Abstract
True rubrics feature criteria appropriate to an assessment’s purpose, and they describe these criteria across a continuum of performance levels. The presence of both criteria and performance level descriptions distinguishes rubrics from other kinds of evaluation tools (e.g., checklists, rating scales). This paper reviewed studies of rubrics in higher education from 2005 to 2017. The types of rubrics studied in higher education to date have been mostly analytic (considering each criterion separately), descriptive rubrics, typically with four or five performance levels. Other types of rubrics have also been studied, and some studies called their assessment tool a “rubric” when in fact it was a rating scale. Further, for a few (7 out of 51) rubrics, performance level descriptions used rating-scale language or counted occurrences of elements instead of describing quality. Rubrics using this kind of language may be expected to be more useful for grading than for learning. Finally, no relationship was found between type or quality of rubric and study results. All studies described positive outcomes for rubric use.
Highlights
True rubrics feature criteria appropriate to an assessment’s purpose, and they describe these criteria across a continuum of performance levels
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the types of rubrics that have been studied in higher education
The generality of the rubric is perhaps the most important characteristic, because general rubrics can be shared with students and used for learning as well as for grading
Summary
True rubrics feature criteria appropriate to an assessment’s purpose, and they describe these criteria across a continuum of performance levels. For a few (7 out of 51) rubrics, performance level descriptions used rating-scale language or counted occurrences of elements instead of describing quality Rubrics using this kind of language may be expected to be more useful for grading than for learning. The prevailing hypothesis about how rubrics help students is that they make explicit both the expectations for student work and, more generally, describe what learning looks like (Andrade, 2000; Arter and McTighe, 2001; Arter and Chappuis, 2006; Bell et al, 2013; Brookhart, 2013; Nordrum et al, 2013; Panadero and Jonsson, 2013). General rubrics should be written with descriptive language, as opposed to evaluative language (e.g., excellent, poor) because descriptive language helps students envision where they are in their learning and where they should go
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
