A Guide for College Assessment Leaders
Ursula Waln, Director of Student Learning Assessment
Central New Mexico Community College
› Rubrics help reduce subjectivity in
evaluations that are inherently subjective
– Appropriate when:
› Learning manifests in varying degrees of sophistication
› Formative attainment goals can be described
› Evaluation seeks to differentiate of levels of performance
– “Either/or” dichotomies (such as right or wrong,
present or not, can do it or cannot) are more
appropriately evaluated with tests or checklists
› Clarify program goals
– Promote a shared
understanding of the
desired student learning
outcomes (SLOs)
– Help faculty see
connections between
course and program
learning outcomes
› Serve as norming devices
– Identify benchmarking indicators of achievement
– Describe progressive levels of competency
development in ways that clearly guide ratings
› Help aggregate diverse classroom
assessments
– Provide the means to translate findings into a
common program assessment language
In written, oral,
numeric or visual
formats, the student
will:
Did it awesomely
Did it
Kind of did it
Didn’t do it
Mastery
90-100%
A
3 points
Proficient
80-89%
B
2 points
Developing
70-79%
C
1 point
Non-attempt or Emerging
0-69%
D-F
0 points
Demonstrate
organization and/or
coherence of ideas,
content, and/or
formulas
Material is sharply
focused and organized.
The student presents a
logical organization of
ideas around a common
theme that demonstrates
an advanced
understanding of the
subject matter.
Material is mostly
focused and organized.
The student presents
logical constructions
around a common theme
that reflects meaning and
purpose.
The student’s ideas and
organizational patterns
reflect a common theme
that demonstrates a basic
understanding of the
subject matter. Ideas are
disorganized or may lack
development in some
places.
The material lacks focus
and organization with few
or no ideas around
common theme. Student
struggles to demonstrate
her/his understanding of
the subject matter.
Produce
communication
appropriate to
audience, situation,
venue, and/or
context
Demonstrates a thorough
understanding of context,
audience, and purpose
that is responsive to the
assigned task(s) and
focuses on all elements of
the work.
Demonstrates adequate
consideration of context,
audience, and purpose
and a clear focus on the
assigned task(s) (e.g., the
task aligns with audience,
purpose, and context).
Demonstrates a basic
awareness of context,
audience, purpose, and to
the assigned tasks(s)
(e.g., begins to show
awareness of audience's
perceptions and
assumptions).
Struggles to demonstrate
attention to context,
audience, purpose, and to
the assigned tasks(s)
(e.g., expectation of
instructor or self as
audience).
› Course-level assessments
– Connect to program rubrics through SLO alignment
– Need to be based on course outcomes to be useful
at the course level
– May be formative or summative, direct or indirect,
qualitative or quantitative
– Can be unique
Varying assessment type and focus → a broader body of evidence
› Program-level assessments can vary too
– Internal and/or external
stakeholder input
› Students, employers, faculty,
community members
› Surveys, focus groups, interviews
– Standardized/licensing/
certification exam results
– Accreditor and/or consultant
feedback
– Practicum/internship evaluations
– Peer/benchmark comparisons
› Start with well-written, measurable
program outcome statements
– Upon successful completion of this program,
the student will be able to…
› Make any necessary revision before
developing rubrics
› Solicit faculty input and agreement
through inclusive processes:
1. Brainstorming
2. Grouping
3. Prioritizing
4. Rubric Refinement
› Ask the faculty how students demonstrate
learning related to the competency
– Remind everyone that brainstorming is a process of
generating ideas without censure
– Get the ideas down in writing where all can see
(e.g., using a flip chart, projection, or note cards)
– Note themes that emerge as potential component
criteria, but avoid pigeonholing ideas as this can
stifle and/or canalize the flow of ideas
› Group ideas to identify key criteria for
assessing the competency
› Combine related ideas, with a focus on
broad representation
› Rephrase ideas as needed to describe
indicators of learning
› Reorder or number the indicators of
learning based on progressive levels of
sophistication/mastery
› Discuss options for performance-level
headings and organization
– Number of levels
– Words that could be used as headings
– Ascending or descending order of sophistication
› One person (or a small group) can now
draft a rubric based on the group’s input
› Strive for clear, concise descriptions of
observable demonstrations of learning
– Broad enough to be applicable to multiple courses
– Specific enough to provide unambiguous rating
scales
› Ask the faculty for input
– Performance-level descriptions need to be truly
representative
– All faculty need to be able to translate their course
learning outcomes to the program rubric
› Revisit and revise as needed
– After implementation, follow up with the faculty to
assess how well the rubric worked
› Curriculum mapping
› Student Learning Outcome
statement writing/refinement
Ursula Waln
uwaln@cnm.edu
› Facilitating rubric development
› Rubric drafting
505-224-4000 x 52943
› Course-level assessments
LSA 101C
› Program-level assessments
› Data analysis
› Representing findings in
graphics