1

PowerPoint

Using Rubrics as a Means of Performance Assessment

By

Sarah L. Miller

Appalachian StateUniversity

Submitted for partial completion of

FDN 5560

Spring 2005

ABSTRACT

This paper and the accompanying PowerPoint presentationare designed to provide a teacher-training workshop on rubrics. The workshop defines the word “rubric” and explains how rubrics are helpful to teachers, students, and their parents as a means of performance assessment. Different types of rubrics, along with their critical attributes and the steps to be followed in creating them are described. Examples of rubrics are given and several teacher-resources for writing rubrics are provided.

Using Rubrics as a Means of Performance Assessment

Paper and pencil tests have been around since the Greeks scribbled on parchment paper. They were still the norm more than two thousand years later when, in the late 1990s, a new brand of assessment called performance assessment began to develop. Performance assessment is still a relatively unknown method of assessment because it represents “a departure from conventional assessment methodology” (Meisels, Xue, Bickel, Nicholson, & Atkins-Burnett, 2001, p. 62). Despite the fact that some educators (Rabinowitz, 2001) continue to propagate the myth that performance assessments are too hard to do and results are too difficult for parents to interpret or understand, Meisels et al (2001) found that parents who had an opportunity to learn about performance assessments preferred them to the traditional means of measuring student achievement that they remember from their own days in school (p.64). Parents are capable of feeling comfortable and supportive of this new style of assessment when “schools and teachers mount a well-designed program of public information” (Meisels et al, 2001, p. 64). But teachers must be prepared for this new style of assessment as well. Stiggins and Conklin (1992) found that many teachers are not prepared to implement performance assessment methodologies; they do not distinguish between levels of performance, they do not plan a scoring procedure prior to the instructional unit, and they do not record scoring results during assessment. Teacher training, both at the university training level and in the school systems, must improve so that teachers can effectively utilize performance assessment techniques.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Performance assessment, as defined by Popham (2001), is “an approach to measuring a student’s status based on the way that the student completes a specified task” (p.177). The way that the student completes the specific performance-oriented task requires them to generate their response, rather than choose it from a list of binary or multiple choice items; judging these performance-oriented responses is done through the use of scoring procedures known as rubrics (Popham, 2005). Whitcomb (1999) defines a rubric as “a set of scoring guidelines for evaluating students’ work” (p. 26). Callison (2000) takes the definition a bit further, identifying a rubric as “a set of criteria, usually ranging from performance that is considered unacceptable to minimal through progressive stages which eventually defines that which is observable superior performance” (p. 34). A rubric is usually constructed using a grid pattern: the evaluation skill levels or learning targets are listed in the left-hand column and the levels of performance are classified across the top of the grid (Callison, 2000). Three to five levels of performance are selected, and there are a plethora of ways to describe these performance levels: three levels of performance might be classified as “Excellent, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory” or “Strong, Developing or Limited.” Five levels of performance might be numbered one through five or assigned letter grades “A” through “F,” or they might be entitled “exceeds standards, above standards, at standards, meets some standards, below standards.” Rubrics must be generated prior to instructional planning (Popham, 2005), and should be based on the learning targets that each instructional unit intends to achieve. This helps reinforce the clarity, focus, and goals of both the rubrics and the learning targets.

When developing a rubric, teachers can choose from four different types: analytical, holistic, primary trait, and developmental continuum (Phillip, 2002). Analytical rubrics award points to each response on a criterion-by-criterion basis while holistic rubrics consider “all of the rubric’s evaluative criteria” (Popham, 2005, p. 186) and award a single, overall response to a student’s work. Primary trait rubrics focus on a “specific trait or feature” (Phillip, 2002, p.27), while the developmental continuum evaluates learning using “several points or stages of development over time” (Phillip, 2002, p.27). Teachers should choose the rubric style that best matches the learning targets for the particular instructional unit they are teaching.

