Constructing Rubrics-Clarity
A rubric is clear to the extent that teachers, students and others are likely to interpret the statements and terms in the rubric the same way. Please notice that a rubric can be strong on the trait of content/coverage, but weak on the trait of clarity - the rubric seems to cover the important dimensions of performance, but they aren't described very well. Likewise, a rubric can be strong on the trait of clarity, but weak on the trait of content/coverage - it's very clear what the rubric means, it's just not very important stuff.
Questions to ask oneself when evaluating a rubric for clarity are: would two teachers give the same rating on a product or performance? Can I define each statement in my rubric in such a way that students can understand what I mean? Could I find examples of student work or performances that illustrate each level of quality? Would I know what to say if a student asks, "Why did I get this score?"
Ready to Roll:
- The rubric is so clear that different teachers would give the same rating to the same product or performance.
- A single teacher could use the rubric to provide consistent ratings across assignments, time and students.
- Words are specific and accurate. It is easy to understand just what is meant.
- There are several samples of student products or performance that illustrate each score point. It is clear why each sample was scored the way it was.
- Terms are defined.
- There is just enough descriptive detail in the form on concrete indicators, adjectives, and descriptive phrases that allow you to match a student performance to the "right" score.
- There is not an overabundance of descriptive detail - the developer seems to have a sense of that which is most telling.
- The basis for assigning ratings or checkmarks is clear. Each score point is defined with indicators and descriptions.
On It's Way but Needs Revision:
- Major headings are defined, but there is little detail to assist the rater to choose the proper score points.
- There is some attempt to define terms and include descriptors, but it doesn't go far enough.
- Teachers would agree on how to rate some things in the rubric while others are not well-defined and would probably result in disagreements.
- A single teacher would probably have trouble being consistent in scoring across students or assignments.
Not Ready for Prime Time:
- Language is so vague that almost anything could be meant. You find yourself saying things like: "I'm confused," or "I don't have any idea what they mean by this."
- There are no definitions for terms used in the rubric; or, the definitions don't help or are incorrect.
- The rubric is little more than a list of categories to rate followed by a rating scale. Nothing is defined. Few descriptors are given to define levels of performance.
- No sample student work is provided that illustrates what is meant.
- Teachers are unlikely to agree on ratings because there is so many different ways a descriptor can be interpreted.
- The only way to distinguish levels is words like: "extremely," "very," "some," "little," and "none;" or "completely," "substantially," "fairly well," "little," and "not at all."
2000 ATI. Permission granted for use; Arter and Chappuis, Performance Assessment
Constructing Rubrics Menu:
- Content: The content of a rubric defines what to look for in a student’s product or performance to determine quality
- Clarity: The rubric is clear so teachers, students and scorers are likely to interpret the statements and standards of quality in the same way.
- Practicality: Practicality refers to understandability and ease of use (information for instructional decisions, tracking progress, improve achievement, etc)
- Technical Soundness/Fairness: The performance criteria adequately measure the goal being assessed. The performance criteria are developmentally appropriate for the students being assessed.
