Elements of Critical Thinking Assessment at George Mason University
These elements were developed by a faculty work group and are used to assess Critical Thinking for undergraduate students. Additional
information on Critical Thinking at George Mason is on the Critical Thinking across the Curriculum (CTAC) web site http://ctac.gmu.edu
Elements Highly Competent
1. Problem/Issue
Identification Clearly identified, explicit
Assumptions Clearly identified and
explained
2. Analysis of
Problem/Issue/Investigation
Method(s) Selected & used
appropriately
Alternate Points of view Thoroughly considered
multiple alternate points
of view
3. Credibility of
Resources/Source Material
Resources/Source material All are appropriate &
relevant (number,
content, credibility)
4. Conclusion/Problem Solution
Limitations Thoroughly considered
Integration Ideas well integrated into
a coherent argument,
solution, presentation
Conclusions/Solution(s) Conclusions/solutions
based on evidence/sound
methods
5. Creativity
Creativity Reflecting in-depth
student engagement with
the topic; fresh ideas
6. Communication
with/Adaptation to Audience
Communication/Adaptation Highly evident
Last revision 1/29/2009 Office of Institutional Assessment- https://assessment.gmu.edu
Competent
Identified implicitly or
incompletely described
Clear identification,
somewhat unclear
explanation
Some inappropriate
choice/use of method(s)
Thoroughly considered
attention to one alternate
view
Most resources/ sources
relevant, appropriate,
credible
Given some attention
Ideas integrated into a
somewhat coherent piece
Most
conclusions/solutions
based on evidence
Reflects some in depth
consideration of topic;
some new insights
Evident most of the time
Needs Improvement Not Competent
Problems/Issues present, Problem/issue ambiguous/not
but a little ambiguous present
Identified, not explained Not identified, not explained
Choice/use of method Completely inappropriate choice
needs improvement and use of method(s)
Some attention to at least Obvious alternate views ignored
one alternate view
Some resources/sources No relevant, appropriate, credible
are not relevant, resources/ sources
appropriate, credible
Limitations mention very Limitations ignored
briefly
Some connections Ideas lack connection or coherence
among a few ideas are
made
Some unwarranted conclusions/solutions unwarranted;
conclusions drawn, or maintains preconceived views
solution errors regardless of evidence/ need for
different solution
Primarily based on No evidence of engagement /new
collection & repetition of ideas on topic; work simply a re-
other people’s ideas, hash of other people’s ideas
products, images; very
few new insights
Few small considerations No communication/ adaptation to
of communication and/or audience
adaptation