Rubric Formats

Rubrics can be classified into four formats

(Assessing Student Learning: A common sense guide by Suskie 2004)

 Checklists – simple list indicating the presence of 'things you are looking for'

A checklist rubric for evaluating a web site

(Assessing Student Learning: A common sense guide by Suskie 2004)
X Titles are meaningful
Each page loads quickly
X The text is easy to read

 Rating scales – a checklist with a rating scale added to show the degree to which the
‘things you are looking for' are present

A rating scale rubric for an information literacy assignment

(Assessing Student Learning: A common sense guide by Suskie 2004)
Please indicate the student's skill in each of the following respects, as evidenced by this
assignment, by checking the appropriate box. If this assignment is not intended to elicit a
particular skill, please check the N/A box.
Outstanding Ver y Acceptable Marginally Inadequate N/A
(A) Good (C) acceptable (F)
(B) (D)
Identify, locate, and
access sources of
information
Critically evaluate
information, including its
legitimacy, validity, and
appropriateness
Organize information to
present a sound central
idea supported by relevant
material in a logical order
Use information to
answer questions and/or
solve problems
 Clearly articulate
information and ideas
Use information
technologies to
communicate, manage,
and process information
Use information
technologies to solve
problems
Use the work of others
accurately and ethically
What grade are you
awarding this
assignment?
If you had to assign a
final course grade for this
student today, what would
it be?

A rating scale for an oral presentation

(Assessing Student Learning: A common sense guide by Suskie 2004)
The presenter …
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
agree disagree
Clearly stated the purpose of X
the presentation
Was well organized X
Answered questions X
authoritatively
Appeared confident X

It should be noted that rating scales can be vague in nature leading to problems (Suskie 2004):
  When several faculty are doing the rating, they may be inconsistent in how they
rate performance
 Students don't receive thorough feedback; i.e., a scored rubric may not explain
why something was less than superior

 Holistic rating scales

 Do not have a list of the ‘things you're looking for'
 Have short narrative descriptions of the characteristics of outstanding work,
acceptable work, unacceptable work, and so on

HOLISTIC rubric for assessing student essays

(Assessing Academic Programs in Higher Education by Allen 2004)
Inadequate The essay has at least one serious weakness. It may be unfocused,
underdeveloped, or rambling. Problems with the use of language
seriously interfere with the reader's ability to understand what is being
communicated.
Developing The essay may be somewhat unfocused, underdeveloped, or rambling,
competence but it does have some coherence. Problems with the use of language
occasionally interfere with the reader's ability to understand what is
being communicated.
Acceptable The essay is generally focused and contains some development of
ideas, but the discussion may be simplistic or repetitive. The language
lacks syntactic complexity and may contain occasional grammatical
errors, but the reader is able to understand what is being
communicated.
Sophisticated The essay is focused and clearly organized, and it shows depth of
development. The language is precise and shows syntactic variety,
and ideas are clearly communicated to the reader.

 Descriptive rubrics
 Replace the checkboxes of rating scale rubrics with brief descriptions of the
performance that merits each possible rating
 Descriptions of each performance level make faculty expectations explicit and
student performance convincingly documented. But, coming up with succinct but
explicit descriptions of every performance level for every ‘thing you are looking
for' can be time-consuming.
 Are a good choice when several faculty are collectively assessing student work, it
is important to give students detailed feedback, or outside audiences will be
examining the rubric scores.

A descriptive rubric for a slide presentation on findings from research sources

(Assessing Student Learning: A common sense guide by Suskie 2004)
 Well done Satisfactory Needs improvement Incomplete
(5) (4-3) (2-1) (0)
Organization Clearly, concisely Logical Vague in conveying Lacks a clear
written. Logical, progression of viewpoint and point of view and
intuitive ideas and purpose. Some logical logical sequence
progression of supporting progression of ideas of
ideas and information. Most and supporting information. Cues
supporting cues to information but cues to information are
information. Clear information are are confusing or not evident.
and direct cues to clear and direct. flawed.
all information.
Introduction Presents overall Clear, coherent, Some structure but Does not orient
topic. Draws in and related to does not create a sense audience to what
audience with topic. of what follows. May will follow.
compelling be overly detailed or
questions or by incomplete. Somewhat
relating audience's appealing.
interests or goals.
Etc.

ANALYTIC rubric for peer assessment of team project members

(Assessing Academic Programs in Higher Education by Allen 2004)
Below expectation Good Exceptional
Project contributions Made few substantive Contributed a “fair Contributed
contributions to the share” of substance to considerable
team's final product the team's final substance to the
product team's final product
Leadership Rarely or never Accepted a “fair Routinely provided
exercised leadership share” of leadership excellent leadership
responsibilities
Collaboration Undermined group Respected others' Respected others'
discussions or often opinions and opinions and made
failed to participate contributed to the major contributions to
group's discussion the group's discussion
 ANALYTIC rubric for grading oral presentations
(Assessing Academic Programs in Higher Education by Allen 2004)
Below expectation Satisfactory Exemplary Score
Organization No apparent The presentation has a The presentation is
organization. focus and provides carefully organized
Evidence is not used some evidence that and provides
to support assertions. supports conclusions. convincing evidence
to support
conclusions
(0 – 2) (3 – 5) (6 – 8)
Content The content is The content is The content is
inaccurate or overly generally accurate, but accurate and
general. Listeners incomplete. Listeners complete. Listeners
are unlikely to learn may learn some are likely to gain
anything or may be isolated facts, but they new insights about
misled. are unlikely to gain the topic.
new insights about the
topic.
(0 – 2) (5 – 7) (10 – 13)
Style The speaker appears The speaker is The speaker is
anxious and generally relaxed and relaxed and
uncomfortable, and comfortable, but too comfortable, speaks
reads notes, rather often relies on without undue
than notes. Listeners are reliance on notes,
speaks. Listeners are sometimes ignored or and interacts
largely ignored. misunderstood. effectively with
listeners.
(0 – 2) (3 – 6) (7 – 9)
Total Score

Generic rubric for assessing portfolios

(Assessing Academic Programs in Higher Education by Allen 2004)
Unacceptable: Marginal: Acceptable: Exceptional:
Evidence that Evidence that Evidence Evidence
the student has the student shows that the demonstrates
mastered this has mastered student has that the
objective is this objective generally student has
not provided, is provided, attained this mastered this
unconvincing, objective
 or very but it is weak objective at a
incomplete or incomplete high level
Learning objective 1
Learning objective 2
Etc.