Using Rubrics to Respond to and Evaluate Student Work
What is a rubric? A rubric is a set of scoring guidelines for evaluating students’ work. A rubric
indicates the criteria you use to judge student performance, and distinguishes different levels of
quality in student work.
Why bother with rubrics? There are three good reasons to use rubrics.
1. Good rubrics clearly identify the instructor’s expectations and how to meet those
expectations. They help define the quality of work expected of students.
2. They can help students become more thoughtful judges of the quality of their own
and others’ work. When used to guide self and peer assessment, the rubric can help to
identify strengths and weaknesses in students’ own and one another’s work.
3. Rubrics can reduce the amount of time instructors spend responding to and
evaluating student work. Instructors can use the language and categories of the rubric to
give students feedback on the quality of their work. This can reduce the amount of time
trying to explain the flaws and strengths in the work. Moreover, if students use rubrics to
self-correct or peer-correct their work, instructors will receive more highly developed work.
How to create a rubric. It takes time to develop a good rubric, but that’s time saved later on in
the grading process. Here are a few pointers to get started.
1. Pick an assignment that you use regularly so you can refine and use the rubric again in the
future.
2. Identify models of good and poor performance on the assignment. Pick a few of the best and
worst pieces of student work.
3. Make a list of the characteristics or traits shared by the good pieces and a list of
characteristics shared by the poor pieces. The goal is to develop a list of the criteria that
distinguish good and poor work: a list of the dimensions that define quality in the work.
4. Define gradations of quality. The characteristics of the best and worst work provide anchor
points. Fill in the middle levels of quality. You can make as many gradations or levels as you
want. The trick is to identify clearly what distinguishes the “Best” work from the “Next Best”
work and then the work that is next best and so on.
5. Create a rubric table. Most rubrics have a list of evaluation criteria, followed by descriptors of
the characteristics of traits that constitute strong or weak performance in each level of
quality.
6. Determine the scoring system. If you give a score for each criterion, you may want to weight
the criterion scores differently, or you may simply use the criteria scores as indicators of
performance quality without having them add up to an overall grade. (See examples.)
7. Practice using the rubric and revise as needed. First, you want to make sure that it does a
satisfactory job of distinguishing levels of performance. Does it include all the essential
dimensions that define quality? You can tell it is working well if you can read a set of student
work and say with confidence that all the work in the top category really belongs there—that
all the pieces have the same level of quality on the critical dimensions. If not, something is
wrong. What if you apply the rubric and then discover that work in the same category
actually looks different on the critical dimensions? You may not be clear yourself about what
the actual dimensions are (e.g., you could be using some criteria that you have not yet made
explicit) or you may be applying the criteria inconsistently (e.g., you may need to define the
criteria more carefully so that you can use them without thinking twice about what they
mean).
How to use a rubric.
1. Distribute the rubrics to your students well in advance of the final due date.
2. Require the rubric to be attached to the paper to be evaluated.
3. Indicate the level of performance on each of the criteria; circle the appropriate descriptors for
weaknesses and strengths; assign an overall grade—perhaps giving NO comments to the
paper if it has received feedback during the composing process.
Terry Beck & Bill Cerbin
Follow Up to Responding to and Evaluating Student Work
UWL Conference on Teaching & Learning, August 28, 2007
4. Use the rubric to give feedback on drafts as well to indicate areas of strength and weakness
on final performances.
 have students self-assess using the rubric
 have peers fill out the rubric in a peer review
 use it yourself to give a this-is-the-grade-the-draft-would-get-if-submitted-in-thiscondition grade
 let the rubric indicate revision work needed (if a second submission is allowed)
 key your marginal comments on drafts to rubric criteria (e.g., a comment about weak
development is preceded by—or even collapsed into—the sign Dv? to indicate that the
problem is questionable development, when “Development” is a major evaluation
criterion in the rubric).
5. Revise the rubric as you use it. Every time you evaluate a set of papers, make notes on
features the rubric needs (or doesn’t need) and revise it before you use it again. (Same idea
