Rubric Formats
Rubrics can be classified into four formats
(Assessing Student Learning: A common sense guide by Suskie 2004)

Checklists – simple list indicating the presence of 'things you are looking for'
A checklist rubric for evaluating a web site
(Assessing Student Learning: A common sense guide by Suskie 2004)
X
Titles are meaningful
Each page loads quickly
X

The text is easy to read
Rating scales – a checklist with a rating scale added to show the degree to which the
‘things you are looking for' are present
A rating scale rubric for an information literacy assignment
(Assessing Student Learning: A common sense guide by Suskie 2004)
Please indicate the student's skill in each of the following respects, as evidenced by this
assignment, by checking the appropriate box. If this assignment is not intended to elicit a
particular skill, please check the N/A box.
Outstanding Ver y Acceptable Marginally Inadequate N/A
(A)
Good
(C)
acceptable
(F)
(B)
(D)
Identify, locate, and
access sources of
information
Critically evaluate
information, including its
legitimacy, validity, and
appropriateness
Organize information to
present a sound central
idea supported by relevant
material in a logical order
Use information to
answer questions and/or
solve problems
Clearly articulate
information and ideas
Use information
technologies to
communicate, manage,
and process information
Use information
technologies to solve
problems
Use the work of others
accurately and ethically
What grade are you
awarding this
assignment?
If you had to assign a
final course grade for this
student today, what would
it be?
A rating scale for an oral presentation
(Assessing Student Learning: A common sense guide by Suskie 2004)
The presenter …
Strongly
agree
Clearly stated the purpose of
the presentation
Was well organized
Agree
Disagree
X
X
Answered questions
authoritatively
Appeared confident
Strongly
disagree
X
X
It should be noted that rating scales can be vague in nature leading to problems (Suskie 2004):



When several faculty are doing the rating, they may be inconsistent in how they
rate performance
Students don't receive thorough feedback; i.e., a scored rubric may not explain
why something was less than superior
Holistic rating scales
 Do not have a list of the ‘things you're looking for'
 Have short narrative descriptions of the characteristics of outstanding work,
acceptable work, unacceptable work, and so on
HOLISTIC rubric for assessing student essays
(Assessing Academic Programs in Higher Education by Allen 2004)
Inadequate
The essay has at least one serious weakness. It may be unfocused,
underdeveloped, or rambling. Problems with the use of language
seriously interfere with the reader's ability to understand what is being
communicated.
Developing
competence
The essay may be somewhat unfocused, underdeveloped, or rambling,
but it does have some coherence. Problems with the use of language
occasionally interfere with the reader's ability to understand what is
being communicated.
Acceptable
The essay is generally focused and contains some development of
ideas, but the discussion may be simplistic or repetitive. The language
lacks syntactic complexity and may contain occasional grammatical
errors, but the reader is able to understand what is being
communicated.
Sophisticated

The essay is focused and clearly organized, and it shows depth of
development. The language is precise and shows syntactic variety,
and ideas are clearly communicated to the reader.
Descriptive rubrics
 Replace the checkboxes of rating scale rubrics with brief descriptions of the
performance that merits each possible rating
 Descriptions of each performance level make faculty expectations explicit and
student performance convincingly documented. But, coming up with succinct but
explicit descriptions of every performance level for every ‘thing you are looking
for' can be time-consuming.
 Are a good choice when several faculty are collectively assessing student work, it
is important to give students detailed feedback, or outside audiences will be
examining the rubric scores.
A descriptive rubric for a slide presentation on findings from research sources
(Assessing Student Learning: A common sense guide by Suskie 2004)
Well done
(5)
Satisfactory
(4-3)
Needs improvement
(2-1)
Incomplete
(0)
Organization Clearly, concisely
written. Logical,
intuitive
progression of
ideas and
supporting
information. Clear
and direct cues to
all information.
Logical
progression of
ideas and
supporting
information. Most
cues to
information are
clear and direct.
Vague in conveying
viewpoint and
purpose. Some logical
progression of ideas
and supporting
information but cues
are confusing or
flawed.
Lacks a clear
point of view and
logical sequence
of
information. Cues
to information are
not evident.
Introduction Presents overall
topic. Draws in
audience with
compelling
questions or by
relating audience's
interests or goals.
Clear, coherent,
and related to
topic.
Some structure but
Does not orient
does not create a sense audience to what
of what follows. May will follow.
be overly detailed or
incomplete. Somewhat
appealing.
Etc.

ANALYTIC rubric for peer assessment of team project members
(Assessing Academic Programs in Higher Education by Allen 2004)
Below expectation
Good
Exceptional
Project contributions
Made few substantive Contributed a “fair
contributions to the
share” of substance to
team's final product
the team's final
product
Leadership
Rarely or never
exercised leadership
Accepted a “fair
share” of leadership
responsibilities
Routinely provided
excellent leadership
Collaboration
Undermined group
discussions or often
failed to participate
Respected others'
opinions and
contributed to the
group's discussion
Respected others'
opinions and made
major contributions to
the group's discussion
Contributed
considerable
substance to the
team's final product
ANALYTIC rubric for grading oral presentations
(Assessing Academic Programs in Higher Education by Allen 2004)
Below expectation
Satisfactory
Exemplary
The presentation has a
focus and provides
some evidence that
supports conclusions.
The presentation is
carefully organized
and provides
convincing evidence
to support
conclusions
(0 – 2)
(3 – 5)
(6 – 8)
The content is
inaccurate or overly
general. Listeners
are unlikely to learn
anything or may be
misled.
The content is
generally accurate, but
incomplete. Listeners
may learn some
isolated facts, but they
are unlikely to gain
new insights about the
topic.
The content is
accurate and
complete. Listeners
are likely to gain
new insights about
the topic.
(0 – 2)
(5 – 7)
(10 – 13)
Organization No apparent
organization.
Evidence is not used
to support assertions.
Content
Style
The speaker appears
anxious and
uncomfortable, and
reads notes, rather
than
speaks. Listeners are
largely ignored.
The speaker is
generally relaxed and
comfortable, but too
often relies on
notes. Listeners are
sometimes ignored or
misunderstood.
(0 – 2)
(3 – 6)
Score
The speaker is
relaxed and
comfortable, speaks
without undue
reliance on notes,
and interacts
effectively with
listeners.
(7 – 9)
Total Score
Generic rubric for assessing portfolios
(Assessing Academic Programs in Higher Education by Allen 2004)
Unacceptable:
Evidence that
the student has
mastered this
objective is
not provided,
unconvincing,
Marginal:
Evidence that
the student
has mastered
this objective
is provided,
Acceptable:
Evidence
shows that the
student has
generally
attained this
objective
Exceptional:
Evidence
demonstrates
that the
student has
mastered this
or very
incomplete
Learning objective 1
Learning objective 2
Etc.
but it is weak
or incomplete
objective at a
high level