Assessment rubrics for learning

115

12

IntroductIonAssessment may be understood as the process of forming a judgment about the quality and extent of student achievement or performance, and therefore by inference a judgment about the learning that has taken place (Sadler, 2005). Assessment practices therefore require judgments to be made concerning students’ learning, and such judgments need to be made against clear descriptions of the nature and level(s) of requisite learning. Rubrics are a useful instrument for describing the expectations of students’ learning in terms of standards and criteria.

clarIfyIng types of standards—a prelude to understandIng rubrIcs‘The word “standard” is universally used yet has different meanings, depending on historical and social derivation’ (Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith, 2014, p. 12).

The term ‘standards’ is commonly used by teachers, policy-makers and stakeholders, but may not always refer to the same thing. The key distinction to be grasped is the difference between Curriculum standards and Achievement standards.

Curriculum standards, or sometimes referred to as Content standards, articulate what is to be taught. They would therefore pitch the levels of curriculum instruction for cohorts of students, and not for individual students. Achievement standards are articulations of the levels of quality or achievement of individual students’ work. They would guide students and teachers on the judg-ment of individual learning outcomes.

Rubrics typically refer to the articulation of levels of Achievement standards, and in this chapter all the examples of rubrics pertain to the depiction of different levels of quality of indi-vidual student work, rather than levels of curriculum and instruction for a cohort of students.

What Is a rubrIc?‘A rubric is a coherent set of criteria for students’ work that includes descriptions of levels of performance quality on the criteria’ (Brookhart, 2013, p. 4).

Standards and criteria are the two main elements of a rubric. Sadler (1987) offers the following definitions of criterion and standards:

Criterion (Noun)—A distinguishing property or characteristic of anything, by which its qual-ity can be judged or estimated, or by which a decision or classification may be made.

Assessment Rubrics for LearningKelvin Tan and Leong Wei Shin

M12_SHIN0000_01_SE_CH12.indd 115 27/06/14 6:52 PM

116 Chapter 12 Assessment Rubrics for Learning

Standard (Noun)—A definite level of excellence or attainment or a definite degree of any qual-ity viewed the recognised measure of what is adequate for some purpose.

In the rubric in Table 1a, the criteria for playing ultimate Frisbee are represented in the first column (decision-making, skill execution, guard mark and communication). The standards, or the different levels at which ultimate Frisbee can be played/performed, is represented in the first row (novice, intermediate and proficient). Thus, there are four criteria, or components, of ultimate Frisbee, and each can be performed at novice, intermediate or proficient levels. The descriptors articulate the level of achievement of each criterion. For example, the novice level of decision-making is articulated as ‘Is rarely able to make appropriate decisions about what to do with the Frisbee’, whilst the proficient level of decision-making is articulated as ‘Able to make appropriate decisions about what to do with the Frisbee most of the time’.

Hence, a rubric may be understood as tabulated descriptors of standards and criteria in relation to each other. It is a disciplined way to ensuring that all criteria relevant to the performance of assessment tasks are described at all the anticipated levels of achievement. So the three essential elements of a rubric are criteria, standards and descriptors. These three elements reflect the quali-tative nature of rubrics—it essentially relies on qualitative articulations of merit or achievement.

Scale and weighting are two other common components of rubrics, though they are not essen-tial for a rubric to exist. For example, the rubric in Table 1a does not have a scale, nor weighting, and yet is a complete rubric. What is the role and place of scales and weightings in a rubric?

Whilst standards refer to unambiguous levels of achievement that articulate distinct merit, a scale depicts a continuum which articulates the range of performance at varying degrees of merit. In Table 1b, there are three distinct standards— novice, intermediate or proficient. These three

Table 1a ■ Ultimate Frisbee Rubric Comprising Standards, Criteria and Descriptors

Game Component Novice Intermediate Proficient

Decision-making Is rarely able to make appropriate decisions about what to do with the Frisbee.

Able to make appropriate decisions about what to do with the Frisbee some of the time.

Able to make appropriate decisions about what to do with the Frisbee most of the time.

Skill execution Few to none of the cues for handgrip, throws and catches were demonstrated. Throws to the target are rarely accurate.

