Assessment Rubrics For Learning

115
12
INTRODUCTION
Assessment may be understood as the process of forming a judgment about the quality and extent
of student achievement or performance, and therefore by inference a judgment about the learning
that has taken place (Sadler, 2005). Assessment practices therefore require judgments to be made
concerning students’ learning, and such judgments need to be made against clear descriptions of
the nature and level(s) of requisite learning. Rubrics are a useful instrument for describing the
expectations of students’ learning in terms of standards and criteria.
CLARIFYING TYPES OF STANDARDS—A PRELUDE TO
UNDERSTANDING RUBRICS
‘The word “standard” is universally used yet has different meanings, depending on historical and
social derivation’ (Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith, 2014, p. 12).
The term ‘standards’ is commonly used by teachers, policy-makers and stakeholders, but may
not always refer to the same thing. The key distinction to be grasped is the difference between
Curriculum standards and Achievement standards.
Curriculum standards, or sometimes referred to as Content standards, articulate what is to be
taught. They would therefore pitch the levels of curriculum instruction for cohorts of students,
and not for individual students. Achievement standards are articulations of the levels of quality or
achievement of individual students’ work. They would guide students and teachers on the judg-
ment of individual learning outcomes.
Rubrics typically refer to the articulation of levels of Achievement standards, and in this
chapter all the examples of rubrics pertain to the depiction of different levels of quality of indi-
vidual student work, rather than levels of curriculum and instruction for a cohort of students.
WHAT IS A RUBRIC?
‘A rubric is a coherent set of criteria for students’ work that includes descriptions of levels of
performance quality on the criteria’ (Brookhart, 2013, p. 4).
Standards and criteria are the two main elements of a rubric. Sadler (1987) offers the following
definitions of criterion and standards:
Criterion (Noun)—A distinguishing property or characteristic of anything, by which its qual-
ity can be judged or estimated, or by which a decision or classification may be made.
Assessment Rubrics
for Learning
Kelvin Tan and Leong Wei Shin
M12_SHIN0000_01_SE_CH12.indd 115 27/06/14 6:52 PM

116 Chapter 12 Assessment Rubrics for Learning
Standard (Noun)—A definite level of excellence or attainment or a definite degree of any qual-
ity viewed the recognised measure of what is adequate for some purpose.
In the rubric in Table 1a, the criteria for playing ultimate Frisbee are represented in the first
column (decision-making, skill execution, guard mark and communication). The standards, or
the different levels at which ultimate Frisbee can be played/performed, is represented in the first
row (novice, intermediate and proficient). Thus, there are four criteria, or components, of ultimate
Frisbee, and each can be performed at novice, intermediate or proficient levels. The descriptors
articulate the level of achievement of each criterion. For example, the novice level of decision-
making is articulated as ‘Is rarely able to make appropriate decisions about what to do with the Frisbee’,
whilst the proficient level of decision-making is articulated as ‘Able to make appropriate decisions
about what to do with the Frisbee most of the time’.
Hence, a rubric may be understood as tabulated descriptors of standards and criteria in relation
to each other. It is a disciplined way to ensuring that all criteria relevant to the performance of
assessment tasks are described at all the anticipated levels of achievement. So the three essential
elements of a rubric are criteria, standards and descriptors. These three elements reflect the quali-
tative nature of rubrics—it essentially relies on qualitative articulations of merit or achievement.
Scale and weighting are two other common components of rubrics, though they are not essen-
tial for a rubric to exist. For example, the rubric in Table 1a does not have a scale, nor weighting,
and yet is a complete rubric. What is the role and place of scales and weightings in a rubric?
Whilst standards refer to unambiguous levels of achievement that articulate distinct merit, a
scale depicts a continuum which articulates the range of performance at varying degrees of merit.
In Table 1b, there are three distinct standards—novice, intermediate or proficient. These three
TABLE 1A ■ Ultimate Frisbee Rubric Comprising Standards, Criteria and Descriptors
Game Component Novice Intermediate Proficient
Decision-making Is rarely able to make
appropriate decisions
about what to do with
the Frisbee.
Able to make
the Frisbee some of the
time.
Able to make
the Frisbee most of the
time.
Skill execution Few to none of the cues
for handgrip, throws
and catches were
demonstrated.Throws
to the target are rarely
accurate.
Demonstrates a number
of cues for handgrip,
throws and catches.
Throws to the target are
accurate some of the
time.
Demonstrates most,
if not all cues for
handgrip, throws and
catches (see part 1).
almost always accurate.
Guard/mark Rarely or Makes few
attempts to guard/
mark an opponent,
leaving the opponent
free to set-up their
attacks easily.
Keeps the distance to
a minimal between
the Frisbee and the
body some of the
times. Opponent could
relatively still make their
throws.
Closes the distance
(while marking the
player) between Frisbee
and the body most of
the time, forcing more
varieties of throws from
the opponent.
Communication Seldom or never
communicates with
teammates.
Is beginning to
communicate with
teammates.
Frequently
communicates and
demands the Frisbee
from teammates.

