A step-by-step process for designing single-point scoring rubrics for class use is presented below. Information for these procedures was compiled from various sources (Airasian, 2000 & 2001; Mertler, 2001; Montgomery, 2001; Nitko, 2001; Tombari & Borich, 1999). Single point rubrics work well from a student usability standpoint, and are well suited to instructors who are able to provide written feedback. |
Step 1: Re-examine the learning objectives to be addressed by the assignment. This allows you to match your scoring guide with your objectives and actual instruction.
Step 2: Identify specific observable attributes that you want to see (as well as those you don’t want to see) your students demonstrate in their product, process, or performance. Specify the characteristics, skills, or behaviors that you will be looking for, as well as common mistakes you do not want to see.
Step 3: Write thorough narrative descriptions for excellent work incorporating each individual attribute. Describe the highest level of performance using the descriptors for each attribute separately.
Step 4: Distribute the total points for the assignment by the relative importance of each attribute. Consider the student effort needed to ensure the criteria has been met, as well as the minimum score a student might receive on submitting an assignment that meets the minimum (the score should not be so high that they don't make an effort to fix it on the next assignment). Consider rewarding excellent work with full points versus full points for meeting the expectations as described.
Step 5: Collect samples of student work that exemplify each level. These will help you score in the future by serving as benchmarks. Try out the rubric using the collected samples. Is it possible to identify and assess the attributes in the rubric? Does the assignment adequately prompt students to address the attributes associated with the rubric?
Step 6: Revise the rubric and/or the assignment as necessary. The assignment should specifically request the attributes you are looking for, or the rubric should be streamlined to remove grading criteria that are no longer needed. Be prepared to reflect on the effectiveness of the rubric after each use and revise it prior to its next implementation.
Adapted from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25
Concerns Areas that Need Work | Criteria Standards for This Performance | Advanced Evidence of Exceeding Standards |
|---|---|---|
Criteria #1:Description reflecting achievement of mastery level of performance (__pts) | ||
Criteria #2:Description reflecting achievement of mastery level of performance (__pts) | ||
Criteria #3:Description reflecting achievement of mastery level of performance (__pts) | ||
Criteria #4:Description reflecting achievement of mastery level of performance (__pts) | ||
0-80% | (__total pts) 80-95 % | 95-100 % |
Note: The bottom row is optional. If you use the single-point rubric to assign a grade, you can also convert general descriptors into a point range. Using this template, if a student received an excessive number of comments in the left category, their score would fall lower in the 0-80 % range. If they mostly met the targeted criteria, their score would fall somewhere between 80 and 95 %. And if they achieved most of the targeted areas but also exceeded them in some ways, their score would fall between 95 and 100 %.
(This could include the same titles as in Template #1, Met/Not Met, etc.)
Criteria | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Category #1:Description reflecting achievement of mastery level of performance | |||||
Category #2:Description reflecting achievement of mastery level of performance | |||||
Category #3:Description reflecting achievement of mastery level of performance | |||||
Category #4:Description reflecting achievement of mastery level of performance |
Note: For each category, the teacher would simply check one of the four boxes, then write comments to the side, describing the specific factors that influenced the score. For example, if “2” was checked, the comment box might include phrases like “not enough transitions” on a writing assignment, or “feet too close together” for a P.E. task.
Fluckiger, J. (2010). Single point rubric: A tool for responsible student self-assessment. Teacher Education Faculty Publications. Paper 5. Retrieved April 25, 2014 from http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/tedfacpub/5.
Mertler, C. A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(25). Retrieved April 30, 2014 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25.