Each criterion (dimension, trait) is evaluated separately. Gives diagnostic information to teacher. Gives formative feedback to students. Easier to link to instruction than holistic rubrics. Good for formative assessment; adaptable for summative assessment; if you need an overall score for grading, you can combine the scores. Takes more time to score than holistic rubrics. Takes more time to achieve reliability than with holistic rubrics. All criteria (dimensions, traits) are evaluated simultaneously. Scoring is faster than with analytic rubrics. Requires less time to achieve reliability. Good for summative assessment. Single overall score does not communicate information about what to do to improve. Not good for formative assessment. Description of Performance: General or Task-Specific? Description of work gives characteristics that apply to a whole family of tasks (e.g., writing, problem solving). Can with students, explicitly linking assessment and instruction. Reuse same rubrics with several tasks or assignments. Supports learning by helping students see "good work" as bigger than one task. Lower reliability at first than with task-specific rubrics. Requires practice to apply well.
One set of criteria for laughing might be Volume, Duration, and Body Involvement. These are not the only possible criteria. A colleague and I experimented with others. Figure 3.3 shows how we wrote descriptions of levels of performance for these criteria for a rubric for laughing. Don't laugh (pun intended!), but it may surprise you to learn that the descriptions in this rubric are not all of the same sort, and that we crafted them specifically to be able to illustrate different levels of inferences that descriptions require you to make. Figure 3.3. Rubric for Laughing Criteria Performance Levels Level 4 Guffaw Level 3 Laugh Level 2 Giggle Level 1 Chuckle Volume Laughter is loud enough to call attention to itself and annoy people. OR Laughter is so intense there is no noise at all. Laughter is loud, verging on impolite, and can be heard by anyone in the room. Laughter is of a polite, medium volume and can be heard by those in the immediate vicinity. Laughter is audible to those standing nearby. Duration Laughter is perpetuating itself it becomes necessary for the laugher or a friend to intentionally put a stop to it. Laughter is repeated several times, perhaps waning and then gathering strength again, as if the laugher is reimagining what is funny. Laughter trills, cackles, or giggles for at least one repeat cycle. Laughter is a brief snort, hoot, chortle, or chuckle. Body Involvement The body is involved, which may include (but is not limited to) shoulder Cheeks scrunch up. At least one body part besides the face Lips open, face smiles. Lips may open or may stay closed.
rubric before beginning work and during work on the project. They did a class example, and then the pairs used the rubric for self-assessment and revision before their project was due. The self-assessment was productive for the students; most were able to improve their posters—and describe those turning in their finished work. The rubric makes an excellent example because it has many strong points, and yet there are clear places where revision would improve it. Figure 3.4 presents the first draft of the rubric. Figure 3.4. Draft of Life-Cycle Project Rubric 6 Points 4 Points 2 Points 0 Points Title of Poster is evident on poster, correctly spelled and capitalized. is on poster, but with errors or it is hard to read. No or heading. Order of Life-Cycle Stages All the stages of the life cycle are in the correct order. Stages are correctly labeled. One or more stages of the life cycle are in the wrong order. Not included. Illustrations of Stages Illustrations of each stage are evident. One or two illustrations of the stages are missing. More than 2 illustrations of the stages are missing. Not included. Description of Stages Stages are described with at least 2 details. Stages are described with one detail. One or more stage is missing. Stages are incomplete or missing. Stages have one or zero supporting details. Not included. Overall Appearance of Poster Poster is very neat and organized. Title and all sentences have correct spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. Poster is somewhat neat and organized. Some correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. Poster shows Poster is many errors, not colored, or unfinished. Poster shows no signs of effort. cycle
and variety of material and evidence support the thesis. All material is relevant. This material includes details. Information is accurate. Appropriate sources were consulted. related to the point(s) the material is intended to support. Information is organized in a logical manner and is presented concisely. Flow is good. Introductions, transitions, and other connecting material take the listener/reader along. minor errors do not interfere with meaning. Language style and word choice are highly effective and enhance meaning. Style and word choice are appropriate to the project. 3 The thesis is clear. An adequate amount of material and evidence supports the thesis. Most material is relevant. This material includes details. Information is mostly accurate; any inaccuracies are minor and do not interfere with the points made. Appropriate sources were consulted. Information is clearly related to the point(s) the material is intended to support, although not all connections may be explained. Information is organized in a logical manner. Flow is adequate. Introductions, transitions, and other connecting material take the listener/reader along for the most part. Any abrupt transitions do Some errors of grammar and usage; errors do not interfere with meaning. Language style and word choice are for the most part effective and appropriate to the project.