Chapter 12 Assessment Rubrics for Learning 117
standards would suffice to describe the level of achievement of student work, and offer guidance
for identifying the feedback gap, i.e., the difference between the standard of students’ assessed
work (actual standard) and the standard of students’ improved learning to which feedback would
contribute to. A student who attains a novice level of performance in skill execution may therefore
refer to the descriptor of an intermediate level of skill execution in the rubric to aim for as immi-
nent improvement.
However, there may be instances wherein students’ performance may have to be discriminated
in finer detail than the number of articulated standards. For example, a teacher may have to rank
the performance of a cohort of 100 students, and for this purpose three distinct levels of achieve-
ment would not suffice for sufficient discrimination between student performances. This would
be where a scale is useful.
In Table 1b, the rubric has three standards but a scale of 1–10 marks for each criterion. This
then allows a teacher to discriminate student performance for each criterion from a scale of 0–10,
and not be limited by three standards. For example, if Student A and B score 3 and 6 marks respec-
tively for decision-making, both students would have attained the intermediate level of decision
making (merit standard). However, Student A’s score of 3 marks places him or her at the lower
end of the intermediate range, whilst student B’s score places him or her at the upper end of the
continuum of the intermediate standard. Hence, a scale may be seen as the (additional) quantita-
tive articulation of a continuum of merit of standards.
Likewise, weighting may be understood as the additional quantitative articulation of the rela-
tive importance of different criteria. If a rubric does not have any weighting, then it is assumed
TABLE 1B ■ Ultimate Frisbee Rubric Comprising Standards, Criteria and Descriptors,
Scale And Weighting
Game Component
Novice
0–2 marks
Intermediate
3–6 marks
Proficient
7–10 marks
Decision-making
(30%)
Is rarely able to make
the Frisbee.
Able to make
the Frisbee some of the
time.
Able to make
the Frisbee most of the
time.
Skill execution
(30%)
Few to none of the cues
for handgrip, throws
and catches were
demonstrated.Throws
to the target are rarely
accurate.
Demonstrates a number
of cues for handgrip,
throws and catches.
accurate some of the
time.
Demonstrates most,
if not all cues for
handgrip, throws and
catches (see part 1).
almost always accurate.
Guard/mark
(30%)
Rarely or Makes few
attempts to guard/
mark an opponent,
leaving the opponent
free to set-up their
attacks easily.
Keeps the distance to
a minimal between
the Frisbee and the
body some of the
times. Opponent could
relatively still make their
throws.
Closes the distance
(while marking the
player) between Frisbee
and the body most of
the time, forcing more
varieties of throws from
the opponent.
Communication
(10%)
Seldom or never
communicates with
teammates.
Is beginning to
communicate with
teammates.
Frequently
communicates and
demands the Frisbee
from teammates.

