Select the right information for a rubric
Before you start to put a rubric together and design it, you need to gather the information that the rubric will contain, and consider some key aspects in its design. These steps will help you plan for designing your rubric:
-
What constitutes the level of achievement in a task?
You can decide on the standards for your assessment task by:
- consulting a taxonomy, such as Bloom’s or SOLO, to get clear about performance progression. The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) standard descriptors are also useful to consult.
- collecting student samples and looking for themes in performance and ability.
- taking or adapting words and phrases from other well-written rubrics for assessments of a similar nature.
Various standard scales exist; they typically range from 2 to 5 point scales, whereby a 2 point scale is a binary scale of competent and not yet competent.
When choosing a standard other than Monash’s (HD, D, C, P, N), it is necessary to have clear overall definitions of each standard with descriptors for each criteria. It is also important to map them back to Monash’s standards. There should be a clear justification for using a particular set of standards, such as if one already exists in a particular industry or that the unit is competency-based.
It is also important to consider what understanding students and markers have of your chosen standards. Within a course, having units and assessments that vary in terms of expectations for ‘competence’ can cause confusion and limit students’ understanding of what constitutes a quality task. A collective set of standards helps to maintain consistency across tasks, units, and courses. The HD, D, C, P, and N labels are well known, so they are a good place to start when designing a rubric.
-
What are the components that will be marked?
Criteria show students and markers what is being marked and what learning is valued.
For criteria to be effective, each component should be:
- Connected to the unit learning outcomes, and a core skill, ability or understanding needed to complete the assessment task.
- Task-specific and detailed enough to be understood as a criteria. For example, not just ‘Report writing’ but ‘Produces a professional client report that selects high quality points of interest and analysis’. Verbs from Bloom’s taxonomy can be used to describe the overall performance of the criteria.
- Observable and measurable. For something to be observable, it can be seen or heard in a written or oral submission; and for something to be measurable, it can be completed at different levels of mastery.
- Distinct, and thus entirely separate from all other criteria. There should not be any overlap.
- Manageable, in that it shouldn’t be too broad, or include more than 3 or 4 components. Criteria should include significant elements of the task but not so many that it isn’t feasible for students and markers.
Once you have selected the components, expand upon them so as to provide some clear context, and also reinforce that they are significant enough to be assessed. For example, instead of ‘Critical evaluation’ as a criteria, have ‘Critically evaluates financial market information and provides evidence based justifications for professional decisions made’ instead. This helps you to clarify exactly what each criteria is focused on.
-
What else will influence the assessment of the task?
Click through the slides below to learn more about what needs to be addressed when designing rubrics.
-
How specific are the performance and criteria descriptors?
The two most common rubrics are holistic and analytical. Each of these has different characteristics and purposes. Move through the tabs below to learn more.
A holistic rubric allows markers to provide a grade based on overall impressions or global descriptions of student performance in a task.
Rather than including multiple criteria, there is just one. This approach is useful when the overall performance in a task is more important than the individual components, or where the criteria are complex and interwoven (e.g., higher order thinking) and difficult to distinguish from one another.
A holistic rubric supports markers in applying their expert evaluative judgement, but inducting markers and students into these notions of quality can be challenging and must be supported. There needs to be a discussion on what to do when student performance lies across two or more descriptors.
Example holistic rubric
High distinction (HD) Distinction (D) Credit (C) Pass (P) Fail (N) Broad statement indicating the performance standards for a high distinction across all criteria. Broad statement indicating the performance standards for a distinction across all criteria. Broad statement indicating the performance standards for a credit across all criteria. Broad statement indicating the performance standards for a pass across all criteria. Broad statement indicating what performance standards for a fail across all criteria. An analytical approach breaks down the criteria and separates them into different levels of performance (or standards). Analytical rubrics allow for more detail to be provided and more transparency than holistic rubrics, which can assist markers and students in aligning their standards. It is important to conduct training and standard setting meetings for marking staff so as to ensure consistency and confirm benchmarks.
Example analytical rubric
Criteria High distinction (HD) Distinction (D) Credit (C) Pass (P) Fail (N) Critical thinking and argument 45% Specific statement indicating the attributes for critical thinking and argument at a high distinction standard. Specific statement indicating the attributes for critical thinking and argument at a distinction standard. Specific statement indicating the attributes for critical thinking and argument at a credit standard. Specific statement indicating the attributes for critical thinking and argument at a pass standard. Specific statement indicating what performance would constitute a fail in the critical thinking and argument criteria. Research and evidence 40% Specific statement indicating the attributes for research and evidence at a high distinction standard. Specific statement indicating the attributes for research and evidence at a distinction standard. Specific statement indicating the attributes for research and evidence at a credit standard. Specific statement indicating the attributes for research and evidence at a pass standard. Specific statement indicating what performance would constitute a fail in the research and evidence criteria. etc.