Demonstrates a number of cues for handgrip, throws and catches. Throws to the target are accurate some of the time.

Demonstrates most, if not all cues for handgrip, throws and catches (see part 1). Throws to the target are almost always accurate.

Guard/mark Rarely or Makes few attempts to guard/mark an opponent, leaving the opponent free to set-up their attacks easily.

Keeps the distance to a minimal between the Frisbee and the body some of the times. Opponent could relatively still make their throws.

Closes the distance (while marking the player) between Frisbee and the body most of the time, forcing more varieties of throws from the opponent.

Communication Seldom or never communicates with teammates.

Is beginning to communicate with teammates.

Frequently communicates and demands the Frisbee from teammates.


Chapter 12 Assessment Rubrics for Learning 117

standards would suffice to describe the level of achievement of student work, and offer guidance for identifying the feedback gap, i.e., the difference between the standard of students’ assessed work (actual standard) and the standard of students’ improved learning to which feedback would contribute to. A student who attains a novice level of performance in skill execution may therefore refer to the descriptor of an intermediate level of skill execution in the rubric to aim for as immi-nent improvement.

However, there may be instances wherein students’ performance may have to be discriminated in finer detail than the number of articulated standards. For example, a teacher may have to rank the performance of a cohort of 100 students, and for this purpose three distinct levels of achieve-ment would not suffice for sufficient discrimination between student performances. This would be where a scale is useful.

In Table 1b, the rubric has three standards but a scale of 1–10 marks for each criterion. This then allows a teacher to discriminate student performance for each criterion from a scale of 0–10, and not be limited by three standards. For example, if Student A and B score 3 and 6 marks respec-tively for decision-making, both students would have attained the intermediate level of decision making (merit standard). However, Student A’s score of 3 marks places him or her at the lower end of the intermediate range, whilst student B’s score places him or her at the upper end of the continuum of the intermediate standard. Hence, a scale may be seen as the (additional) quantita-tive articulation of a continuum of merit of standards.

Likewise, weighting may be understood as the additional quantitative articulation of the rela-tive importance of different criteria. If a rubric does not have any weighting, then it is assumed

Table 1b ■ Ultimate Frisbee Rubric Comprising Standards, Criteria and Descriptors, Scale And Weighting

Game ComponentNovice 0–2 marks

Intermediate 3–6 marks

Proficient 7–10 marks

Decision-making(30%)

Is rarely able to make appropriate decisions about what to do with the Frisbee.

Able to make appropriate decisions about what to do with the Frisbee some of the time.

Able to make appropriate decisions about what to do with the Frisbee most of the time.

Skill execution(30%)

Few to none of the cues for handgrip, throws and catches were demonstrated. Throws to the target are rarely accurate.

Demonstrates a number of cues for handgrip, throws and catches. Throws to the target are accurate some of the time.

Demonstrates most, if not all cues for handgrip, throws and catches (see part 1). Throws to the target are almost always accurate.

Guard/mark(30%)

Rarely or Makes few attempts to guard/mark an opponent, leaving the opponent free to set-up their attacks easily.

Keeps the distance to a minimal between the Frisbee and the body some of the times. Opponent could relatively still make their throws.

Closes the distance (while marking the player) between Frisbee and the body most of the time, forcing more varieties of throws from the opponent.

Communication(10%)

Seldom or never communicates with teammates.

Is beginning to communicate with teammates.

Frequently communicates and demands the Frisbee from teammates.



that the criteria have parity of importance. In Table 1b, the weighting of the rubric can be seen in the zero sum (sums up to 100%) distribution of value to the criteria—30% each for decision-making, skill execution and guard/mark, and the remaining 10% for communication.

Hence, in summary, rubrics can be understood as a qualitative instrument which articulates standards and criteria in relation to each other in the form of descriptors. Such qualitative articu-lations are useful for reporting the attained levels of merit of student work in rich (qualitative) detail, and are useful for feedback practices. In addition, a rubric may also contain a scale and weighting which are the additional quantitative articulations of standards and criteria respec-tively. Scale and weighting are especially useful for scoring students’ performance in terms of marks. And such reporting of student achievement in terms of marks is useful for discriminating students’ performance in comparison with one another.

dIstInguIshIng rubrIcs from checklIstsIn this chapter, rubrics have been described as qualitative instruments which articulate standards and criteria in relation to each other in the form of descriptors. It is important to note the exis-tence of more than one level of achievement in a rubric. How, then, should we describe the perfor-mance of simple criterion which exist at only one ‘standard’? This would be where the distinction between a rubric and a checklist is helpful.