that the criteria have parity of importance. In Table 1b, the weighting of the rubric can be seen
in the zero sum (sums up to 100%) distribution of value to the criteria—30% each for decision-
making, skill execution and guard/mark, and the remaining 10% for communication.
Hence, in summary, rubrics can be understood as a qualitative instrument which articulates
standards and criteria in relation to each other in the form of descriptors. Such qualitative articu-
lations are useful for reporting the attained levels of merit of student work in rich (qualitative)
detail, and are useful for feedback practices. In addition, a rubric may also contain a scale and
weighting which are the additional quantitative articulations of standards and criteria respec-
tively. Scale and weighting are especially useful for scoring students’ performance in terms of
marks. And such reporting of student achievement in terms of marks is useful for discriminating
students’ performance in comparison with one another.
DISTINGUISHING RUBRICS FROM CHECKLISTS
In this chapter, rubrics have been described as qualitative instruments which articulate standards
and criteria in relation to each other in the form of descriptors. It is important to note the exis-
tence of more than one level of achievement in a rubric. How, then, should we describe the perfor-
mance of simple criterion which exist at only one ‘standard’? This would be where the distinction
between a rubric and a checklist is helpful.
Consider the simple descriptors of performance in the shot-put rubric in Table 2a. All five
descriptors of throwing a short putt contain a few (implicit) basic competencies. These basic com-
petencies are identified as checklist items, and described in Table 2b. Note that all three checklist
items in Table 2b are not complex and are to be performed at a single standard. Hence, these three
items do not need to be articulated at different levels of achievement, and do not need to be part
of a rubric.
Once these basic competencies that are performed at a single standard are separately denoted
as checklist items, what remains in the rubric would be more complex competencies/criteria
that anticipate performance at more than one level of achievement. Table 2c is the rubric that
TABLE 2A ■ Simple Shot- put Rubric
Pts Descriptors
5
Is able to execute a full-glide throw with proper grip, power stance, raised elbow, hip thrust
and release.
4
Is able to hold the shot correctly and execute a full glide throw with good hip thrust and
release.
3
Is able to hold the shot correctly and execute a half turn throw from power position with
good hip thrust.
2
Is able to hold the shot correctly and execute a quarter turn standing throw in power
position.
1 Is able to hold the shot correctly and execute a standing throw.

articulates these complex competencies as the criteria of ‘Glide,’ ‘Power Phase,’ ‘Release’ and
‘Follow Through’. Each of these criteria require descriptions of what it would mean to be demon-
strated or performed at a ‘Poor’, ‘Average’ or ‘Proficient’ level of achievement.
Tables 2b and 2c therefore represent how a rubric can be revised. The first step would be to
examine whether any of the anticipated performance criteria should be a single standard checklist
item, or a more complex performance criterion that should be performed at more than one level of
achievement. Revising rubrics into a combination of checklist and rubric helps to clarify for learn-
ers the simpler competencies or criteria they should demonstrate all the time, and more ambitious
levels of achievement of complex criterion at different levels of merit.
TABLE 2B ■ Checklist of Basic Competencies that is Performed at a Single
Standard/Level
Checklist Please Tick
Shot is held at the base of the fingers. Shot should not contact the palm.
Shot is held at start position between the ear and the chin. Shot should be in
contact with the jawline.
Able to stand in ready position, with correct stance in anticipation to execute
the throw.
TABLE 2C ■ Revised Rubric that Articulates Complex Performance beyond
Checklist Items
Rubric Poor Average Proficient
Glide Glide is rarely present,
with minimal transfer of
body weight.Almost in
a standing position
Able to execute the
glide with some
attempt to transfer
body weight.
Able to execute the full
glide, with full transfer
of body weight from
dominant leg.
Power phase Throwing arm does not
accelerate, and there
is little utilisation of hip
thrust and trunk rotation
Throwing arm lacks
acceleration required,
with some hip thrust
and trunk rotation.
Throwing arm
accelerates the shot
from the starting
position, utilising
hip thrust and trunk
rotation.
Release Poor elbow position,
with difficulty extending
the throwing arm.Wrist
action is hardly present
High elbow, with full
extension of throwing
arm.Wrist action
lacks consistency
and finesse.
High elbow, with full
extension of throwing
arm.Wrist action
present as shot rolls of
the fingertips.
Follow-through after
the shot leaves the
hand
No transfer of body
weight after the throw.
Arm immediately drops,
and shows no attempt
to follow through.
Some transfer of body
weight to dominant
foot. Follow-through
action lacks consistency
and finesse.
Transfer of body weight
to dominant foot.
Follow-through action
with arms in direction of
throw.

