Reflective Decision-Making

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band A.

I tell or draw a fragment of the experience but my account misses either when it happened, who was there, or what actually took place.

My retelling covers most of the experience but the order of events is unclear or a key moment is missing from the drawing or sentence.

I can retell a short experience orally or in drawing-plus-sentence format.

My retelling includes one small detail that would only be known to someone who was actually there, not just remembered from the surface of the event.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band A.

I describe the experience but do not state what I learned, or I say 'it was fun' instead of naming a learning.

I state something I learned but it is a generic lesson like 'be careful' rather than connected to the specific experience I had.

I can state one thing I learned from a short experience.

I state what I learned and point to the specific moment in the experience that taught it to me.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band B.

I name only one side (either helpful or harmful) when anticipating outcomes for my choice, or I name both but the harmful outcome is not actually a possible outcome of this choice.

I name one helpful and one harmful outcome but one of them is generic ('something bad could happen') rather than specific to the choice I am about to make.

I can state one helpful and one harmful possible outcome for a choice before making my decision.

I name outcomes that are actually possible for this specific choice, and say which outcome I think is more likely and why.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band B.

My sentence after the choice describes the choice itself rather than what happened as a result of it.

I write about what happened afterwards but do not distinguish between what was caused by my choice and what would have happened anyway.

I can write one sentence about what happened after making my choice.

My sentence names something that happened I did not anticipate when I made the choice.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band C.

I name three options but my writing does not compare them — I describe each one in turn without putting them side by side on any criterion.

I compare the options on one dimension (cost, effort, fairness) but do not apply that criterion to all three, or I compare some pairs but not the full three-way.

I can compare three options for a real decision I face in a written format.

My comparison names a criterion that matters for this decision but is not obvious, and applies it to all three options.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band C.

I state a choice but it is not drawn from the options I compared — I switch to a new option I had not put on the list.

I state a choice from the compared options but my response does not show that I considered and set aside the other options.

I can state my choice from the options I have compared.

I state my choice and identify the specific condition that would make me pick a different option instead.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band C.

I give a reason for my choice but it describes the outcome rather than referencing a personal value, or I name a value that was not actually in play in this choice.

I reference a value but do not name which specific value it is, or I use a value-word without making clear why it applied here.

I can give a reason for my choice that references a named personal value.

I name which of two competing values I weighted more heavily in this choice and why.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

My analysis describes the decision scenario but does not name what is gained and lost in each option, or it names gains without naming what is given up.

I name trade-offs on one or two options but do not hold the trade-offs clearly parallel across the options, or I name costs without naming what they are paid for.

I can write a structured analysis of a real or realistic decision scenario that names the trade-offs involved — what is gained and lost across different options.

I identify a trade-off where the loss on one option is not the same kind of thing as the loss on the other, so a simple pros/cons list would miss it.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band D.

I name one stakeholder but not a second, or I list two stakeholders but describe effects only on myself.

I name how the decision affects two stakeholders but do not distinguish the different ways it affects each of them, treating the effect as generic.

I can consider how a decision affects at least two different stakeholders or affected parties.

I identify how the two stakeholders' interests diverge and name which tension my decision accepts.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band E.

I name a cognitive bias in the abstract (confirmation bias, sunk-cost) but do not locate it inside my own reasoning on the decision at hand.

I locate one bias in my reasoning but I pick the most flattering one and miss stronger candidates present in my thinking.

I can identify at least one cognitive bias or assumption likely to be affecting my reasoning in a decision I face.

I identify more than one likely bias, including at least one I would rather not see in my reasoning, and I point to specific sentences in my own analysis where the bias shows up.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band E.

I say I 'tried to be less biased' without describing a specific change to how I reasoned.

I describe an adjustment (for example, steelmanning an opposing view) but I apply it once and then revert to my original pattern.

I can describe an adjustment I made to my reasoning process to reduce the bias's impact.

I describe a specific adjustment, apply it consistently, and show how the adjustment changed a step of my reasoning I would otherwise have taken.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band E.

I judge my reasoning as good because the outcome was good, or bad because the outcome was bad (outcome bias).

I say outcome and reasoning can come apart but my evaluation still drifts toward whichever outcome I got.

I can evaluate the quality of my decision-making reasoning independent of the outcome.

I give an example where my reasoning was sound but the outcome was bad (or vice versa) and evaluate both cases on the reasoning alone.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

I cite only one type of evidence (for example, personal experience) and ignore data, testimony, or expert analysis.

I cite multiple types of evidence but give them equal weight without discussing their relative strength.

I can weigh multiple types of evidence on a complex, contested, high-stakes decision I face.

I weigh multiple types of evidence and explain why I weight one more heavily than another given the particular decision at hand.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

I write with false confidence, treating the decision as if the evidence settles it clearly when it does not.

I admit there is 'some uncertainty' in general terms but I do not locate where in my argument the uncertainty bites.

I can acknowledge irreducible uncertainty in my written position on a contested decision.

I name the specific claims in my position that would remain uncertain even if I had more evidence, and I explain why that uncertainty is irreducible rather than temporary.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

I state a conclusion and some feelings but the reader cannot reconstruct why the evidence leads to the conclusion.

I show my reasoning in parts but the link between premises and conclusion has a gap a careful reader would notice.

I can make the logic of my choice explicit in writing.

I lay out my reasoning step by step so that a reader can see exactly where they would need to disagree with me to reach a different conclusion.

The student has not produced work that demonstrates any aspect of this learning target at Band F.

I say my view is 'strong' or 'firm' but do not name any evidence that would change it.

I name evidence that would change my mind but the bar is so high that no realistic evidence could meet it.

I can name what would cause me to revise my position on a contested decision.

I name specific, realistic kinds of evidence or argument that would shift my position, and I distinguish kinds that would strengthen confidence from kinds that would reverse it.