Evaluating Student Work in a
Standards-based Framework
In a good assessment task there is an effective
interplay of three simple elements
What is taught/learnt
(curriculum intent)
What is assessed
(knowledge/skills/etc in the
domain being sampled)
What is rewarded
(performance on the
criteria set down in the
marking scheme)
IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS: unit plans are designed simultaneously
with summative assessment tasks and their accompanying marking criteria
Types of assessment structures
Rubrics or matrices: used to measure student
performance against a pre-determined set of
criteria
Grading masters: similar to a rubric but contain the
necessary features to make an holistic judgement
from ‘rich’ or ‘authentic’ tasks.
GTMJ or “guide to making judgments: a combination
of the above two that is deigned to ensure greater
alignment with curriculum
Essential elements of any
assessment structure
Criteria (‘what counts’): clear and explicit for
the types of evidence students will produce
(note: syllabus outcomes are not assessment criteria)
Levels of performance/achievement
Standards descriptors: sufficient and clear
enough to provide advice to students (and
other assessors) for making judgements
What to avoid in a grading tool
Beware atomism and complicated matrices
that result in
 fine grained outcomes statements
 marking schema with lots of cells containing too
many superfluous words
…as that tend to reduce the
multidimensionality of complex tasks.
Increasing the number of criteria and levels
of achievement (LoA) increases error
because judgements become finer.
Basic Rubric/Matrix
CRITERIA
LoA
BEST
WORST
STANDARDS DESCIPTORS
Positive aspects of rubrics
Rubrics help ensure that assessment is
criteria-based and that standards are
transparent and explicit and,
the format is familiar for most intended
audiences.
However, the simplicity of the matrix
format can disguise real complexities
in its design and use
Problems with rubrics
1. The traditional matrix format requires the
number of significant and discernible
differences used in judging quality be the same
for all criteria
 ‘manufacturing’ distinctions in quality where
they may not exist
obfuscating standards, biasing grades and
making discussion of standards more difficult
2. formats require the ‘quantum’ of achievement
between adjacent standards descriptors is also
the same (or close to it), i.e. the gap between
each LoA is the same
results are biased if standards descriptors do
not have this quantum property
Problems with rubrics (cont’d)
3. A matrix requires teachers to commit to a
single description for each cell.
This can be seen as counterproductive in that
it tends to reduce the multidimensionality
of complex tasks designed to measure a
range of knowledges, skills and dispositions.
Removing the matrix frees up the psychology
of the assessment process and teacher’s
interest shifts from the grade per se.
An Alternative Model
THE GRADING MASTER
THE GRADING MASTER
Standards descriptors are positioned along a
continuum (‘pole’) – this allows the number
of standards and their placements to vary
for each criterion
Teachers can plot a student’s performance on
each of the criteria before making an on
balance judgement to arrive at the overall
grade (it is also possible give feedback to
students and report on performances on
each pole separately).
THE GRADING MASTER
Is a preferred tool for making holistic judgements of
students work.
This is due to its fundamental structure:
Each pole captures a desired quality of performance
(criteria).
Each pole represents a continuum of standards (and
then assessors’ judgements)
Positioning standards descriptors along a continuum
allows the number of standards to vary from
criterion to criterion , as can their relative
placements.
USING THE GRADING MASTER
Teacher-assessors plot a student’s
performance on each of the criteria on
the corresponding pole before making
an on-balance judgement to arrive at
the overall grade.
USING THE GRADING MASTER
When making an ‘on-balance’
judgement teachers consider each
pole but also look across the poles to
ascertain the region or vicinity where
the student work is best placed. They
are not looking for a precise location,
instead they are using the regions to
reach a holistic judgement. The final
consideration is then given to what
grade to award the student work.
MAKING AN HOLISTIC
JUDGEMENT
 This is reached when teachers make
judgements across several criteria, trading
off inconsistencies.
 They are looking for evidence of quality of
performance, as they are manifested in the
tasks, and then award a grade.
 Teachers use their professional knowledge
in decision making. They must be well
informed of curriculum intent and the
desirable intellectual strategies used in the
completion of the task (pedagogy).
The next evolution
THE GUIDE TO MAKING
JUDGMENTS
SOCIAL MODERATION
Apart from improving consistency in
evaluating student work, social
moderation enhances quality
assurance of teacher built assessment
tasks.
Social moderation of student work
increases teachers’ understanding of
standards and provides a professional
learning forum for designing and
evaluating quality assessment tasks. .