COMMON ISSUES OF DESIGNING RUBRICS
While it is relatively easy to construct a grid and include all the basic features or elements of a
rubric, it is less easy to grasp the difficulties of developing good rubrics that are fit for assessment
purposes. This section highlights some of the quandaries that rubric designers need to overcome,
in improving particularly their earlier versions of their rubrics. The example we have selected
to illustrate the common issues is adapted from a rubric submitted by a group of undergraduate
student-teachers at the National Institute of Education for an Assessment Literacy course require-
ment. The student-teachers were asked to design a rubric based on a particular chosen assessment
task that they had possibly introduced during their teaching practicum experience or designed at
other education-based modules.
The rubric, as shown in Example 1, was used for a Primary 5 science unit assessment task
on sexual reproduction in plants, specifically on the various methods of seed dispersal. A detailed
information sheet accompanied the submission of this draft rubric for students (including work-
sheet and checklist of what to hand in) and teachers (including glossary list and general informa-
tion of assessment task), and also possible exemplars of students’ works. Essentially, the assessment
task required primary 5 students to create a 3D model of a fictitious fruit that demonstrated their
understanding of seed and various seed/fruit dispersal methods. The rubric is of an analytical
kind, and this is well-suited for both formative and summative purposes of assessment (Arter &
Chappuis, 2006; Wiggins, 1998). The strengths of the rubric are aplenty. For instance, there are
defined criteria and clearly demarcated sets of standard and descriptor. The rubric and its assess-
ment task have been selected for illustration here because it is clear that a lot of effort has been
spent into coming up with such a draft, and yet there are places whereby further revision would
be helpful. We invite the readers to have a go at reading the rubric before hearing our views of
possible areas of improvement.
Example 1: First Draft of Science Project Rubric (Adapted)
Primary 5: Science
Topic: Seed Dispersal
Learning Outcomes:
■ To show an understanding of the concept of seed/fruit dispersal.
■ To show an understanding of the different dispersal methods of seed/ fruit dispersal.
Assessment Task:
■ Students are to create a 3D realistic model of the seed/fruit that can be dispersed in mul-
tiple ways.
■ Students will have to demonstrate how their seed will disperse and justify why they think
Plant X has such a dispersal method.
Purpose(s) of Assessment Rubric:
Formative and Summative

Chapter
12
Assessment
Rubrics
for
Learning
121
Standards
Criteria Expert Master Apprentice Novice
Name of Fruit Fruit has an appropriate
unique name.
Fruit has a name. No name.
Features of Fruit
(Number of seed
dispersal methods)
Artefact has at least three
features which allow the
fruit to be dispersed.
Artefact has at least two
features which allow the
fruit to be dispersed.
Artefact has one feature
which allows the fruit to
be dispersed.
Artefact has no feature
which allows the fruit to
be dispersed.
Oral Presentation
(Use of scientific terms)
Demonstrates in-depth
understanding of topic
with use of at least three
science vocabulary
words.
Demonstrates good
understanding of the
topic with use of at least
two science vocabulary
words.
Demonstrates
understanding on certain
parts of the topic with
use of one science
vocabulary word.
Demonstrates poor
understanding of the
topic without any use
of science vocabulary
words.
Effectiveness of Fruit
(Demonstration of seed
dispersal methods of
artefact)`
Fruit is able to disperse
its ‘seed(s)’ effectively by
either:
Staying in the air or on
water for more than 60
seconds.
Scattering the ‘seed(s)’
more than 100 cm away
from the fruit.
Having at least three
bright colours (e.g.,
yellow, pink) on the fruit.
either:
water for at least 30–60
seconds.
Scattering the ‘seed(s)’
at least 50–100 cm away
from the fruit.
Having at least two bright
colours (e.g., yellow, pink)
on the fruit.
either:
water for at least 1–29
seconds.
Scattering the ‘seed(s)’ at
least 1–49 cm away from
the fruit.
Having at least one bright
colour (e.g., yellow, pink)
on the fruit.
Fruit is not able to
disperse its ‘seed(s)’
at all.
M12_SHIN0000_01_SE_CH12.indd
121
27/06/14
6:52
PM