Consider the simple descriptors of performance in the shot-put rubric in Table 2a. All five descriptors of throwing a short putt contain a few (implicit) basic competencies. These basic com-petencies are identified as checklist items, and described in Table 2b. Note that all three checklist items in Table 2b are not complex and are to be performed at a single standard. Hence, these three items do not need to be articulated at different levels of achievement, and do not need to be part of a rubric.

Once these basic competencies that are performed at a single standard are separately denoted as checklist items, what remains in the rubric would be more complex competencies/criteria that anticipate performance at more than one level of achievement. Table 2c is the rubric that

Table 2a ■ Simple Shot- put Rubric

Pts Descriptors

5Is able to execute a full-glide throw with proper grip, power stance, raised elbow, hip thrust and release.

4Is able to hold the shot correctly and execute a full glide throw with good hip thrust and release.

3Is able to hold the shot correctly and execute a half turn throw from power position with good hip thrust.

2Is able to hold the shot correctly and execute a quarter turn standing throw in power position.

1 Is able to hold the shot correctly and execute a standing throw.



articulates these complex competencies as the criteria of ‘Glide,’ ‘Power Phase,’ ‘Release’ and ‘Follow Through’. Each of these criteria require descriptions of what it would mean to be demon-strated or performed at a ‘Poor’, ‘Average’ or ‘Proficient’ level of achievement.

Tables 2b and 2c therefore represent how a rubric can be revised. The first step would be to examine whether any of the anticipated performance criteria should be a single standard checklist item, or a more complex performance criterion that should be performed at more than one level of achievement. Revising rubrics into a combination of checklist and rubric helps to clarify for learn-ers the simpler competencies or criteria they should demonstrate all the time, and more ambitious levels of achievement of complex criterion at different levels of merit.

Table 2b ■ Checklist of Basic Competencies that is Performed at a Single Standard/Level

Checklist Please Tick

Shot is held at the base of the fingers. Shot should not contact the palm.

Shot is held at start position between the ear and the chin. Shot should be in contact with the jawline.

Able to stand in ready position, with correct stance in anticipation to execute the throw.

Table 2C ■ Revised Rubric that Articulates Complex Performance beyond Checklist Items

Rubric Poor Average Proficient

Glide Glide is rarely present, with minimal transfer of body weight. Almost in a standing position

Able to execute the glide with some attempt to transfer body weight.

Able to execute the full glide, with full transfer of body weight from dominant leg.

Power phase Throwing arm does not accelerate, and there is little utilisation of hip thrust and trunk rotation

Throwing arm lacks acceleration required, with some hip thrust and trunk rotation.

Throwing arm accelerates the shot from the starting position, utilising hip thrust and trunk rotation.

Release Poor elbow position, with difficulty extending the throwing arm. Wrist action is hardly present

High elbow, with full extension of throwing arm. Wrist action lacks consistency and finesse.

High elbow, with full extension of throwing arm. Wrist action present as shot rolls of the fingertips.

Follow-through after the shot leaves the hand

No transfer of body weight after the throw. Arm immediately drops, and shows no attempt to follow through.

Some transfer of body weight to dominant foot. Follow-through action lacks consistency and finesse.

Transfer of body weight to dominant foot. Follow-through action with arms in direction of throw.



common Issues of desIgnIng rubrIcsWhile it is relatively easy to construct a grid and include all the basic features or elements of a rubric, it is less easy to grasp the difficulties of developing good rubrics that are fit for assessment purposes. This section highlights some of the quandaries that rubric designers need to overcome, in improving particularly their earlier versions of their rubrics. The example we have selected to illustrate the common issues is adapted from a rubric submitted by a group of undergraduate student-teachers at the National Institute of Education for an Assessment Literacy course require-ment. The student-teachers were asked to design a rubric based on a particular chosen assessment task that they had possibly introduced during their teaching practicum experience or designed at other education-based modules.

