Rubric Design: A Designer’s Perspective
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The rubric, a canonical matrix of criteria presented to students as the road map to academic success. An “Ah-ha” moment, “that is what I’m looking for” utopia for the fresh-minted instructor. While rubrics provide the possibility for solving the complexity of some teaching problems, like many fuzzy oases we have come to know rubrics as a thinly veiled tools that are as useful as they are well designed. If you ever have designed rubrics, you know well they resolve some issues but present many more. They contain a conundrum of specific questions: What do I want my students to know? How do I want them to perform? How am I going to evaluate them? What am I attempting to transfer? Reveal? Show? What am I teaching? As many instructors would attest, these questions are not always easy. Creating rubrics can be difficult, very time-consuming, and can feel like a paradox. But in the end, they can also provide real value to the student and instructor. This reflective essay takes on the design and development of the rubric, challenging the notion there are different types of rubrics or inherent evaluation methodologies, offers an alternative layout, and reviews rubrics through the designer’s lens, approaching them through concept development and design thinking.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
References
Allen, S., & Knight J. (2009). A Method for Collaboratively Developing and Validating a Rubric. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 10–10. https://paperity.org/p/82956975.
Andrade, H.G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57(5), pp. 13–19. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/using-rubrics-to-promote-thinking-and-learning
Andrade, H.G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), pp. 27–31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559213
Bresciani, M. J., Oakleaf, M., Kolkhorst, F., Nebeker, C., Barlow, J., Duncan, K., & Hickmott, J. (2009). Examining design and inter-rater reliability of a rubric measuring research quality across multiple disciplines. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(12), pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.7275/1w3h-7k62
Brookhart S. M., (2018). Appropriate Criteria: Key to Effective Rubrics. Frontiers in Education. 22(3).
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00022
Dawson, P. (2015). Assessment Rubrics: Toward Clearer and More Replicable Design, research, and practice. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 43(3), pp. 347-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1111294
Eshun, E. F., & Osei-Poku, P. (2013). Design Students Perspectives on Assessment Rubric in Studio-Based Learning. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 10(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.10.1.8
Hanson-Zalot, M., & Day, K. (2013). Scoring Rubrics: Educators tools to facilitate student learning. Tech Talks. Presentation 1. http://jdc.jefferson.edu/techtalk/1/
Harrell, M. (2005). Grading according to a rubric. Teaching Philosophy, 28(1), pp. 3–15. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200528111
Kolko, J. (2014). Well-Designed: How to Use Empathy to Create Products People Love. Harvard Business Review Press.
Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring Rubrics Part II: How?, ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, University of Maryland. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED446111.pdf
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. The MIT Press.
Nonaka, I., & Hirotaka T. (1990). Management of Knowledge Creation. Nihon Keizai Shinbun-sha.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company : How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.
Nussbaum, B. (2013). Creative Intelligence: Harnessing the Power to Create, Connect, and Inspire. Harper Business.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
Popham, J. W. (1997). What’s Wrong – and What’s Right – with Rubrics. Educational Leadership. Vol. 55(2), pp. 72-75. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/whats-wrong-and-whats-right-with-rubrics
Pindiprolu, S. S., Lignugaris, B., Rule, S., Peterson, S., & Slocum, T. (2005). Scoring Rubric for Assessing Students' Performance on Functional Behavior Assessment Cases. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education 28(2), pp. 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640502800201.
Riesbeck, C. (n.d.) Rubrics: What’s Wrong, What’s Better. Retrieved August 18, 2022, from http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~riesbeck/rubrics-rant.pdf
Rittel H. W. J & Melvin, M. W. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences : Integrating Knowledge and Practice to Advance Human Dignity 155–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.
Rothwell, J. D. (2016). In Mixed Company: Communicating in Small Groups Boston: Cengage Learning.
Auburn W., (n.d.) Rubrics Gone Wrong. Video, 3:27. Retrieved November 8, 2015, from http://wp.auburn.edu/writing/rubrics-gone-wrong/.
Stanford University. (n.d.) Design Thinking. Retrieved August 31, 2022, from https://web.stanford.edu/class/me113/d_thinking.html
Sustein, C. R. (2015). Wiser: Getting Beyond Groupthink Boston: Harvard University Press.
Tschimmel, K. (2018). Toolkit Evolution 6 - An E-handbook for practical Design Thinking for Innovation. Retrieved September 6, 2022, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338264028_Toolkit_Evolution_6_-_An_E-handbook_for_practical_Design_Thinking_for_Innovation
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), pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.7275/jtvt-wg68.
DePaul University. (n.d.) Types of Rubrics. Rubrics | Feedback & Grading | Teaching Guides | Teaching Commons. Retrieved November 8, 2021, from http://resources.depaul.edu/teaching-commons/teaching-guides/feedback-grading/rubrics/Pages/types-of-rubrics.aspx.
Wenzlaff, T. L., Fager, J. J., & Coleman, M. J. (1999). What is a rubric? Do practitioners and the literature agree? Contemporary Education, 70(4), pp. 41-46. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/what-is-rubric-do-practitioners-literature-agree/docview/233033616/se-2
Woodhead, N., O’Neill, G., & Oliver, P. (2012). The Realities of Rubrics… Subjectivity and Tacit Benchmarking. Aotearoa New Zealand Evaluation Association (ANZEA) conference. Retrieved November 8, 2021, from http://www.anzea.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/the_realities_of_rubrics_subjectivity_and_tacit_benchmarking.pdf