Task Specificity
Many writers have written about the problems (e.g., Brookhart, 2013) and even decried (Popham,
1997, 2012) the use of a task-specific rubric. We take on a more pragmatic view that task-specific
rubric can be more useful than general rubric, particularly if the teachers are independently
addressing the subject-topical learning needs of the students. Task-specific rubric are probably
more commonly used for many subjects that have wide coverage of topical content. We should
note however that such task-specific rubric has an inherent limitation of not enabling students
to generalise and synthesise learning in common assessment tasks, like oral presentation, across
subjects.
The more pressing issue here is whether the task specificity of the assessment rubric actu-
ally distorts the learning experiences of the students for the particular topic. In the case of this
rubric, the criteria and overall expectation of the rubric seem to focus on the task (including
naming, using scientific terms and testing its dispersal methods) and not on the learning out-
comes. The rubric should provide opportunities for students to make sense and reflect of their
learning rather than compliance of instruction. One therefore needs to first question how the
modelling process of a fictitious fruit will help the students to understand the variety of seed/
fruit dispersal methods.
The criteria in the rubric currently are worded in terms of what the teachers expect the
students to be able to submit or perform. There is a real danger that students go away thinking
that this creation of a fictitious fruit is the end-all of the learning experiences. We will therefore
prefer the criteria to be re-worded by more general categories (e.g., depth of reasoning, appro-
priateness of content). We will also advise it is not necessary to list down basic requirements of
submission as a criteria (e.g., naming of fruit) unless it is central to the learning outcomes. In fact,
those basic requirements could be included in the checklist, leaving the rubrics to highlight what
would be the more ambitious levels of achievements for the learning outcomes.
Consistency of Descriptor
Another common problem is that many rubrics have consistency issue in terms of the choice of
words in describing the qualitative differences from one standard to another. Ideally, the descrip-
tor should reflect a positive learning continuum (Tierney & Simon, 2004); that is, there should
not be undue negative evaluative words that may perpetuate low expectations for certain students.
Looking at the criteria for Oral Presentation, there is a suggestion that the progression from
Novice to Apprentice is a leap from ‘failure’ to ‘success’ (i.e., demonstrates poor understanding vs.
demonstrates understanding). This begs the question of how a student can progress from such the
lower to higher standard (e.g., is it really just about the difference of using one scientific term?)
Such ambiguity makes it difficult for teachers and students to make use of the rubric particularly
for formative purpose.
Reliance on Frequency Count
Many writers (e.g., Brookhart, 2013) have also highlighted that rubric descriptors should not
make use of quantitative measures which encourage students and teachers to count what are the
observable. This prompts students in particular, to be compliant towards producing a particular
product or performance. More importantly, the counting itself is very arbitrary and does not make

