Designing Scoring Rubrics
Download
Report
Transcript Designing Scoring Rubrics
Dr. Robert Mayes
University of Wyoming
Science and Mathematics
Teaching Center
[email protected]
Assessor – 3 basic questions
What kind of evidence do we need to support the
attainment of goals?
Tasks that reveal understanding, such as comparing and
contrasting or summarizing key concepts
What specific characteristics in student responses,
products, or performances should we examine to determine
the extent to which the desired results were achieved?
Criteria, rubrics, and exemplars are needed
Does the proposed evidence enable us to infer a student’s
knowledge, skill, or understanding?
Validity and reliability concerns
Stage 2: Evidence
Think like an assessor not an activity designer
Assessor
What should be sufficient
and revealing evidence
of understanding?
What performance tasks
must anchor the unit and
focus the instructional
work?
Against what criteria will I
distinguish work?
Activity Designer
What would be
interesting and engaging
activities on this topic?
What resources and
materials are available
on this topic?
How will I give students a
grade and justify it to
parents?
Stage 2: Evidence
Think like an assessor not an activity designer
Assessor
How will I be able to
distinguish between
those who really
understand and those
who don’t (though they
seem to)?
What misunderstandings
are likely? How will I
check for those?
Activity Designer
What will students be
doing in and out of
class? What
assignments will be
given?
Did the activities work?
Why or why not?
Continuum of Assessment Methods
Vary in several characteristics
Scope: from simple to complex
Time Frame: short-term to long term
Setting: decontextualized to authentic
Structure: highly structured to ill-structured
Move from snapshot to scrapbook
Self-assessment of sources of evidence (HO)
Informal
checks
Observation/
Dialogue
Quiz/
Test
Academic
Prompt
Performance
Task
Collecting a Range of Evidence
Activity: (HO) determine a range of assessment evidence
you may use related to the
Enduring understanding
Topics important to know and do
Worth being familiar with
Which assessment methods best fit the 3 categories?
Worth being familiar with
Important to know and do
Enduring Understanding
Academic Prompt
Assessments
Open-ended question or problem that require student
to prepare a specific academic response
Think critically and prepare response
Require constructed response under exam conditions
Divergent – no single best answer
Subjective judgment based scoring using criteria or
rubric
May or may not be secure
Often ill-structured – require development of strategy
Involve analysis, synthesis, and evaluation
Performance Task
Assessments
Complex challenges that mirror the issues and
problems faced by adults
Real or simulated settings, authentic
Require student to address audience in non-exam
conditions
Divergent – no single best answer
Subjective judgment based scoring using criteria or
rubric,
Greater opportunity to personalize task
Not secure – students given criteria in advance
Performance Task – 6 Facets
Activity: Use the 6 Facets of Understanding to
generate a performance task related to your enduring
understanding
Questioning for Understanding (HO)
Performance Verbs (HO)
Performance Task creation (HO)
Performance Task brainstorming (HO)
Performance Task -GRASPS
Creating a performance task with context and roles
Goal
Role
Audience
Situation
Product, Performance, and Purpose
Standards and Criteria for Success
Performance Task -GRASPS
Activity: Create a performance task using GRASPS
GRASPS Performance Task Scenario (HO)
Student roles and audiences (HO)
Possible Products and Performances (HO)
Assessor Question 2:
Determine achievement
What specific characteristics in student responses,
products, or performances should we examine to
determine the extent to which the desired results were
achieved?
Criteria, rubrics, and exemplars are needed
Designing Scoring Rubrics
Rubric: criterion-based scoring guide for evaluating a
product or performance along a continuum.
Consists of:
Evaluative Criteria – qualities that must be met for work
to measure up to a standard
Fixed Measurement Scale – often 4 or 5 levels
Indicators – descriptive terms for differentiating among
degrees of understanding, proficiency, or quality
Rubric Types
Holistic – provide an overall impression of the
elements of quality and performance levels in a
student’s work
Analytic – divides a student’s performance into two or
more distinct dimensions (criteria) and judges each
separately
Recommend use of analytic with a minimum of:
Criteria for understanding (HO)
Criteria for performance
Using Facet-Related Criteria (Figure 8.3, Pg 178)
Rubric Types
Generic – general criteria in given performance area
Can be developed before specific task defined
Example: General Problem Solving Rubric
Example: Generic Rubric for Understanding (HO)
Task-Specific – designed for use with particular
assessment activity
Task dependent so cannot be used to evaluate related
performance tasks
Rubric Types
Longitudinal Rubric – progression from naïve to
sophisticated understanding
Increased understanding of complex functions and
interrelatedness of concepts
Greater awareness of how discipline operates
Greater personal control over and flexibility with knowledge
Effective Rubrics
Relate specific task requirements to more general
performance goals
Discriminate among different degrees of
understanding or proficiency according to
significant features
Do not combine independent criteria in one
column of rubric
Use Student Anchors to (Anchor design, Pg 181)
Set standards based on student artifacts
Consistency in judgment of student work
Equip students to do more accurate and productive self-
assessment
Effective Rubrics
All potential performances should fit somewhere
in rubric
Rely on descriptive language (what quality looks
like) not comparative or value language to make
distinctions
Avoid making lowest score point sound bad,
should describe novice or ineffective performance
Highlight judging performance’s impact as
opposed to over rewarding just process or effort
Assessor Question 3:
Valid and Reliable
Does the proposed evidence enable us to infer a
student’s knowledge, skill, or understanding?
Validity: did we measure what we meant to measure
Does the evidence indicate understanding of the
expressed outcomes?
Are the performances appropriate to the understanding
sought?
Do not pay so much attention to correctness that degree
of understanding is lost.
Validity
Two key validity questions for assessment tasks:
A student could do well on this performance task, but
really not demonstrate the understanding you are
after?
A student could perform poorly on this task, but still
have significant understanding of the ideas and show
them in other ways?
Activity: determining validity (Figure 8.5)
Validity
Two key validity questions for rubric:
Could the proposed criteria be met but the performer
still not demonstrate deep understanding?
Could the proposed criteria not be met but the
performer nonetheless still show understanding?
Reliability
Reliable assessments reveal a credible pattern, a clear
trend
Need for multiple evidence (scrapbook) rather than
just a snapshot of student performance
Have parallel assessments on the same concept using
multiple assessment formats.
Dr. Robert Mayes
University of Wyoming
Science and Mathematics
Teaching Center
[email protected]