Regardless of the type that is chosen, rubrics have several important features; experts do not always agree on which of those features are most necessary. Callison (2000), Popham (2005), and Stefl-Mabry (2004) all agree on one critical attribute: that the evaluative or “ratings” (Stefl-Mabry, 2004) levels should be descriptive, distinct, and comprehensive. Popham (2005) believes that the other two most important elements of a rubric are: the “number of criteria used to determine the quality of a student’s response,” (p. 186), and whether the rubric will be scored holistically or analytically. Callison (2000) chooses two other critical attributes: structuring the feedback so that the students know how close they are to the highest level of achievement, and providing the rubric to the students at the beginning of the instructional unit, as opposed to the end. Stefl-Mabry (2004) identifies yet two more critical attributes of rubrics: that all important elements should be included on the rubric, and that “the ultimate purpose of a rubric is to improve performance” (p. 22) by clarifying expectations for both students and parents. Popham (2005) most clearly states what a rubric should not be: hyper-general, task-specific, or excessively long. Stefl-Mabry (2004) agrees, stressing clarity in writing rubrics and reminding teachers that if a rubric is confusing to them, it will be even more confounding to the students.

The purpose of a rubric is to give a clear and succinct definition of what an expected standard is for a given task at a given age group and what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable completion of that task (Callison, 2000). Rubrics help students and parents understand the expectations of the given assignment, as well as “where the marked work fits on a continuum, why teachers assign the grades they do, and what students must do to achieve a top-level mark” (Shaw, 2004, p.17). Shaw also believes that rubrics help teachers maintain consistency in their grading methods, enhance the partnerships between parents and schools, and enable a higher level of clarity about each task that is given (2001). McCollister (2002) suggests that the true purpose of a rubric is to demystify the grading experience and outline expectations by giving students as much information as possible about the standards they are trying to achieve. Yell (1999) believes that rubrics help his students learn what to work towards and keep him grounded in a more constructivist, student-centered approach to teaching. Rubrics also help teachers intervene when students falter or are uncertain about their work or the expectations for that work (McCollister, 2002). Phillip (2002) maintains that the most important purpose of a rubric is that it helps students know precisely what is required of them: the clarity of the learning expectations, as written in a good rubric, puts students in charge of their own learning assessment.

Once a teacher understands the definition of a rubric, knows what a rubric looks like, understands the types of rubrics to choose from, and understands the critical elements of a rubric, how does he or she begin to write one out? Just as there are several ways to skin a cat, there are several ways to write rubrics! Stefl-Mabry (2004) has the most in-depth list, promoting this eleven-step process for writing a rubric:

  1. Make a preliminary decision on the dimensions of the performance or product to be assessed.
  2. Examine student work to be sure that important dimensions have not been overlooked.
  3. Refine and consolidate the list of dimensions.
  4. Define, in writing, each dimension.
  5. Develop a scale to describe the range of performance, product, or proficiency for each dimension.
  6. Critically evaluate the rubric.
  7. Determine if the criteria are aligned to the standards and/or learning targets.
  8. Ensure that all the categories are well defined.
  9. Determine if there is a clear basis for assigning scores at each scale point.
  10. Pilot test the rubric on actual samples of student work.
  11. Have a colleague test the rubric with his or her students (p. 22).

Phillip (2002) acknowledges that writing a rubric depends on each teacher’s personal style, classroom format, and assessment needs. She suggests the following six-step method for rubric writing:

  1. Identify the intended outcome.
  2. Determine what student performance would demonstrate the achievement of the outcome.
  3. Establish the criteria to be used for assessment (levels of expectations, performance, and what is unacceptable).
  4. Decide upon the type of rubric to use.
  5. Determine the components and their weight.
  6. State the components as performance behaviors (p. 27).

Popham (2005) gets it down one more, advocating for these five fabulous rubric rules:

  1. Make sure the skill to be assessed is significant.
  2. Make certain all of the rubric’s evaluative criteria can be addressed instructionally.
  3. Employ as few evaluative criteria as possible.
  4. Provide a succinct label for each evaluative criterion.
  5. Match the length of the rubric to your own tolerance for detail (p. 195-6).