Figure 7.2 lists several different kinds of frequency scales. To create a rating scale, list the characteristics you wish to assess, as you would for a checklist, and then select the frequency scale that best matches these characteristics. Show the frequency scale as multiple-choice options, as boxes in a table, or as points on a line. Figure 7.2. Examples of Frequency Scales Scale Typical Uses Always, frequently, sometimes, Consistently, often, sometimes, rarely Always, usually, sometimes, never Almost always, usually, often, occasionally, almost never Very frequently, frequently, occasionally, rarely, very rarely, never [Four choices are usually sufficient. As illustrated, other numbers of options can be used.] To rate how students exhibit behaviors or learning skills (e.g., works independently; follows directions; completes homework) To rate how students have certain feelings or attitudes about their work (e.g., I am confident in my work) All, most, some, none [Sometimes used with a noun—for To rate how often problems or exercises exhibit certain
Can you identify any checklists or rating scales you use that you want to revise to become rubrics? Can you identify any rubrics you use that might be more effective if revised into checklists (for example, to lay out the requirements for an assignment)? How would you proceed with these revisions? Summing up Why include a chapter on checklists and rating scales in a book about rubrics? I hope that after reading the chapter several reasons are clear. First, distinguishing checklists and rating scales from rubrics should make the characteristics of rubrics clearer. Rating scales often masquerade as rubrics, and I hope you can identify those and avoid them or revise them. Second, checklists and frequency rating scales have some important uses, on their own or in conjunction with rubrics. Checklists are great for helping students see whether they have followed directions, included all required elements of an assignment, adhered to format requirements, and the like. Frequency rating scales are good for assessing certain kinds of performance skills and for assessing behavior, work habits, and other learning skills. Finally, this chapter identified and defined quality rating scales, which are often mistaken for rubrics. Be on the lookout for those and stamp out their use whenever possible. They are Trojan horses that will allow old-fashioned grading judgments to slip in where rubrics were intended. Chapter 8. More Examples
engage with the target according to specific criteria and helped him interpret his success as more multidimensional than just a words-per-minute score. Science laboratory reports In an 8th grade science inclusion classroom, the regular and special education teachers worked together. They wanted their students to learn science inquiry process skills—how to write testable questions and hypotheses and gather and interpret data to answer them—as well as how to write up the process in a conventional lab report. The teachers prepared a handout, "How to Write a Lab Report," and the rubric shown in Figure 8.2, which they adapted from Internet sources. They also taught lessons about lab reports that included having students look at sample lab reports before they began work on their own. During their work, the teachers gave students information and coaching on the science content (in this case, filtering water) and necessary materials. After students completed their lab reports but before they turned them in, they used the rubric for self-assessment and potential revisions. Figure 8.2. Science Laboratory Report Rubric 4 3 2 1 Research Questions and Hypotheses States a hypothesis that is based on research and/or sound reasoning and is testable. Report title reflects question or hypothesis. States a hypothesis that is based on research and/or sound reasoning and is testable. Report title may not reflect the question or hypothesis. States a hypothesis, although basis for the hypothesis is not clear or hypothesis is not testable. Report title may not reflect the question or hypothesis. Does not state a hypothesis. Introduction may be a general statement of the topic or the assignment, or may be missing or unclear. the Experiment Procedure includes a very detailed description or list of how the experiment was performed. All are included. Procedure includes a very detailed description or list of how the experiment was performed; however, all steps are Description or list of how the experiment was performed is vague, and experiment would be hard for someone Description is unclear, and experiment not be repeated because of lack of description. step
not included. else to duplicate. Data Results and data are accurately recorded, organized so it is easy for the reader to see trends. All appropriate labels are included. Results are clear and labeled. Trends are not obvious. Results are unclear, missing labels, and trends are not obvious at all. Results may be present, but too disorganized or poorly recorded to make sense of. Analyzing Data The data and observations are analyzed accurately. Trends are Enough data were taken to establish conclusion. Analysis is somewhat lacking in insight. There is enough data, although additional data would be more powerful. Analysis is lacking in insight. Not enough data were gathered to establish trends, or analysis does not follow the data. Analysis is inaccurate and based on insufficient data. Interpreting Results and Drawing Conclusions Summarizes data used to draw logical conclusions about hypothesis. Discusses real-world applications of findings. Summarizes data used to draw conclusions about hypothesis. Some logic or real-world application may be unclear. Conclusions hypothesis are not derived from data. Some logic or application may be unclear. No conclusions about hypothesis are evident. Logic and application of findings are missing. Source: Used with permission. After using the rubric, the special education teacher reflected on the experience. Most of his students, he said, "had a greater understanding of what constituted good-quality work" and "a clear picture of what was expected." Students who did this were able to compare their work with the criteria and performance descriptions in the rubric and, based on that comparison, make decisions about how to improve their work. In addition, they took greater responsibility for their own learning.