sense for that particular criterion and standard (e.g., why should a student who can make use
of three scientific terms be an expert? Is it really scientifically sound for a fruit to have as many
features of dispersal as possible?). We will be concerned that the students may misinterpret such
expectation and strive to create an ‘impressive’ fruit without understanding the underlying rea-
soning for a particular seed dispersal method with its traits and environment. For instance, it is
easy to add many colours to the fictitious fruit without actually being able to demonstrate why the
three colours are such an interesting combination that could attract insects.
While we are not totally against the use of some frequency counting, particularly if it is aligned to
particular standards or criteria stipulated in the syllabus content, we do not advise an over-reliant
of it. Instead, we will recommend more descriptive words that require more inferential skills on
the part of both the students and teachers be used in the descriptor. There will be some concerns
of subjectivity in using particularly high-inferential words (e.g., in-depth understanding) which
is why many teachers may like to take comfort in using the numerical evidence to substantiate
their judgements. We will argue that the subjectivity can be overcome by referring to sufficient
exemplars and a thorough moderation process.
PROCESS OF DESIGNING GOOD RUBRICS
We believe that the design of a good rubric requires first of all, sufficient experience of knowing
a good range of accomplishment of the students’ works to be assessed. It is difficult to design a
rubric (let alone a good rubric) if the learning outcomes are not well-identified or that the assessors
have not seen the range of works that could be possible from the students. We understand this
may not always be possible, particularly if the assessment task is a new one for the class. We will
recommend in this case that the teachers could at least first, brainstorm and write down a descrip-
tion of what a success piece of work or performance would be like, arising from the assessment task
instruction. Subsequently the following steps could be helpful:
1. Identify the number and names of standards of students’ works or performances. Having
already described what a successful piece of work or performance could look like in a
holistic manner, describe as much as possible in qualitative terms the other possible
standards that could be expected. This should preferably be decided collegially and not
by any one teacher or Head of Department.
2. The rubric should address the key areas of learning or outcomes the teachers and students
wish to assess/self-assess. By reviewing the descriptor now, decide whether it covers all
the relevant learning outcomes (without narrowing student’s learning in a particular
way) and that all the characteristics of students’ range of works or performances are ade-
quately captured.
3. If the teachers decide that an analytic rubric will be more suited for the task and class,
they could attempt to tease out the criteria that are embedded within the descrip-
tor in each of the standard. The criteria should be well-defined and not overlap with
another.
4. Share the draft rubric with students and to check that everyone understand what is being
said on the rubric. It may be that certain evaluative words need to be taken away or that
more examples or descriptive terms be used.

Example 2 presents another example of a rubric that has gone through more extensive revision.
The teacher has developed this rubric in a master’s level course on authentic assessment and has
brought in this rubric again for revision in a rubric workshop. The rubric is adapted from an ‘O’
level rubric for situational writing for more formative purpose in the teaching of this topic.
Example 2: Final Draft of Situational Writing Rubric
Secondary 2: English
Topic: Situational Writing
Learning Outcomes:
■ Generate alternatives in a situational writing task.
■ Evaluate, select and justify their choice.
Assessment Task:
■ Students to follow the five-step decision-making process by completing a worksheet which
will require them to fill out. This forms a scaffold for a situation-writing task.
■ Students are expected to display sound reasoning that enables students to justify their
choices and decisions in their situation-writing task.
Purpose(s) of Assessment Rubric:
Formative and Summative
Trait Beginning [<5] Emerging [5–6] Capable [7–8] Proficient [9–10] Score
Identifies
alternatives
(Steps 1
and 2)
The alternatives
identified reflect
some confusion
or limited
understanding
of the situation.
Explanation
is limited or
absent.
The alternatives
identified
reflect some
understanding
of the situation.
Writer is able
to explain
alternatives to
some extent but
the explanations
do not fully
address the
purpose of the
task.
The alternatives
identified
reflect a good
understanding
of the situation.
The writer is able
to explain the
alternatives in
relation to the
purpose of the
task.
The alternatives
identified reflect
an in-depth
understanding
of the situation.
Explanations
are detailed
and logically
organised in
relation to the
purpose of the
task.
Applies
information
provided in
the task to
alternatives
(Steps 3
and 4)
Writer shows
awareness of
information
provided in
the task and
alternatives.
Writer is not
able to use
details to
explain how
they match up.
Writer is able
to explain how
alternatives
match up to
the information
provided in the
task by using
some obvious
details.
Writer is able
to explain how
alternatives
match up to
the information
provided in the
task by using
some defining
details
Writer is able
to explain how
alternatives
match up to
the information
provided in the
task by using
relevant and
insightful details
which show new
ways of thinking.

