Skip to main content
iRubric: Fact Finding & Problem Solving - JJ rubric

iRubric: Fact Finding & Problem Solving - JJ rubric


edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Fact Finding & Problem Solving - JJ 
Fact Finding & Problem Solving - JJ
Problem solving is the process of designing, evaluating and implementing a strategy to answer an open-ended question or achieve a desired goal. This rubric distills the common elements of most problem-solving contexts and is designed to function across all disciplines. It is broad-based enough to allow for individual differences among learners, yet is concise and descriptive in its scope to determine how well students have maximized their respective abilities to practice thinking through problems in order to reach solutions. This rubric is designed to measure the quality of a process, rather than the quality of an end-product. As a result, work samples or collections of work will need to include some evidence of the individual’s thinking about a problem-solving task (e.g., reflections on the process from problem to proposed solution; steps in a problem-based learning assignment; record of think-aloud protocol while solving a problem). Courtesy of AAC&U
Rubric Code: U4BB5
By ega_faculty
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: (General)  
Type: (Other)  
Grade Levels: Undergraduate, Graduate

Powered by iRubric IFCA Fact Finding & Problem Solving
  Excellent

4 pts

Good

3 pts

Fair

2 pts

Poor

1 pts

Problem Solving
Define Problem
16.6 %

Excellent

Demonstrates the ability to construct a clear and insightful problem statement with evidence of all relevant contextual factors.
Good

Demonstrates the ability to construct a problem statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors, and problem statement is adequately detailed.
Fair

Begins to demonstrate the ability to construct a problem statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors, but problem statement is superficial.
Poor

Demonstrates a limited ability in identifying a problem statement or related contextual factors.
Identify Strategies
16.6 %

Excellent

Identifies multiple approaches for solving the problem that apply within a specific context.
Good

Identifies multiple approaches for solving the problem, only some of which apply within a specific context.
Fair

Identifies only a single approach for solving the problem that does apply within a specific context.
Poor

Identifies one or more approaches for solving the problem that do not apply within a specific context.
Propose Solutions/Hypotheses
16.6 %

Excellent

Proposes one or more solutions/hypotheses that indicates a deep comprehension of the problem. Solution/hypotheses are sensitive to contextual factors as well as all of the following: ethical, logical, and cultural dimensions of the problem.
Good

Proposes one or more solutions/hypotheses that indicates comprehension of the problem. Solutions/hypotheses are sensitive to contextual factors as well as the one of the following: ethical, logical, or cultural dimensions of the problem.
Fair

Proposes one solution/hypothesis that is “off the shelf” rather than individually designed to address the specific contextual factors of the problem.
Poor

Proposes a solution/hypothesis that is difficult to evaluate because it is vague or only indirectly addresses the problem statement.
Evaluate Potential Solutions
16.6 %

Excellent

Evaluation of solutions is deep and elegant (for example, contains thorough and insightful explanation) and includes, deeply and thoroughly, all of the following: considers history of problem, reviews logic/reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution.
Good

Evaluation of solutions is adequate (for example, contains thorough explanation) and includes the following: considers history of problem, reviews logic/reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution.
Fair

Evaluation of solutions is brief (for example, explanation lacks depth) and includes the following: considers history of problem, reviews logic/reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution.
Poor

Evaluation of solutions is superficial (for example, contains cursory, surface level explanation) and includes the following: considers history of problem, reviews logic/reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution.
Implement Solution
16.6 %

Excellent

Implements the solution in a manner that addresses thoroughly and deeply multiple contextual factors of the problem.
Good

Implements the solution in a manner that addresses multiple contextual factors of the problem in a surface manner.
Fair

Implements the solution in a manner that addresses the problem statement but ignores relevant contextual factors.
Poor

Implements the solution in a manner that does not directly address the problem statement.
Evaluate Outcomes
16.7 %

Excellent

Reviews results relative to the problem defined with thorough, specific considerations of need for further work.
Good

Reviews results relative to the problem defined with some consideration of need for further work.
Fair

Reviews results in terms of the problem defined with little, if any, consideration of need for further work.
Poor

Reviews results superficially in terms of the problem defined with no consideration of need for further work.
Critical Thinking
Explanation of Issues
50 %

Excellent

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

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

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

Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated without clarification or description.
Conclusions and Outcomes
50 %

Excellent

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
Good

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

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

Conclusion is inconsistently tied to some of the information discussed; related outcomes (consequences and implications) are oversimplified.



Keywords:
  • Problem solving, Contextual factors, Strategy, Solution

Subjects:

Types:

Discuss this rubric




Do more with this rubric:
Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.
Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.
Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.
 

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubrictm.


Copyright © 2024 Reazon Systems, Inc.  All rights reserved.
n98