The rubric, as shown in Example 1, was used for a Primary 5 science unit assessment task on sexual reproduction in plants, specifically on the various methods of seed dispersal. A detailed information sheet accompanied the submission of this draft rubric for students (including work-sheet and checklist of what to hand in) and teachers (including glossary list and general informa-tion of assessment task), and also possible exemplars of students’ works. Essentially, the assessment task required primary 5 students to create a 3D model of a fictitious fruit that demonstrated their understanding of seed and various seed/fruit dispersal methods. The rubric is of an analytical kind, and this is well-suited for both formative and summative purposes of assessment (Arter & Chappuis, 2006; Wiggins, 1998). The strengths of the rubric are aplenty. For instance, there are defined criteria and clearly demarcated sets of standard and descriptor. The rubric and its assess-ment task have been selected for illustration here because it is clear that a lot of effort has been spent into coming up with such a draft, and yet there are places whereby further revision would be helpful. We invite the readers to have a go at reading the rubric before hearing our views of possible areas of improvement.

example 1: first draft of science project rubric (adapted)

primary 5: science

Topic: Seed Dispersal

Learning Outcomes:■ To show an understanding of the concept of seed/fruit dispersal.■ To show an understanding of the different dispersal methods of seed/ fruit dispersal.

Assessment Task:■ Students are to create a 3D realistic model of the seed/fruit that can be dispersed in mul-

tiple ways.■ Students will have to demonstrate how their seed will disperse and justify why they think

Plant X has such a dispersal method.

Purpose(s) of Assessment Rubric:Formative and Summative



Sta

nda

rds

Crit

eria

Exp

ert

Ma

ster

Ap

pre

ntic

eN

ovic

e

Na

me

of F

ruit

Fru

it h

as

an

ap

pro

pria

te

un

iqu

e n

am

e.

Fru

it h

as

a n

am

e.

No

na

me

.

Fea

ture

s o

f Fru

it (N

um

ber

of s

eed

d

isp

ersa

l met

hod

s)

Art

efa

ct h

as

at l

ea

st th

ree

fe

atu

res

wh

ich

allo

w th

e

fruit

to b

e d

isp

ers

ed

.

Art

efa

ct h

as

at l

ea

st tw

o

fea

ture

s w

hic

h a

llow

the

fru

it to

be

dis

pe

rse

d.

Art

efa

ct h

as

on

e fe

atu

re

wh

ich

allo

ws

the

fru

it to

b

e d

isp

ers

ed

.

Art

efa

ct h

as

no

fea

ture

w

hic

h a

llow

s th

e fr

uit

to

be

dis

pe

rse

d.

Ora

l Pre

sent

atio

n (U

se o

f sc

ient

ific

term

s)D

em

on

stra

tes

in-d

ep

th

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of t

op

ic

with

use

of a

t le

ast

thre

e

scie

nc

e v

oc

ab

ula

ry

wo

rds.

De

mo

nst

rate

s g

oo

d

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

of t

he

to

pic

with

use

of a

t le

ast

tw

o s

cie

nc

e v

oc

ab

ula

ry

wo

rds.

De

mo

nst

rate

s u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

n c

ert

ain

p

art

s o

f th

e to

pic

with

u

se o

f on

e s

cie

nc

e

voc

ab

ula

ry w

ord

.

De

mo

nst

rate

s p

oo

r u

nd

ers

tan

din

g o

f th

e

top

ic w

itho

ut a

ny u

se

of s

cie

nc

e v

oc

ab

ula

ry

wo

rds.

Effe

ctiv

enes

s o

f Fru

it (D

emo

nstra

tion

of s

eed

d

isp

ersa

l met

hod

s o

f a

rtef

ac

t)`

Fru

it is

ab

le to

dis

pe

rse

its

‘se

ed

(s)’

effe

ctiv

ely

by

eith

er:

Sta

yin

g in

the

air

or o

n

wa

ter f

or m

ore

tha

n 6

0 se

co

nd

s.Sc

atte

ring

the

‘se

ed

(s)’

mo

re th

an

100

cm

aw

ay

from

the

fru

it.H

avi

ng

at l

ea

st th

ree

b

righ

t co

lou

rs (

e.g

., ye

llow

, pin

k) o

n th

e fr

uit.