As they gain experience, teachers can choose from each of these three lists to create their own guideline for writing rubrics.

Callison (2000) outlines very clear pros and cons for using rubrics as a performance assessment tool. He believes that rubrics force teachers to be more focused on instructional content and more consistent and objective from one lesson to the next. Rubrics also make it very easy to give feedback to students, giving students a more clear understanding of their progress and what they must do to improve their achievement. Conversely, a poorly written rubric can be extraordinarily detrimental. Rubrics that lack clarity and specifics create chaos and confusion in the instructional unit, rendering students unable to understand whether or not they are proficient at the performance task at hand. These poor rubrics “provide teachers with no genuine benefits for their instructional planning” (Popham, 2005, p. 194) because the rubric has not explained what is to be evaluated. Time is of the essence as well: learning to write good rubrics takes practice, and teachers who are forced to focus on preparing for cumulative standardized tests might not feel that they have any spare moments to practice their rubric-writing skills. Finally, since letter grades are still the standard grading instrument in most school districts, even the best rubric has to be transformed back into As, Bs, Cs, Ds and Fs.

According to Rose (1999), rubrics differ from the traditional methods of assessment because “they examine the students in the actual process of learning, clearly showing them how their work is being evaluated” (p. 30). This focus on the educational process makes rubrics particularly appealing and useful for fine and performing arts teachers. “Standardized tests are practically meaningless” (Clark, 2002, p. 29) in the fine arts domain because the very nature of their artistic disciplines is synonymous with performance. Clark (2002) admits that traditional grading has always been difficult for fine and performing arts teachers; it is difficult to accurately judge the proficiency of a vocal performance or a lighting design with a multiple choice test. Additionally, the subjective nature of the performances and products themselves can lead to inconsistency in grading. The conflict between judging the process of creating and evaluating the final product itself causes teachers to struggle over which approach to emphasize more. With the use of rubrics, both approaches can be assessed and emphasized. Rubrics can be created for demonstrations, artistic critiques, working exhibitions, rehearsals, practice sessions, sketch books, singing on pitch, playing instructional games, monologues, playing correct rhythms, scene work, solo or group singing, scenic design, and more (Clark 2002). And these rubrics can evaluate the range of skills, “from conception to creation” (Clark, 2002, p. 30) that are a part of the process, as well as the finished result of the project that is the final goal. “Well constructed rubrics can provide a way for art teachers to grade or evaluate student performances easily and equitably, without compromising divergent qualities of individual creative processes and final products or performances” (Clark, 2002, p. 32). Rubrics allow fine arts teachers to evaluate their students more equitably and accurately; these rubrics also allow the fine arts students to understand, in clear and concise terms, what is expected of both their process and product of creation.

Rubrics “take objectives for student performance and provide an evaluation grid or map so the learner knows what is expected and what will be evaluated” (Callison, 2000, p. 35). Well-constructed rubrics also enable students to have a “checklists for success” (Whitcomb, 1999, p. 28) for each rubric-oriented instructional unit in which they participate. Rubrics, then, have the power to become the checklist by which teachers can accurately judge the quality, accuracy, and thoroughness of their learning targets and instructional units, and lead to increased success in the classroom.

References

Callison, D. (2000). Rubrics. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 17 (2), 34-6.

Clark, R.E. (2002). Performance assessment in the arts. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 39 (1), 29-32.

McCollister, S. (2002). Developing criteria rubrics in the art classroom. Art Education, 55 (4), 46-52.

Meisels, S., Xue, Y., Bickel, D. D., Nicholson, J., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2001). Parental reactions to authentic performance assessment. Educational Assessment, 7 (1), 61-85.

Phillip, C. (2002). Clear expectations: rubrics and scoring guides. Knowledge Quest, 31(2),

26-7.

