How to Build and Use Rubrics Effectively
Writing Across the Curriculum
Students really benefit from having instructors share explicit evaluation criteria along with the assignment instructions. These evaluation criteria or rubrics sometimes take the form of a simple list, and other times appear in an evaluation form that the instructor will use for giving feedback. For students, having rubrics not only demystifies how their work will be evaluated but also teaches what makes for a successful paper in response to that assignment, in that genre, and in that discipline. And as an instructor, you can also benefit from creating rubrics—they can help you clarify your priorities for student writing and can help you be more efficient and consistent as you evaluate students’ work.
What rubrics look like varies a great deal: they can be simple or elaborate, fairly general or very specific, qualitative and quantitative. They can be in prose form or in a bulleted list or a grid. Different criteria can be weighted differently for grading purposes. The section on responding to and evaluating student writing in our WAC Faculty Sourcebook offers many possible examples of rubrics, which we would encourage you to use as models to follow or adapt as you develop your own rubrics.
Although rubrics are beneficial, on their own they do not constitute all the feedback that students need and deserve on substantial written work. Students need some individually tailored feedback. Remember too that the characteristics of successful papers articulated in a rubric seem to offer clarity and precision, but the truth is that all of the significant terms in evaluation criteria and rubrics require further explanation and interpretation. So we shouldn’t expect rubrics to answer every question or solve all of the challenges we face in communicating with our students about our expectations.
Getting Started
Creating a rubric does not need to take much time. Here is some general advice for getting started:
- Beyond a few basics, what makes for effective writing varies depending on the learning goals for the assignment, the genre of the paper, the subject matter, the specific tasks, the discipline, and the level of the course. So it’s crucial to develop criteria that match the specific learning goals and the genre of your assignment. And what’s valued in one discipline differs in others.[1]
- With each assignment, start by listing what characterizes a strong piece of student writing in response to that assignment.
- Once you have a list of characteristics, try organizing them into a limited number of larger categories.
- Order your list so that it starts with the quality of the content and ideas and analysis and arguments, then moves to organization and finally to grammar and careful editing and citation format.
- If you are going to weight the items, try assigning relative percentages to the categories, making sure to have ideas and content and big-picture elements of the paper count for most of the points. There is a point of diminishing returns in having to make too many discrete evaluations.
- Then decide whether you want to describe different levels of success on each item and whether you want to align that evaluation with points or grades (see the example below).
- Once you have a draft rubric, share it with your students when you assign a paper and ask students to ask you questions about it—their questions should help you improve and clarify your expectations.
- Creating a rubric is a recursive process. Once you start using it to help you evaluate actual student papers, you will soon discover things you forgot to include and you will inevitably change your mind about what matters most in successful papers.
One Example of a Rubric Matched to an Assignment
What follows is a strong example of an assignment and rubric from a first-year history seminar. This rubric is closely aligned with the tasks in the assignment, emphasizes, in its organization, the key priorities in the assignment, and illustrates different levels of success.
EXHIBIT 6.3 McLeod’s Assignment Handout for First-Year Seminar
One of the most prominent topics in the historiography of colonial Latin America has been the nature of the encounter between Amerindians and Europeans beginning in 1492. According to a recent review essay by historian Steve J. Stern, one of the three main paradigms or frameworks for interpreting the conquest has been that of the conquest as an “overwhelming avalanche of destruction,” characterized by the military defeat and demographic collapse of indigenous populations, the brutal treatment and ruthless economic exploitation of surviving natives by rapacious conquistadors, and the forced disappearance of pre-Columbian cultural, political, and social ways. Based on your reading of Inga Clendinnen, Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatán, 1517–1570, would you agree with this view of the conquest as one of extreme destruction and trauma? If so, why? If not, what is the best way to describe the nature of the encounter between Spaniards and Amerindians in colonial Latin America?
Using Clendinnen, Ambivalent Conquests, as well as the other readings, lectures, and discussions we have had in this course, write a 4-6 page (typed, double-spaced, stapled) essay answering the above question. The assignment is due October 10. Assume that you are writing an academic paper for an undergraduate conference on Latin America. Also assume that your audience has NOT read this assignment and will attend your conference session because your title hooked their interest. Your introduction should explain the problem-at-issue before presenting your thesis. Because this is an academic paper in history, follow the manuscript form of the Chicago Manual of Style and Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. I will grade your paper using the following rubric:
Introduction and Thesis Statement | ||
10 9 8 | 7 6 5 4 | 3 2 1 0 |
Explains problem to be addressed; provides necessary background; ends with contestable thesis statement; thesis answers question | Problem statement missing; problem poorly focused; thesis unclear, not contestable, and/or does not fully answer question | Paper begins without context or background; paper lacks thesis statement; reader is confused about what writer is attempting to do |
Quality of ideas and argument | ||
20 18 16 | 14 12 10 8 | 6 4 2 0 |
Strong insights; remains focused on question; effectively links course materials to question; good historical reasoning | Some good insights; loses focus on question or gaps in argument; connections between question and course materials vague; unsupported generalizations | Fails to adequately answer question; descriptive rather than analytical; tends to summarize course materials |
Use of evidence | ||
10 9 8 | 7 6 5 4 | 3 2 1 0 |
Excellent use of different course materials to support argument; effectively provides relevant examples, evidence, and appropriate quotes | Uneven use of evidence and examples; evidence is not always directly relevant; over-reliance on a single source; significance of quotes not readily apparent | Lack of evidence and examples; evidence, if provided, not related to overall argument; limited reference to course materials |
Organization and Clarity | ||
10 9 8 | 7 6 5 4 | 3 2 1 0 |
Clear, well-organized paper; paragraphs begin with topic sentences related to thesis; topic sentences fully developed in each paragraph; paper flows logically, reader doesn’t get lost | Generally sound organization; some topic sentences strong, others weak; some paragraphs not fully developed; reader occasionally confused by awkward organization, unclear sentences, fuzzy ideas | Poor organization, lacks clarity; paper not organized around coherent paragraphs; paragraphs lack topic sentences; prose is hard to follow and understand |
Editing and Manuscript Form | ||
10 9 8 | 7 6 5 4 | 3 2 1 0 |
Flawless paper, or an occasional minor error. Looks like a professional history paper; notes follow assigned format; contains an academic title. | Distractions due to spelling, punctuation, grammar errors; writer seems a bit careless. Varies from assigned style and format in a few ways; contains non-academic title. | Paper seriously marred by mistakes in grammar, spelling, and punctuation; lack of editing. Paper does not follow assigned style and format; paper lacks a title. |
For an excellent discussion and illustration of different types of rubrics, we recommend Chapter 14, “Using Rubrics to Develop and Apply Grading Criteria,” in John Bean’s Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom.
- For more information about the limits of broad, general evaluation rubrics, see Chris M. Anson, Deanna P. Dannels, Pamela Flash, and Amy L. Housley Gaffney, “Big Rubrics and Weird Genres: The Futility of Using Generic Assessment Tools Across Diverse Instructional Contexts,” The Journal of Writing Assessment 5.1 (2012). ↵