Standards Rubrics: Reflections on Rubric Development
Teaching and Learning, Curtin Business School, Curtin University
Associate Professor Stacey Porter (Project Leader)
Introduction and Overview
As part of its assurance of learning process, Curtin Business School needed to develop program level measures to
assess student attainment of stated learning goals. The initial submission for funding from the ALTC project was
for the development of five rubrics for the Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com), five for the Bachelor of Administration
(BBA) and two for the Bachelor of Commerce (Honours). At that time, five learning goals and ten objectives had
been developed for the B.Com and BBA. After initial work had commenced on the rubric development it was
determined that two of the objectives could not be framed in terms of assessment rubrics and were removed,
leaving eight objectives to be developed. At the same time, work on the goals and objectives for the B.Com
Honours revealed that the program learning goals and objectives would remain the same for all three programs,
with the only differentiation being the development of higher level rubrics for the Honours program. The
objectives initially submitted for the development of rubrics for the Honours program are no longer applicable.
The final outcome determined that eight rubrics were developed in line with the eight learning objectives for the
B.Com and BBA:
Discipline Knowledge and Skills Standard (Knowledge of discipline);
Discipline Knowledge and Skills Standard (Application);
Critical Thinking Standard;
Written Communication Skills Standard;
Oral Communication Skills Standard;
Teamwork Standard;
Ethical Reasoning Standard;
Socio-Cultural Engagement Standard
Rubric Development Process
The program rubrics were developed by an ‘assurance of learning’ (AoL) team, led by the CBS Deans of Teaching
and Learning and the Deputy Pro Vice Chancellor. The team comprised some sixteen to twenty academics from
the six disciplines with CBS, the Graduate School of Business and several teaching and learning experts from
within CBS. The AoL team self-selected the rubric they wished to develop and seconded other academic staff as
required. For example, the team developing the ethical reasoning and socio-cultural engagement standards
sought the input from a senior academic who has research interests in and teaches in the area of ethics and
sustainability. The team developing the two communication skills standards had input from the unit coordinator
teaching the faculty Communications in Business unit and the Head of the CBS Communication Skills Centre. In
all, there were five teams which used various approaches to the rubric development but generally conducted
several face to face meetings with follow up emails for clarification. Team members then came together on a
weekly basis to report their progress to the Deans and the AoL team. Through these meetings, concerns were
addressed and clarification provided to promote a consistent approach and ensure the process was aligned with
the overall approach to assurance of learning.
Challenges
The initial challenge was the agreement on the ‘levels’ for the program assessment. Several headings were
considered before the final agreement of three ‘Exceeds expectations’, Meets expectations’ and ‘Below
expectations’. The second challenge was in agreeing on whether there was a minimum or maximum number of
criteria, how detailed the criteria should be, and the confusion that some team members felt in trying to align
program rubrics with unit level assessment rubrics. This latter aspect was a particular challenge that required
several discussions at the AoL team meetings to clarify and provide guidance on the difference between a
program level assessment rubric and an assessment rubric for a particular piece of assessment at the unit
(subject) level. Agreement was reached that there should be three to five criteria; the descriptors should not be
overly detailed as the detail could be provided in supporting documentation; and that the levels should be
described succinctly and consistently within the eight rubrics. Team members also agreed that it was not
necessary to ‘re-invent the wheel’ and were guided by existing rubrics (acknowledged in the rubrics if existing
information was drawn on).
Opportunities
One of the most valuable outcomes associated with the development of the rubrics was the spirit of co-operation
and enthusiasm from the AoL team and colleagues asked to assist. It clearly personified teamwork and was a
unique opportunity to have multi-disciplinary teams sharing their knowledge and expectations. The ‘critical
thinking’ team and the ‘teamwork’ team determined that when developing their rubrics they could not separate
the two objectives initially identified for each and as a result, these were reduced to one objective each. This
finding also resulted in agreement that as the program level rubrics were developed at a more micro level for
teaching units, the process would become a ‘bottom up’ approach with potential changes to the program level
rubrics, and potentially also the program level objectives and goals.