Trait Beginning [<5] Emerging [5–6] Capable [7–8] Proficient [9–10] Score
Justifies
Alternatives
(Step 5)
Given
information
may not be
logically used
to support
opinion.The
ideas and
the way they
are expressed
seem to be
lifted from the
task details.
Given
information is
organised to
support personal
opinion.The
ideas and
the way they
are expressed
show that
the writer has
attempted to
relate personal
knowledge or
experience, but
there is little
development
of details from
the scope of the
task.
Given
information is
well-used to
justify personal
opinion and
interpretation.
The ideas and
the way they
are expressed
show that the
writer draws
on personal
knowledge or
experience
and is able to
develop details
adequately.
Given
information is
well-justified
and well-
organised to
justify personal
opinion and
interpretation.
The ideas and
the way they
are expressed
show that the
writer is writing
from personal
knowledge or
experience
and is able
to give fully-
amplified and
well-organised
details.
As the rubric shows, each criterion is strongly aligned to a particular stage of an assessment task
and learning outcome. Yet, the criteria are applicable across a wide range of similar reasoning
or decision-making activities, particularly in the humanities subjects. The descriptor shows a
consistent progression of qualitative changes of possible outcomes of students’ reasoning, from
one standard to another. This process of articulation, particularly coupled with good illustration
of exemplars, ensure that teachers and students are aware of expectation of the reasoning skills
involved in situational writing.
In summary, the following guiding questions could be asked in the rubric design process:
1. Are all the criteria explicitly aligned to the relevant learning outcomes of the tasks (or
does the rubric direct students to the assessment task requirements rather than the learn-
ing objectives)?
2. Are there sufficient levels of standards that are well-described consistently across the
levels?
3. Are appropriate words used in the descriptors (e.g., is there an over-reliance on frequency
counting)?
ROLE OF RUBRICS IN FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT PRACTICE
‘There are several ways for the formative use of rubrics to mediate improved student performance
such as increasing transparency, reducing anxiety, aiding the feedback process, improving student
self-efficacy or supporting student self-regulation’ (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013, p. 138).
Rubrics may be used for a variety of purposes, and not all uses of rubrics are for the enhanc-
ing students learning. In Tan and Prosser (2004), it was noted that grade descriptors (a rubric
which articulates different levels of achievement for each grade), may be used for formative or

non-formative purposes. Three different ways of understanding and using rubrics in Tan and
Prosser (2004) are helpful for our discussion.
Rubrics as Description of Relative Merit between Students
for Norm-referenced Assessment
Such interpretations of rubrics serve as tentative but inadequate depictions of actual achieve-
ment levels. The rubrics may be used to moderate the final assessment results to achieve a norm-
referenced distribution of results. Norm-referenced assessment purports to measure and describe
individual achievement in comparative terms (Taylor, 1994). Its effect is to rank-order student
achievement between different students without reference to the individual student’s actual
achievement. Norm-referenced assessment therefore communicates to students that their actual
assessed achievement is determined in terms of relative merit rather than actual merit.
Rubrics as Description of Detailed Performance
of Students for Criterion-referenced Assessment
Such interpretation of rubrics would have the descriptors serve as indicative benchmarks of differ-
ent achievement levels which may require refinement. The rubrics do not fully explicate the dis-
tinctive differences between the levels of achievement. They serve the use of criterion-referenced
assessment well in articulating what students should perform in detail for each criterion. But they
may not convey intrinsic meaning of what the actual standards may be. For example, Brown, Bull,
and Pendlebury (1997) argue that in criterion-referenced assessment, ‘only the pass/fail point is
important’ (p. 12) since its objective is to determine if students have met certain criteria of their
tasks.
Rubrics as Definitive and Complete Description
of Levels of Achievement
Finally, rubrics may be interpreted and used as primary and comprehensive depictions of actual
achievement levels. Such use of rubrics would then represent the definitive interpretation of dif-
ferent levels of achievement to teachers and to their students. These uses of rubrics can then serve
as shared basis for teachers and students to hold a common understanding of different levels or
standards of achievement. Teachers are able to utilise these rubrics descriptors to convey their
expectations of students work and utilise the same descriptors to subsequently assess and evalu-
ate students’ work. Such uses of rubrics exemplify what standards-referenced or standards-based
assessment mean.
Increasingly, standards-based assessment or the provision of clear and unambiguous descrip-
tions of required standards of performance by teachers to students is being emphasised as good
assessment practice. Hawe (2002) describes standards based-assessment or standards-referenced
assessment as emphasising ‘explicit specification of standards, the use of teachers’ qualitative judg-
ments and development of shared understandings regarding the interpretation and operationalisa-
tion of these standards’ (p. 94). Buckles, Schug, and Watts (2001) argue that clear descriptions of
standards of performance are important for informing students what they are expected to learn,
how they should perform in their assessed work and for informing teachers how they can assess
students accordingly.