Fru

it is

ab

le to

dis

pe

rse

its

‘se

ed

(s)’

effe

ctiv

ely

by

eith

er:

Sta

yin

g in

the

air

or o

n

wa

ter f

or a

t le

ast

30–

60

sec

on

ds.

Sca

tterin

g th

e ‘s

ee

d(s

)’ a

t le

ast

50–

100

cm

aw

ay

from

the

fru

it.H

avi

ng

at l

ea

st tw

o b

righ

t c

olo

urs

(e

.g.,

yello

w, p

ink)

o

n th

e fr

uit.

Fru

it is

ab

le to

dis

pe

rse

its

‘se

ed

(s)’

effe

ctiv

ely

by

eith

er:

Sta

yin

g in

the

air

or o

n

wa

ter f

or a

t le

ast

1–2

9 se

co

nd

s.Sc

atte

ring

the

‘se

ed

(s)’

at

lea

st 1

–49

cm

aw

ay

from

th

e fr

uit.

Ha

vin

g a

t le

ast

on

e b

righ

t c

olo

ur (

e.g

., ye

llow

, pin

k)

on

the

fru

it.

Fru

it is

no

t ab

le to

d

isp

ers

e it

s ‘s

ee

d(s

)’ a

t all.



Task SpecificityMany writers have written about the problems (e.g., Brookhart, 2013) and even decried (Popham, 1997, 2012) the use of a task-specific rubric. We take on a more pragmatic view that task- specific rubric can be more useful than general rubric, particularly if the teachers are independently addressing the subject-topical learning needs of the students. Task-specific rubric are probably more commonly used for many subjects that have wide coverage of topical content. We should note however that such task-specific rubric has an inherent limitation of not enabling students to generalise and synthesise learning in common assessment tasks, like oral presentation, across subjects.

The more pressing issue here is whether the task specificity of the assessment rubric actu-ally distorts the learning experiences of the students for the particular topic. In the case of this rubric, the criteria and overall expectation of the rubric seem to focus on the task (including naming, using scientific terms and testing its dispersal methods) and not on the learning out-comes. The rubric should provide opportunities for students to make sense and reflect of their learning rather than compliance of instruction. One therefore needs to first question how the modelling process of a fictitious fruit will help the students to understand the variety of seed/fruit dispersal methods.

The criteria in the rubric currently are worded in terms of what the teachers expect the students to be able to submit or perform. There is a real danger that students go away thinking that this creation of a fictitious fruit is the end-all of the learning experiences. We will therefore prefer the criteria to be re-worded by more general categories (e.g., depth of reasoning, appro-priateness of content). We will also advise it is not necessary to list down basic requirements of submission as a criteria (e.g., naming of fruit) unless it is central to the learning outcomes. In fact, those basic requirements could be included in the checklist, leaving the rubrics to highlight what would be the more ambitious levels of achievements for the learning outcomes.

Consistency of DescriptorAnother common problem is that many rubrics have consistency issue in terms of the choice of words in describing the qualitative differences from one standard to another. Ideally, the descrip-tor should reflect a positive learning continuum (Tierney & Simon, 2004); that is, there should not be undue negative evaluative words that may perpetuate low expectations for certain students. Looking at the criteria for Oral Presentation, there is a suggestion that the progression from Novice to Apprentice is a leap from ‘failure’ to ‘success’ (i.e., demonstrates poor understanding vs. demonstrates understanding). This begs the question of how a student can progress from such the lower to higher standard (e.g., is it really just about the difference of using one scientific term?) Such ambiguity makes it difficult for teachers and students to make use of the rubric particularly for formative purpose.