as #7 in “How to Create a Rubric”—but the point is that rubrics are always evolving.)
For additional information about how to design and use rubrics, see:
Wiggins, G (2004). Assessment as Learning a short essay that examines the importance and
characteristics of effective feedback in learning.
RubiStar is a free resource for teachers that hosts examples of rubrics. Although keyed to K-12 level
you can find examples relevant to the college classroom. You can also use their templates to
create your own rubrics.
Stevens, D. & Levi, A. (2005). Introduction to Rubrics: An Assessment Tool to Save Grading Time,
Convey Effective Feedback, and Promote Student Learning. Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA. The
publisher’s website has rubric downloads. Available in Murphy Library.
Walvoord, B. & Anderson, V. (1998). Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher. Has many examples and practical advice about how to design
more effective ways to evaluate and grade student work.
Richlin, L. (2006). Blueprint for Learning: Constructing College Courses to Facilitate, Assess and
Document Learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Very short, practical chapters on using
classroom assessment techniques and rubrics.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student
Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher. The definitive work on how to design
rubrics—but accessible to a general audience. Available in Murphy Library.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. Read this book! Available in Murphy Library.
Note: Any of the rubrics on the following pages may be copied, then revised and edited to
make them appropriate for your courses.
Terry Beck & Bill Cerbin
Follow Up to Responding to and Evaluating Student Work
UWL Conference on Teaching & Learning, August 28, 2007
The rubric below uses a holistic analysis of three dimensions: 1) understanding, 2) clarity and coherence,
and 3) mechanical correctness.
I fill out this grade sheet and return it to the student with the graded paper. I may write brief comments
on the paper keyed to the dimensions of the rubric.
Bill Cerbin
Performance Assessment Paper
Name:
I used the following dimensions to evaluate your paper. The “X” along each dimension indicates a
qualitative judgment—not a quantitative one. I assigned a letter grade to the paper based on overall
performance.
Demonstrates understanding
Evaluated Holistically
Integrates concepts from the course material =====================Relies on unsubstantiated
opinion, anecdotes
Explains how and why strategy
should improve learning
Thinks with course material
=====================Does not explain
=====================
Clarity and coherence
Does not think with the course
material
Evaluated Holistically
Uses effective transitions to guide the reader ===================== No transitions
Easy to follow the pattern of organization
Hard to follow
Parts fit together into a coherent whole
Disjointed
Mechanical correctness
Evaluated Holistically
Few errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling ===================== Multiple errors detract
from the quality of the
paper
Overall grade:
Comments:
In order to strengthen this work you need to . . .
Terry Beck & Bill Cerbin
Follow Up to Responding to and Evaluating Student Work
UWL Conference on Teaching & Learning, August 28, 2007
This is a general rubric for evaluating a project. An alternative to this general format is to use a rubric that
corresponds to the structure of the work. For example, if the assignment was a research project there
could be separate criteria for the sections of the report, (e.g., introduction, method, results, discussion)
Bill Cerbin
Rubric for Evaluating A Major Project in a Psychology Class
Dimension
Content and
reasoning
Exemplary
Information is
accurate.
Proficient
Information is
accurate.
Marginal
Some factual errors,
misconceptions,
misinterpretations.
Underdeveloped
Serious factual errors,
misconceptions,
misinterpretations
Uses appropriate
evidence to analyze
and support ideas.
Minor weaknesses in
one of the following
areas:
Basic reasoning is
adequate but may be:
incomplete, faulty or
weak as a result of
inadequate support and
evidence.
Serious weaknesses in
reasoning. Uses little
or no evidence to
support ideas. Uses
inappropriate
evidence.
Some inadequate or
inappropriate
evidence.
Organization,
coherence,
focus
Formal writing
Ideas from sources are
well integrated.
Some weak integration
of ideas.
Lacks effective
integration of ideas.
Very weak integration
of ideas.
Clearly explains ideas.
Lacks clarity in
explanations. Some
ideas are fuzzy, vague.
Tangled explanations.
Ideas are confused.
Serious confusion,
tangled explanations.
Pattern of organization
makes it easy to
follow.
Minor weakness in
organization.
Ideas are difficult to
follow.
Maintains clear focus
throughout.
Paper loses focus at
times.
Basic organization is
appropriate, but some
