The project began with a review of the literature about critical thinking. While there are many valid definitions of critical thinking, we chose the following three definitions in the earliest discussions with faculty about the development of the first version of the critical thinking rubric.

‘Purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual and methodological considerations on which a judgment is based’ (American Philosophical Association)

‘Critical thinking is a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion’

(American Association of Colleges and Universities, Critical Thinking Value Rubric)

‘[Critical thinking] entails (1) identifying assumptions that frame our thinking and determine our actions, (2) checking out the degree to which these assumptions are accurate and valid, (3) looking at our ideas and decisions (intellectual, organizational, and personal) from several different perspectives, and (4) on the basis of all this, taking informed actions’ (Brookfield, 2012)

The literature confirmed that there is no single standard definition of critical thinking, which results in a wide range of critical thinking constructs being taught and evaluated. Faculty in Phase 1 of the project agreed on six relevant, concrete and measurable critical thinking constructs which could be taught, and then evaluated within an assignment. These were the critical thinking constructs that were already most commonly taught and evaluated, according to project faculty.

1. Clarifies the issue to be discussed and/or the position to be argued in this paper
2. Identifies the sources of ideas or evidence used in developing the argument or conclusions
3. Analyses the ideas or evidence to develop the argument or conclusions
4. Critiques contradictory evidence, information, experts’ opinions and/or methodologies
5. Acknowledges personal biases or assumptions
6. Describes conclusions

During the project, we recognized that a student’s mastery of the English language, as used in their assignment, could strongly influence the teacher’s rating of critical thinking skills, and provide a focus other than specifically on the critical thinking skills. For this reason, English language-specific criteria were excluded from this rubric.

The Critical Thinking Assessment Rubric:

• Is brief and easy for a marker to use
• Has demonstrated high inter-rater reliability through a validation process with George Brown faculty
• Focuses on only a select and manageable number of the many possible critical thinking constructs identified in the literature—uses six distinct critical thinking criteria (i.e. constructs) judged by GBC faculty to be most relevant to the types of assignments used at George Brown
• Provides meaningful descriptors for a range of performance levels, clearly distinguishing from inadequate to exemplary performance in regard to expectations (which, in turn, would be identified in the assignment instructions).
• Uses 4 distinct levels of performance for each construct:
  • Inadequate
  • Below expectations
  • Meets expectations
  • Exemplary/exceeds expectations
• Includes a description or example of performance in each of the 24 cells to assist the marker in differentiating the 4 levels of performance for each criterion
• Uses sufficiently generic language in the descriptors allowing applicability to different types of assignments
• Provides sufficient flexibility to be used either as a stand-alone rubric (with the addition of a grading scheme and criteria weights) or to be integrated nto and existing rubric whenever relevant
• Can be used fro formative feedback
• May be adapted to use some but not all of the criteria, depending upon what is taught in the course.

The Critical Thinking Assessment Rubric can be used to develop or modify curriculum, both teaching and learning activities, and assignments. The six constructs can inform what is to be discussed, taught and practiced about critical thinking in a course or across courses in a program.

This rubric should be used to evaluate only those assignments that have specifically incorporated the relevant critical thinking criteria from the rubric. It is assumed that the constructs to be evaluated have been discussed/taught/practiced by students, that students already know the specific performance expectations for each critical thinking construct (criterion) to be evaluated, and that this information is clearly identified in the assignment instructions.

Options for using the Critical Thinking Assessment Rubric:

1. The rubric can be used as a stand-alone marking rubric either for formative/teaching purposes or for summative evaluation with the addition of a grading scheme and criteria weights.
2. No specific weight is currently attached to the six criteria in this rubric. Teachers may choose to attach relative weights or a grading scheme to the rubric.
3. Any or all of the six critical thinking constructs (criteria) as relevant to the assignment can be incorporated into an existing grading rubric.
4. Teachers may choose to use fewer than the six criteria provided in this rubric, as is relevant to the specifics of their assignment.
5. Teachers may add additional critical thinking criteria, reflecting other relevant critical thinking constructs, as needed.

The following are real examples of five course assignments which were developed or modified by the project faculty to incorporate the critical thinking constructs. To illustrate and assist you in identifying this, we have purposely colour-coded the relevant sections of these assignments to demonstrate where the critical thinking constructs are incorporated.