One group did not meet expectations on every criterion, but even for that group the rubric was helpful. The rubric allowed both teacher and students to identify the one area (drawing and expressing conclusions that follow from the data) to work on. From this perspective, the rubric was helpful even for unsuccessful work because it furnished the information needed for the students' next steps. Welding Technology education is an important content area that is outside my own teaching background and experience. Andrew Rohwedder is a technology education teacher at Richardton-Taylor High School in Richardton, North Dakota. Figure 8.3 presents Mr. Rohwedder's welding rubric. Figure 8.3. Welding Rubric Advanced 4 points Proficient 3 points Basic 2 points Below Basic 1 point Total Points Slag removed 100% All slag chipped. Weld bead is clean. Bead is clean, has been chipped and Bead is somewhat Minimum slag at the edges of the bead. Bead needs major chipping and brushing. little care about quality. Weld width and height 100%Uniform width and thickness throughout the entire length of each weld. Bead is uniform all along the length of each weld. Has a smooth appearance. Bead maintains and length. Shows some small blemishes along the weld. Not a uniform thickness throughout the weld. Thickness goes to extremes. Weld is cut off in places, not uniform along the weld. Shows bare spots. Appearance 100% Smooth, with uniform dense ripples; doesn't show the bead traveling too fast or slow. Weld shows a constant speed and uniformity the entire length. Weld shows a constant speed with some blemishes that are minimal. Weld shows definite areas of speeding up and slowing down. Ripples tend to be coarse. Weld has been done too fast or too slow. Weld is not complete. Trapped impurities in the weld. Face of bead 100% Convex, Has a nice rounded Bead is well rounded, Bead shows Weld does not blend
free of and high spots, shows uniformity throughout the bead. look. Is not overly high, or low. Bead covers a wide area of each weld. mostly uniform over the length of the weld. Shows some high spots and low spots. many high and low areas. Total lack of uniformity throughout the weld. into one single bead. Edge of bead 100% Good fusion, no overlapping or undercutting. Sides and edges are smooth, blending into each weld. Undercutting is kept to a minimum. Weld does not float on surface. Moderately smooth blending. Undercutting and float are present. Strength of the weld is still strong. and undercut are very apparent. Weld lacks strength and flow. is burned through. Weld has no connection to metal. Beginning and ending full size 100% Crater well filled. End of each weld is complete; the line doesn't taper off. Weld ending is full but shows some tapering and a crater present. Crater distinctly present at the end of the bead. is burned through at the end. Surrounding plate 100%Welding surface free of spatter. Spatter is kept to a minimum. Some spatter is present but not displeasing. Spatter is in large amounts. Spatter takes away from the integrity of the weld. Penetration 100% Complete without Weld penetrates deep into the metal and adds strength and fusion to the edges and depth. Weld penetrates deep but does not resurface through the bottom of a jointed weld. Weld is uneven in lacks uniformity along weld length. Weld floats on top of the metal. Has no strength. Source: Used with permission from Andrew Rohwedder, Technology Educator, Richardton-Taylor High School, Richardton, ND.