sections are
disconnected, lacking
in focus, tangled, hard
to follow.
Uses appropriate
headings and
transitions to guide the
reader.
Uses appropriate
headings and
transitions to guide the
reader.
Headings and
transitions may be
misleading.
Lacks effective
headings and
transitions.
Well adapted to the
target audience.
Well adapted to the
target audience
Not well adapted to the
audience.
Writing is not adapted
to the audience.
Uses appropriate style,
punctuation, spelling,
grammar.
Uses appropriate style,
punctuation, spelling,
grammar.
Some problems in
style, grammar,
punctuation.
Serious problems in
style, punctuation,
grammar, punctuation.
Paper is free of errors
in spelling, grammar,
punctuation.
Contains very few
errors in spelling,
grammar, punctuation.
Contains some errors
in spelling, grammar,
punctuation.
Multiple errors in
spelling, grammar,
punctuation.
Lacks coherence and
focus, tangled
Terry Beck & Bill Cerbin
Follow Up to Responding to and Evaluating Student Work
UWL Conference on Teaching & Learning, August 28, 2007
This is a complex rubric for students in a writing class, used for both instructor evaluation and peer review. —Terry Beck
Writer: ____________________________________
Trait/Criterion
Focus (Fc)
Rating ___
Content/
Development
(Dv)
Rating ___
Structure (St)
Rating ___
Prose Style (Pr)
Rating ___
CEP=Conventionally Emphatic
Positions:
beginnings &
endings, clauses.
Conventions
(Cv)
& Presentation
Rating ___
Evaluation Rubric
Primary Reviewer: _______________________________
Level 1
Level 3
 Primary focus &/or purpose are weak.
 Lower levels of focus not used or not linked to
purpose
 Key ideas not clearly focused.
 The focus does not move beyond generalizations.
 Content is inadequate to purpose&/ or audience.
 Contexts for purpose/subject aren’t established..
 Stories are sketchy or not used.
 Descriptive texture is very thin
 No analysis is evident.
 Reasoning/logic is insufficient
 Claims are not clear &/or inappropriate
 Support/examples are ineffective or missing.
 Alternate perspectives not examined.
 Other audience appeals (e.g., to audience needs
&/or values) are ineffective or not used.
 Inadequate for the audience or unrelated to purpose.
 The thesis/primary focus is difficult to find.
 The structure is difficult to follow.
 The focus shifts abruptly, without clarity.
 Genre conventions are ignored.
 Introduction &/or ending are missing. or weak
 Style is inappropriate to genre, purpose, &/or audience.
 Diction is poorly chosen.
 The syntax is often awkward &/or rambling.
 Uses the “Official Voice.,” very wordy.
 Subordination &/or coordination are weak..
 Figurative language is not used or poorly used.
 Coherence gaps are frequent, rhythms awkward.
 Very weak uses of emphasis, especially CEPs.
 The subject &/or audience tones are inappropriate.
 Grammar is often awkward or incorrect.
 Punctuation is often missing or incorrect.
 Spelling & typographical errors are frequent.
 Paragraphing doesn’t guide focus shifts.
 Citations &/or documentation are incorrect,
incomplete, or missing.
 Format (margins, font, spacing, layout, quality of
print, line spacing) is inadequate.
 Primary focus & purpose adequate but not strong.
 Lower level focuses weak or not linked to primary
purpose
 Broad to specific focusing not followed.
 In places, the focus is inadequately sustained.
 Content is barely adequate to purpose and audience.
 Few contexts are introduced..
 Stories told without detail & depth or w/o purpose.
 Descriptive texture is thin, lacks variety
 Analysis lacks depth &/or completeness.
 Reasoning/logic is not always sufficient
 Claims are sometimes inappropriate
 Support/examples are insufficient or weak.
 Alternate perspectives only weakly examined.
 Other audience appeals (e.g., to audience needs &/or
values) are weak.
 Unoriginal but adequate to purpose and audience.
 The thesis/primary focus is weak &/or weak thesis.
 The structure is mechanical or awkward.
 Some focus shifts are smooth, others mechanical.
 A few genre conventions are not followed.
 Introduction & ending are adequate but dull.
 Style is bland, unsophisticated.
 Diction is sometimes imprecise.
 Some syntax is awkward, clichés.
 Wordy in places or generally wordy.
 Subordination &/or coordination are unsophisticated.
 Figurative language is rarely used.
 Coherence is weak or mechanical, lacks rhythm.
 Emphasis is applied inconsistently.
 The subject &/or audience tones are inconsistent.
 Grammar is sometimes conventional or incorrect
 Punctuation is sometimes unconventional/unclear.
 Spelling & typographical errors not corrected.
 Paragraphing sometimes inappropriate to the focus.
 Citations & documentation are somewhat flawed.
 Format (margins, font, spacing, layout, quality of
print, line spacing) is problematic in places.
Beck, English
Level 5
 Focus & purpose are engaging.
 The focus expansions /narrowing are engaging,
developing rich detail & imagery.




