Popham, W.J. (2005). Classroom assessment: what teachers need to know (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Rabinowitz, S. (2001). Four things to consider about performance assessment. The School Administrator Web Edition, 12. Retrieved April 9, 2005, from

Rose, M.C. (1999). Rubrics. Instructor (primary editions), 108, (6), 30-1.

Shaw, J. (2004). Demystifying the evaluation process for parents: rubrics for marking student research projects. Teacher Librarian, 32, (2), 16-9.

Stiggins, R.J. & Conklin, N.F. (1992). In teacher’s hands: investigating the practices of classroom assessment. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Stefl-Mabry, J. (2004). Building rubrics into powerful learning assessment tools. Knowledge Quest, 32 (5), 21-5.

Whitcomb, R. (1999). Rubrics. Music Educators Journal, 85 (6), 26-32.

Yell, M. (1999). Multiple choice to multiple rubrics: one teacher’s journey in assessment. Social Education, 63 (6), 326-9.

Appendix A: Teacher Resource List for Rubrics

Text book:

Arter & McTighe. (2001). Scoring Rubrics in the Classroom.

Web sites: Teachers can visit these websites:

Software:

The Rubicator, from “New Measure”. Can be purchased at Can download software for roughly $49 for a one-time use or purchase a software package for your school for $500.

Appendix B: Sample Rubrics from rubistar.4teachers.org

Classical Concert Etiquette: Bach Concerto
Teacher Name: Ms. Miller
Student Name: ______
CATEGORY / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1
Program / Student looks at program before concert begins and then quietly consults it between numbers, if desired. / Student looks at program quietly between numbers. / Student puts program in lap and does not fiddle with it during the performance. / Student waves program around or rattles it unnecessarily.
Stays seated / Student keeps all body parts within own seating area during entire performance, politely sharing armrest with at least one neighbor. / Student keeps all body parts within own seating area during most of the performance, politely sharing armrest with at least one neighbor. Movements do not distract or irritate others. / Student leans toward another student to talk quietly, but stays in seat and keeps hands and feet to himself/herself. / Student gets out of seat OR lets arms, hands, legs stray into the space of another.
Attention / Listens politely to the music. Has an interested expression almost all the time. / Listens politely to the music. Looks interested some of the time. Does not distract others when not listening. / Does not appear to be listening or interested, but keeps quiet and does not distract others. / Distracts others by talking, moving, rattling things, playing with toys, etc. during the actual performance.
Showing Appreciation / Claps at an appropriate volume at the end of all musical selections. Has pleasant expression and looks toward the performers while clapping. / Claps at an appropriate volume at the end of all musical selections. Does not look at performers when clapping. / Does not clap for all selections OR claps at the wrong time. / Claps too loudly, drawing audience attention, OR whistles and screams while clapping.
Entering the Hall or Auditorium / Stands quietly outside the door then follows usher quietly to assigned seat. / Talks in a soft voice outside the door, then follows the usher quietly to assigned seat. / Talks in a soft voice while waiting and while being seated. / Talks in a loud voice while waiting OR being seated.
Stage Design : I Never Saw Another Butterfly
Teacher Name: Ms. Miller
Student Name: ______
CATEGORY / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1
Design details / The design captures the "flavor" of the play or topic by including several details that accurately reflect the period, culture or theme. / The design somewhat captures the "flavor" of the play or topic by including a few details that reflect the period, culture or theme. / The design is based on the logical principles of design, but has little 'flavor". / Historical and cultural details are missing from the design.
Design concept / Student turns in a complete, interesting, and completely justified rationale for their design concept. / Student turns in a complete, interesting design concept and rationale, but the rationale needs to be expanded. / Student turns in a complete design concept, but lacks a rationale. / Student turns in a partial design concept.
Scale / Student has picked a scale that allows easy interpretation and has kept it consistent throughout the design. / Student has picked a scale that allows easy interpretation. There are only minor consistency problems. / Student has picked a scale that allows easy interpretation. There are, however, several consistency problems. / The rendering is not to scale.