Of the three interpretations and uses of rubrics in Tan and Prosser (2004), it is clear that
norm-referenced uses of rubrics are not meant to be formative. Instead, the purpose of norm-
referenced assessment is to discriminate or rank student achievement in relation to each other, and
not to assist students to enhance their learning.
Both Criterion-referenced and Standards-referenced uses of rubrics are useful for articulat-
ing different levels of achievement for students, and together with formative feedback useful for
assisting students to enhance their learning from one level to another. However, both criterion-
referenced and standards-referenced assessments pertain to anticipated achievement and improve-
ment for groups of students, and may not cater specifically to individual student progress and
attainment. Such use of rubrics for articulating and emphasising personal improvement may be
served by ipsative or self-referenced assessment.
Ipsative assessment compares existing performance with previous performance. Many infor-
mal and practical learning experiences are assessed in this way, such as sports coaching, music
teaching and computer gaming. A personal best in athletics is an ipsative assessment. By contrast,
in much academic learning, where assessment is made in relation to external attainment criteria
or rubrics, credit is rarely given for how far the learner has advanced since the previous piece of
work (Hughes, 2011).
CONCLUSION
Several fundamental principles of assessment rubrics have been explained in this chapter: How a
rubric comprises of standards, criteria and descriptors, how rubrics may be interpreted to empha-
sise norm-referenced, criterion-referenced, standards-referenced or self-assessments, and regardless
of the type or use of rubrics, what would be the main issues in constructing and using a rubric for
the benefit of enhancing students’ learning.
Assessment practices require informed judgments to be made concerning students’ learning,
and such judgments need to be made against clear descriptions of the nature and level of requisite
learning. It is hoped that the knowledge and principles of rubric construction, interpretation and
usage in this chapter would enable teachers and learners alike for clarifying, emphasising and
enhancing their learning in and from assessment tasks.
REFLECTION QUESTIONS
1. What is the key difference between a rubric and a checklist?
2. What are some of the key considerations to bear in mind when designing or revising rubrics?
3. What should be the primary referent for using and interpreting rubrics in schools? Should it
be norm-referenced, criterion referenced, standards referenced or self-referenced?
KEY READINGS
Brookhart, M. S. (2013). How to create and use rubrics. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Sadler, R. D. (2005). Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 175–194.
Tan, K. H. K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Qualitatively different ways of differentiating student achievement:
A phenomenographic study of grade descriptors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(3), 267–282.

REFERENCES
Arter, J. A., & Chappuis, J. (2006). Creating and recognising quality rubrics. Portland, OR: Educational Testing
Service.
Brown, G., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing student learning in higher education. London, UK:
Routledge.
Buckles, S., Schug, M., & Watts, M. (2001). A national survey of state assessment practices in the social
studies. Social Studies, 92(4), 141.
Hawe, E. (2002). Assessment in a pre-service teacher education programme: The rhetoric and the practice of
standards-based assessment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(1), 93–106.
Hughes, G. (2011). Towards a personal best: A case for introducing ipsative assessment in higher education.
Studies in Higher Education, 36(3), 353–367.
Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2014). Assessment for Education: Standards, Judgement and Moderation.
London, UK: SAGE.
Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited:
A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144.
Popham, W. J. (1997). What’s wrong-and what’s right-with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55, 72–75.
Popham, W. J. (2012). The role of rubrics in testing and teaching. New York, NY: Pearson.
Sadler, D. R. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review of Education, 13,
191–209.
Taylor, C. (1994). Assessment for measurement or standards: The peril and promise of large scale assessment
reform. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 231–262.
Tierney, R., & Simon, M. (2004). What’s still wrong with rubrics: Focusing on the consistency of performance
criteria across scale levels. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(2), 1–10.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Assessment Rubrics For Learning

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Assessment Rubrics For Learning

Similar to Assessment Rubrics For Learning (20)

More from Bryce Nelson

More from Bryce Nelson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessment Rubrics For Learning