Reliance on Frequency CountMany writers (e.g., Brookhart, 2013) have also highlighted that rubric descriptors should not make use of quantitative measures which encourage students and teachers to count what are the observable. This prompts students in particular, to be compliant towards producing a particular product or performance. More importantly, the counting itself is very arbitrary and does not make



sense for that particular criterion and standard (e.g., why should a student who can make use of three scientific terms be an expert? Is it really scientifically sound for a fruit to have as many features of dispersal as possible?). We will be concerned that the students may misinterpret such expectation and strive to create an ‘impressive’ fruit without understanding the underlying rea-soning for a particular seed dispersal method with its traits and environment. For instance, it is easy to add many colours to the fictitious fruit without actually being able to demonstrate why the three colours are such an interesting combination that could attract insects.While we are not totally against the use of some frequency counting, particularly if it is aligned to particular standards or criteria stipulated in the syllabus content, we do not advise an over-reliant of it. Instead, we will recommend more descriptive words that require more inferential skills on the part of both the students and teachers be used in the descriptor. There will be some concerns of subjectivity in using particularly high-inferential words (e.g., in-depth understanding) which is why many teachers may like to take comfort in using the numerical evidence to substantiate their judgements. We will argue that the subjectivity can be overcome by referring to sufficient exemplars and a thorough moderation process.

process of desIgnIng good rubrIcsWe believe that the design of a good rubric requires first of all, sufficient experience of knowing a good range of accomplishment of the students’ works to be assessed. It is difficult to design a rubric (let alone a good rubric) if the learning outcomes are not well-identified or that the assessors have not seen the range of works that could be possible from the students. We understand this may not always be possible, particularly if the assessment task is a new one for the class. We will recommend in this case that the teachers could at least first, brainstorm and write down a descrip-tion of what a success piece of work or performance would be like, arising from the assessment task instruction. Subsequently the following steps could be helpful:

1. Identify the number and names of standards of students’ works or performances. Having already described what a successful piece of work or performance could look like in a holistic manner, describe as much as possible in qualitative terms the other possible standards that could be expected. This should preferably be decided collegially and not by any one teacher or Head of Department.

2. The rubric should address the key areas of learning or outcomes the teachers and students wish to assess/self-assess. By reviewing the descriptor now, decide whether it covers all the relevant learning outcomes (without narrowing student’s learning in a particular way) and that all the characteristics of students’ range of works or performances are ade-quately captured.

3. If the teachers decide that an analytic rubric will be more suited for the task and class, they could attempt to tease out the criteria that are embedded within the descrip-tor in each of the standard. The criteria should be well-defined and not overlap with another.

4. Share the draft rubric with students and to check that everyone understand what is being said on the rubric. It may be that certain evaluative words need to be taken away or that more examples or descriptive terms be used.



Example 2 presents another example of a rubric that has gone through more extensive revision. The teacher has developed this rubric in a master’s level course on authentic assessment and has brought in this rubric again for revision in a rubric workshop. The rubric is adapted from an ‘O’ level rubric for situational writing for more formative purpose in the teaching of this topic.

example 2: final draft of situational Writing rubric

secondary 2: english

Topic: Situational Writing

Learning Outcomes:■ Generate alternatives in a situational writing task.■ Evaluate, select and justify their choice.

Assessment Task:■ Students to follow the five-step decision-making process by completing a worksheet which

will require them to fill out. This forms a scaffold for a situation-writing task.■ Students are expected to display sound reasoning that enables students to justify their

choices and decisions in their situation-writing task.

Purpose(s) of Assessment Rubric:Formative and Summative

Trait Beginning [<5] Emerging [5–6] Capable [7–8] Proficient [9–10] Score

Identifies alternatives(Steps 1 and 2)

The alternatives identified reflect some confusion or limited understanding of the situation. Explanation is limited or absent.

The alternatives identified reflect some understanding of the situation. Writer is able to explain alternatives to some extent but the explanations do not fully address the purpose of the task.

The alternatives identified reflect a good understanding of the situation. The writer is able to explain the alternatives in relation to the purpose of the task.

The alternatives identified reflect an in-depth understanding of the situation. Explanations are detailed and logically organised in relation to the purpose of the task.

Applies information provided in the task to alternatives(Steps 3 and 4)

Writer shows awareness of information provided in the task and alternatives. Writer is not able to use details to explain how they match up.

Writer is able to explain how alternatives match up to the information provided in the task by using some obvious details.

Writer is able to explain how alternatives match up to the information provided in the task by using some defining details

Writer is able to explain how alternatives match up to the information provided in the task by using relevant and insightful details which show new ways of thinking.



