Hill rubric
o Different scales in each
o Disciplines should be considered if appropriate vs. Joe/Jane vs. exit-level
considerations need to be taken
Identify Ways in Which Criteria Differ
o AAC&U’s does not allow for evaluation of whether or not artifact meets
assignment requirements
Summary Worksheet (from Group 3)
Identify criteria that align
The institutional rubric had more distinctions. However, when reviewing the AAC&U
rubric criteria, there are distinctions. Albeit slightly more hidden
Identify criteria that do not align and reasons why there is lack of alignment
Assignment directions completely included on institutional rubric
Discipline influence is strong—or can be especially strong—particularly with higher
levels on AAC&U rubric
List recommended ways to achieve greater alignment between the two sets of rubrics or
identify ways in which institutional rubrics capture the criteria in the AAC &U rubric
The institutional rubric did not capture the criteria in the AAC&U rubric—although the
separation of bullet points within the cells created confusion in our group
The type of assignment seemed key to the use of rubrics
While some of us were less comfortable with the institutional rubric, others were more
comfortable with the outlined format