Content is effective for the purpose & the audience.
The writer establishes a rich set of contexts.
Stories are well chosen.
Descriptive texture is rich & varied
The analysis is complex & integrated.
Reasoning/logic is compelling
 Claims are clear & appropriate
 Support/examples are strong
 Alternate perspectives well incorporated.
Other audience appeals (e.g., to audience needs &/or
values) are effective & appropriate.
Enhances purpose and audience strategies.
The thesis/primary focus is commanding.
The structure is intriguing.
Focus shifts add meaning.
Genre is used creatively.
The introduction is inviting & the ending satisfying.
Crafted style enhances purpose, engages audience.
Diction is sophisticated..
The syntax is lively and interesting.
Every word counts.
Subordination &/or coordination are sophisticated.
Figuratively language is used effectively.
The writing flows well; rhythms are effective.
Important material is effectively emphasized.
The subject & audience tones are effective.
Grammar is conventional and correct throughout.
Punctuation is clear & effective.
All spelling and typing is correct..
Paragraphing sharply defines focus.
Citations & documentation are conventional &
complete.
Format (margins, font, spacing, layout, quality of
print, line spacing) is professional.
Mindful/Rhetorical Qualities______ Overall Grade _____(This a holistic score—not an averaging of individual trait ratings) Revision Grade___
Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4
Terry Beck & Bill Cerbin
Follow Up to Responding to and Evaluating Student Work
UWL Conference on Teaching & Learning, August 28, 2007
This is a generic rubric created as a model for use in General Education classes by a General Education sub-committee, Terry Beck with
Linda Dickmeyer, Mike Durnin, and Brad Seebach
Writing Assessment Rubric
Criteria
Rhetorical
Qualities
Rating _____
N=Naive
W=Weak
C=Competent*
P=Proficient
S=Sophisticated
Organization
Rating _____
Development
of Content &
Reasoning
Rating _____
Critical Questions
Naive
Does the writing
have appropriate
purposes? Does the
writing make a
transaction with its
intended audience?
Does the writer
present herself
appropriately and
effectively?