Trait Beginning [<5] Emerging [5–6] Capable [7–8] Proficient [9–10] Score

Justifies Alternatives(Step 5)

Given information may not be logically used to support opinion. The ideas and the way they are expressed seem to be lifted from the task details.

Given information is organised to support personal opinion. The ideas and the way they are expressed show that the writer has attempted to relate personal knowledge or experience, but there is little development of details from the scope of the task.

Given information is well-used to justify personal opinion and interpretation. The ideas and the way they are expressed show that the writer draws on personal knowledge or experience and is able to develop details adequately.

Given information is well-justified and well-organised to justify personal opinion and interpretation. The ideas and the way they are expressed show that the writer is writing from personal knowledge or experience and is able to give fully-amplified and well-organised details.

As the rubric shows, each criterion is strongly aligned to a particular stage of an assessment task and learning outcome. Yet, the criteria are applicable across a wide range of similar reasoning or decision-making activities, particularly in the humanities subjects. The descriptor shows a consistent progression of qualitative changes of possible outcomes of students’ reasoning, from one standard to another. This process of articulation, particularly coupled with good illustration of exemplars, ensure that teachers and students are aware of expectation of the reasoning skills involved in situational writing.

In summary, the following guiding questions could be asked in the rubric design process:

1. Are all the criteria explicitly aligned to the relevant learning outcomes of the tasks (or does the rubric direct students to the assessment task requirements rather than the learn-ing objectives)?

2. Are there sufficient levels of standards that are well-described consistently across the levels?

3. Are appropriate words used in the descriptors (e.g., is there an over-reliance on frequency counting)?

role of rubrIcs In formatIve assessment practIce‘There are several ways for the formative use of rubrics to mediate improved student performance such as increasing transparency, reducing anxiety, aiding the feedback process, improving student self-efficacy or supporting student self-regulation’ (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013, p. 138).

Rubrics may be used for a variety of purposes, and not all uses of rubrics are for the enhanc-ing students learning. In Tan and Prosser (2004), it was noted that grade descriptors (a rubric which articulates different levels of achievement for each grade), may be used for formative or



non-formative purposes. Three different ways of understanding and using rubrics in Tan and Prosser (2004) are helpful for our discussion.

Rubrics as Description of Relative Merit between Students for Norm-referenced AssessmentSuch interpretations of rubrics serve as tentative but inadequate depictions of actual achieve-ment levels. The rubrics may be used to moderate the final assessment results to achieve a norm-referenced distribution of results. Norm-referenced assessment purports to measure and describe individual achievement in comparative terms (Taylor, 1994). Its effect is to rank-order student achievement between different students without reference to the individual student’s actual achievement. Norm-referenced assessment therefore communicates to students that their actual assessed achievement is determined in terms of relative merit rather than actual merit.

Rubrics as Description of Detailed Performance of Students for Criterion-referenced AssessmentSuch interpretation of rubrics would have the descriptors serve as indicative benchmarks of differ-ent achievement levels which may require refinement. The rubrics do not fully explicate the dis-tinctive differences between the levels of achievement. They serve the use of criterion-referenced assessment well in articulating what students should perform in detail for each criterion. But they may not convey intrinsic meaning of what the actual standards may be. For example, Brown, Bull, and Pendlebury (1997) argue that in criterion-referenced assessment, ‘only the pass/fail point is important’ (p. 12) since its objective is to determine if students have met certain criteria of their tasks.

Rubrics as Definitive and Complete Description of Levels of AchievementFinally, rubrics may be interpreted and used as primary and comprehensive depictions of actual achievement levels. Such use of rubrics would then represent the definitive interpretation of dif-ferent levels of achievement to teachers and to their students. These uses of rubrics can then serve as shared basis for teachers and students to hold a common understanding of different levels or standards of achievement. Teachers are able to utilise these rubrics descriptors to convey their expectations of students work and utilise the same descriptors to subsequently assess and evalu-ate students’ work. Such uses of rubrics exemplify what standards-referenced or standards-based assessment mean.

