Assessments »The Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education rubrics
The Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education rubrics (VALUE rubrics)

Developed by Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U)

Purpose To provide a common language and expectations for student work and performance, allowing reliable assessment across a variety of student learning outcomes (the AAC&U’s Essential Learning Outcomes).
Format Rubric
Duration N/A min
Focus Scientific reasoning (Civic Engagement, Creative Thinking, Critical thinking, Ethical Reasoning, Global Learning, Information Literacy, Inquiry and Analysis, Integrative Learning, Intercultural Knowledge and Competence)
Level Upper-level, Intermediate, Intro college

Critical Thinking VALUE Rubric

 
Capstone
Milestones
Benchmark
 
4
3
2
1

Explanation of Issues

Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding.

Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions.

Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated but description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities unexplored, boundaries undetermined, and/or backgrounds unknown.

Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated without clarification or description.

Evidence
Selecting and using information to investigate a point of view or conclusion

Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/ evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis.

Viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly.

Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/ evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis.

Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning.

Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/ evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis.

Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly fact, with little questioning.

Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/ evaluation.

Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact, without question.

Influence of Context and Assumptions

Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others’ assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position.

Identifies own and others’ assumptions and several relevant contexts when presenting a position.

Questions some assumptions. Identifies several relevant contexts when presenting a position. May be more aware of others’ assumptions than one’s own (or vice versa).

Shows an emerging awareness of present assumptions (sometimes labels assertions as assumptions). Begins to identify some contexts when presenting a position.

Student’s Position
(perspective, thesis/hypothesis)

Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is imaginative, taking into account the complexities of an issue.

Limits of position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis) are acknowledged. Others’ points of view are synthesized within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis).

Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) takes into account the complexities of an issue.

Others’ points of view are acknowledged within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis).

Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) acknowledges different sides of an issue.

Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is stated but is simplistic and obvious.

Conclusions and Related Outcomes (implications and consequences)

Conclusions and related outcomes (consequences and implications) are logical and reflect student’s informed evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order.

Conclusion is logically tied to a range of information, including opposing viewpoints; related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified clearly.

Conclusion is logically tied to information (because information is chosen to fit the desired conclusion); some related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified clearly.

Conclusion is inconsistently tied to some of the information discussed; related outcomes (consequences and implications) are oversimplified.
VALUE rubrics: Developer's website
External Resources

VALUE FAQs

You can download each of the VALUE rubrics as editable Word files from the Kansas State Office of Data, Assessment and Institutional Research AAC&U VALUE Rubrics page.

RESEARCH VALIDATION
more details
Silver Validation
This is the second highest level of research validation, corresponding to at least 5 of the validation categories below.

Research Validation Summary

Based on Research Into:

  • Relevant theory and/or data

Studied Using:

  • Iterative use of rubric
  • Inter-rater reliability
  • Expert review

Research Conducted:

  • At multiple institutions
  • By multiple research groups
  • Peer-reviewed publication

The VALUE rubrics are extensively research validated. They were developed by teams of faculty experts across multiple campuses, and included examining existing campus rubrics and documents and feedback from faculty. They were then field tested by faculty on over 150 campuses around the country. An inter-rater reliability study showed high agreement.

References

PhysPort provides translations of assessments as a service to our users, but does not endorse the accuracy or validity of translations. Assessments validated for one language and culture may not be valid for other languages and cultures.

Language Translator(s)  
Japanese

If you know of a translation that we don't have yet, or if you would like to translate this assessment, please contact us!

Typical Results

There are no typical results available for the VALUE Rubrics because they are intended to be used as a tool for departmental improvement.