Is there a strong
focus? A clear train
of thought? i.e. a
clear, strong thesis
which is consistently
developed? Or a
narrative that is
easily followed? Is
there an appropriate
introduction and
ending?
Are relevant contexts
considered and
explored? (Contexts
may be historical,
theoretical/conceptu
al, philosophical,
situational, etc.) Are
claims supported
with adequate
evidence and
reasoning? Has
adequate research
been done to support
the purpose?



The purposes are
unclear, not interesting,
or inappropriate.
The needs and/or
expectations of the
audience are not met.
The writer’s persona is
inappropriate and/or
ineffective
Weak












The thesis is not stated
or difficult to find.
The train of thought is
difficult to follow.
Transitions between ¶s
are missing.
Introduction &/or
ending are missing.


No contexts for the
purpose and subject are
established.
Very little support is
given for claims.
Reasoning is missing,
weak, or confused.
There is little
interesting detail or
imagery.
Relevant sources are
not used.







Proficient
The purposes are weak.
Strategies are
inappropriate or
inadequate to purposes
(e.g., anecdotes instead
of analysis).
Some audience needs &
attitudes are addressed,
others ignored.
The writer’s persona is
marginally acceptable.
The thesis is weak.
The train of thought is
mechanical or fails to
emphasize important
ideas.
Transitions are weak or
mechanical.
Introduction &/or ending
are weak, ineffective.

Very little context is
established or explored.
Weak support supplied
for claims.
Reasoning is
undeveloped.
The descriptive texture is
thin: few details or
images.
Sources are not well
introduced or integrated.











Sophisticated
The purposes are
consistent, appropriate,
& interesting.
The writing anticipates &
meets most audience
needs & attitudes and is
appropriate to the context
and situation.
The writer’s persona is
appropriate.

The thesis is clear.
The train of thought is
easily followed.
Most transitions are
smooth.
Intro & ending are
appropriate & useful.

Significant contexts are
established for both
subject & purposes.
Solid support is given for
claims.
Clear reasoning.
Detail & imagery are
adequate.
Sources are used to give
meaningful support...










The purposes are
compelling & carried out
in intriguing ways.
The writing is sensitive to
the context and situation
and to the needs &
attitudes of the audience,
guiding their
understanding very well.
The writer’s persona is
effective.
The thesis is clear &
strong, commanding
reader attention.
The train of thought is
intriguing.
Transitions are insightful.
The introduction is
inviting & the ending
satisfying.
The writer establishes a
rich set of contexts.
Supporting evidence is
well chosen and
abundant.
Reasoning is compelling.
Detail and imagery are
rich and engaging.
The writer has excellent
command of relevant
sources and integrates
them effectively.
*Note: A rating of “Competent” is given when the qualities fall between the descriptors for “Proficient” and “Sophisticated”
Terry Beck & Bill Cerbin
Follow Up to Responding to and Evaluating Student Work
UWL Conference on Teaching & Learning, August 28, 2007
Criteria
Description
Prose Style
Prose refers to the
techniques and
patterns the writer
uses to cast her
ideas and purposes
into language.
Effective prose is
concise, clear,
coherent,
emphatic, and—
above all—
interesting to read.
This category
refers both to the
correctness of the
grammar, spelling,
and punctuation
and to the quality
of the format: its
consistency and
appropriateness to
the genre and the
rhetorical
situation.
Rating _____
Conventions &
Format
Rating _____
Naïve








Weak
Sentence structure is
awkward & wordy—
even painful to read.
Vocabulary is poorly
chosen.
Coherence gaps are
frequent.
The style is
inappropriate.

Errors in conventions
&/or format make
reading difficult.
Punctuation is often
missing or incorrect.
Spelling errors are
frequent.
Citations &/or
documentation are
incorrect, incomplete, or
missing.







Proficient
Sentence structures are
bland; clichés abound.
Vocabulary is awkward
in places.
Coherence gaps occur.
The style is inconsistent.

Control over conventions
& format is inconsistent
and/or distracting.
Spelling problems are
recurring.
Some punctuation is
wrong or awkward.
Errors occur in citation
&/or documentation.







Sophisticated
Sentence structure is
clear and concise.
Vocabulary is precise.
The writing is coherent.
The style is appropriate
to the genre & purpose.

Appropriate genre
conventions & format are
used.
Spelling & typographical
errors are quite minimal.
Punctuation is clear &
conventional.
Citations &
documentation are
mostly conventional &
complete.





Sentence structure and
vocabulary are lively and
interesting.
The style is completely
suited to the genre &
purpose.
Conventions and format
are used for interesting
effects.
Punctuation is clear &
effective.
All elements of format
and mechanics are
handled well.
Citations &
documentation are
conventional & complete.
Overall Rating _______ (Rated on a scale of 5, with 5 the highest: this is a holistic score—not an averaging of individual criterion ratings)
Comments:
8/31/04 Terry Beck with Linda Dickmeyer, Mike Durnin, and Brad Seebach
Terry Beck & Bill Cerbin
Follow Up to Responding to and Evaluating Student Work
UWL Conference on Teaching & Learning, August 28, 2007