Increasingly, standards-based assessment or the provision of clear and unambiguous descrip-tions of required standards of performance by teachers to students is being emphasised as good assessment practice. Hawe (2002) describes standards based-assessment or standards-referenced assessment as emphasising ‘explicit specification of standards, the use of teachers’ qualitative judg-ments and development of shared understandings regarding the interpretation and operationalisa-tion of these standards’ (p. 94). Buckles, Schug, and Watts (2001) argue that clear descriptions of standards of performance are important for informing students what they are expected to learn, how they should perform in their assessed work and for informing teachers how they can assess students accordingly.



Of the three interpretations and uses of rubrics in Tan and Prosser (2004), it is clear that norm-referenced uses of rubrics are not meant to be formative. Instead, the purpose of norm-referenced assessment is to discriminate or rank student achievement in relation to each other, and not to assist students to enhance their learning.

Both Criterion-referenced and Standards-referenced uses of rubrics are useful for articulat-ing different levels of achievement for students, and together with formative feedback useful for assisting students to enhance their learning from one level to another. However, both criterion-referenced and standards-referenced assessments pertain to anticipated achievement and improve-ment for groups of students, and may not cater specifically to individual student progress and attainment. Such use of rubrics for articulating and emphasising personal improvement may be served by ipsative or self-referenced assessment.

Ipsative assessment compares existing performance with previous performance. Many infor-mal and practical learning experiences are assessed in this way, such as sports coaching, music teaching and computer gaming. A personal best in athletics is an ipsative assessment. By contrast, in much academic learning, where assessment is made in relation to external attainment criteria or rubrics, credit is rarely given for how far the learner has advanced since the previous piece of work (Hughes, 2011).

conclusIonSeveral fundamental principles of assessment rubrics have been explained in this chapter: How a rubric comprises of standards, criteria and descriptors, how rubrics may be interpreted to empha-sise norm-referenced, criterion-referenced, standards-referenced or self-assessments, and regardless of the type or use of rubrics, what would be the main issues in constructing and using a rubric for the benefit of enhancing students’ learning.

Assessment practices require informed judgments to be made concerning students’ learning, and such judgments need to be made against clear descriptions of the nature and level of requisite learning. It is hoped that the knowledge and principles of rubric construction, interpretation and usage in this chapter would enable teachers and learners alike for clarifying, emphasising and enhancing their learning in and from assessment tasks.

reflectIon QuestIons 1. What is the key difference between a rubric and a checklist? 2. What are some of the key considerations to bear in mind when designing or revising rubrics? 3. What should be the primary referent for using and interpreting rubrics in schools? Should it

be norm-referenced, criterion referenced, standards referenced or self-referenced?

key readIngsBrookhart, M. S. (2013). How to create and use rubrics. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Sadler, R. D. (2005). Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment

& Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 175–194.Tan, K. H. K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Qualitatively different ways of differentiating student achievement:

A phenomenographic study of grade descriptors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(3), 267–282.



referencesArter, J. A., & Chappuis, J. (2006). Creating and recognising quality rubrics. Portland, OR: Educational Testing

Service.Brown, G., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing student learning in higher education. London, UK:

Routledge.Buckles, S., Schug, M., & Watts, M. (2001). A national survey of state assessment practices in the social

studies. Social Studies, 92(4), 141.Hawe, E. (2002). Assessment in a pre-service teacher education programme: The rhetoric and the practice of

standards-based assessment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(1), 93–106.Hughes, G. (2011). Towards a personal best: A case for introducing ipsative assessment in higher education.

Studies in Higher Education, 36(3), 353–367.Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2014). Assessment for Education: Standards, Judgement and Moderation.

London, UK: SAGE.Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited:

A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144.Popham, W. J. (1997). What’s wrong-and what’s right-with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55, 72–75.Popham, W. J. (2012). The role of rubrics in testing and teaching. New York, NY: Pearson.Sadler, D. R. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review of Education, 13,

191–209.Taylor, C. (1994). Assessment for measurement or standards: The peril and promise of large scale assessment

reform. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 231–262.Tierney, R., & Simon, M. (2004). What’s still wrong with rubrics: Focusing on the consistency of performance

criteria across scale levels. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(2), 1–10.Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Assessment rubrics for learning

Documents

Transcript of Assessment rubrics for learning