Item Name: Rubric for Assessing Rubrics

Document #: 160
Author: Dr. Bonnie B. Mullinix
Institution: Monmouth University
Discipline: Any
Type of Item: rubric
Type of Rubric: holistic
File Type: pdf

Appropriate for use at these levels

Any: yes Classroom: yes
Academic Program: yes Institution: yes

Description
This rubric includes definitions of four levels of performance for each of six areas of
evaluation criteria: clarity of criteria, distinction between levels, reliability of scoring, clarity of
expectations/guidance to learners, support of metacognition (awareness of learning), and
engagement of learners in rubric development/ use.

Copyright Information
Dr. Bonnie B. Mullinix © Monmouth University, December 2003

Disclaimer
The information provided in this document is static and retrieved at a specific point in time.
Therefore, this information may not represent updates or revisions made since its retrieval.
The Office of University Evaluation and The Center for Learning and Teaching Excellence at
Arizona State University make no guarantees concerning the accuracy, completeness,
reliability, or suitability of the information for your needs.

Trademarks, service marks, logos, and/or domain names are the property of their respective
owners, who have no association with or make any endorsement of information provided by
this service.

We identified the source of all material used in this service wherever possible, however,
specific copyright information is continually updated.
 A Rubric for Rubrics
A Tool for Assessing the Quality and Use of Rubrics in Education

1 2 3 4
Criteria
Unacceptable Acceptable Good/Solid Exemplary

Criteria being assessed are
Clarity of criteria unclear, inappropriate and/or
have significant overlap
Criteria being assessed can be Each criteria is distinct, clearly
Criteria being assessed are clear,
identified, but are not clearly delineated and fully appropriate
appropriate and distinct
differentiated or are inappropriate for the assignment(s)/course

Some distinction between levels Each level is distinct and

Distinction between Little/no distinction can be made Distinction between levels is
is made, but is not totally clear progresses in a clear and logical
Levels between levels of achievement
how well
apparent
order

There is general agreement

Cross-scoring among faculty and/ Cross-scoring by faculty and/or Cross-scoring of assignments
between different scorers when
Reliability of Scoring or students often results in students occasionally produces using rubric results in consistent
using the rubric (e.g. differs by less
significant differences inconsistent results agreement among scorers
than 5-10% or less than ½ level)

Rubric serves as primary

Rubric is shared and provides Rubric is referenced - used to
Clarity of Expectations/ reference point for discussion and
Rubric is not shared with learners some idea of the assignment/ introduce an assignment/guide
Guidance to Learners expectations learners
guidance for assignments as well
as evaluation of assignment(s),

Rubric is shared and identified as Rubric is regularly referenced and

Rubric is shared but not
Support of a tool for helping learners to used to help learners identify the
discussed/ referenced with
Metacognition Rubric is not shared with learners understand what they are skills and knowledge they are
respect to what is being learned
(Awareness of Learning) learning through the assignment/ developing throughout the
through the assignment(s)/course
in the course course/ assignment(s)

Learners discuss the design of

Engagement of Faculty and learners are jointly
Learners are not engaged in Learners offered the rubric and the rubric and offer feedback/
responsible for design of rubrics
Learners in Rubric either development or use of the may choose to use it for self input and are responsible for use
and learners use them in peer
Development/ Use * rubrics assessment of rubrics in peer and/or self-
and/or self-evaluation
evaluation
*Considered optional by some educators and a critical component by others
Scoring: 0 - 10 = needs improvement 11 - 15 = workable 16 – 20 = solid/good 21 – 24 = exemplary

Dr. Bonnie B. Mullinix © Monmouth University December 2003