Using Rubrics To Communicate With Students
Using Rubrics to Communicate With Students
While we may associate rubrics with assessment, they are fundamentally about communication. Rubrics enable you to:
- Communicate your goals for an assignment,
- Give students feedback on their progress, and
- Promote more productive conversations about grades by creating transparency on why a student’s assignment earned a specific grade.
Whatever the style of assignment, including rubrics with qualitative justifications for quantitative grades, can help students understand why they received a specific grade for an assignment and dramatically cut down on the number of questions and disputes about grades. Rubrics also help to normalize and clarify grading practices within an instructional team and are particularly beneficial for helping new TAs and instructors understand expectations. And rubrics aren’t just for grading — you can set them up without points to provide descriptive and actionable feedback even with points attached.
|
Tips and Suggested Practices
- Align your rubric criteria with your course learning objectives (This is often an iterative process as your course and assignments evolve.)
- Conduct grade norming sessions with a teaching team. Use the rubric to evaluate a few examples to get feedback on the rubric and set shared expectations for how the team will apply the criteria and review borderline cases.
- Create opportunities for students to engage with the rubric criteria before they submit work for a formal grade. Examples: Have your students:
- Score a sample assignment using the rubric
- Use the criteria in a peer review or self-assessment activity.
- Contribute to the design of a rubric where appropriate.
- Discuss what they learned from these activities.
- Embed rubrics into Canvas Assignments. Canvas rubrics are especially helpful for large classes where providing students with individualized feedback is not always feasible. They can help coordinate grading across a teaching team and reduce the need to rewrite the same feedback for many students. You can always add personalized comments as well.
- Develop the descriptive texts in a separate document that you can save (e.g., in Word), then cut and paste the text into the rubric when satisfied.
- If your rubric is used for grading, keep in mind how the scores on the rubric correlate to your letter grade scale. Canvas will default to giving whole number scores, but a “B” level response out of 10 points is 8.6, not 8. Accurately calibrating your descriptions to the corresponding grade scale is fairer for students and reduces the need to use “fudge points” when calculating final grades. This calculator can help you calibrate a rubric by matching the course scheme to different point scales:
Resources
Examples from the UW Madison
Rubrics are useful for a wide array of assignments, from low-stakes and formative work to capstone projects and exams. Below, you will find examples of how UW Madison instructors used Canvas rubrics to guide students through a variety of projects.
Formative Assignments - Using Rubrics to Encourage Effort and Emphasize Process
Rubrics do not need to be elaborate to be effective. If your goal is to focus on thoughtful completion, a simple rubric makes grading quick and straightforward, as in this example from Anthropology 104.
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Points
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effort Completion Appropriateness |
8.0 points Full Credit This response is complete and appropriate to the task |
6.8 points Partial Credit A reasonable effort was made, but the response may be incomplete or inadequately address the task. |
5.0 points Half Credit Some effort was made, but the response was incomplete, inadequate, or incorrect. |
0.0 points No Credit |
8.0 points |
| On-Time Submission |
2.0 points Full Credit The assignment was submitted on or before the due date |
1.5 points One day late The assignment was submitted late. |
1.0 point Two days late The assignment was submitted very late. |
0.0 points No Credit |
2.0 points |
| Total Points: | 10.0 points | ||||
| Claire Wendland, Professor, Anthropology, College of Letters and Science Jerome Camal, Associate Professor, Anthropology, College of Letters and Science Falina Enriquez, Assistant Professor, Anthropology, College of Letters and Science Daniel Pell, Strategic Learning Technology Consultant, DoIT Academic Technology |
|||||
Rubrics can also be used to focus students on the process of completing an assignment - rather than solely on the final product. Here, we see another way rubrics function as a communication tool, helping students learn how to succeed on a project. The Mechanics of Materials course in the College of Engineering provides a great example.
Jacob Notbohm explains: "This rubric is for a formative activity, requiring a group of students to solve a problem collaboratively using concepts they were recently exposed to. Designing the rubric helped us to identify that our objectives for this activity were to introduce the students to the topic, give them some early practice with new concepts, and enable them to work in teams. After establishing these objectives, we realized that the grading of this activity didn't have to match our grading on the exams — instead of studying each step of a student's solution to determine exactly what that student did right or wrong, we needed to assess broadly whether the students accomplished the objectives. The rubric also puts greater emphasis on effort and general problem-solving and a lesser emphasis on getting the right answer. The rubric, therefore, benefits the course by indicating to the students the purpose of the task and by saving us time in grading."
| Criteria | Ratings | Points | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effort / Group Work There is evidence of an effort to learn from the assignment and to complete it as a group. Some indicators include: work is shown, all students' handwriting present, and numerical answers are given with a reasonable number of significant digits and units. Written answers are thoughtful and relate clearly to concepts from this week's module |
20.0 points A range There is strong and clear evidence of an effort by the group to complete the task |
17.6 points AB/B range There is clear evidence of an effort by the group to complete the task, but one or more expected indicators of effort may be missing or incomplete. |
15.6 points BC/C range There is some evidence of an effort by the group to complete the task, but more than one of the expected indicators of effort may be missing or incomplete. |
10.0 points F range There is insufficient evidence of an effort by the group to complete the task. |
0.0 points No Credit |
20.0 points |
| Set-Up and Steps The problem is set up correctly and appropriate steps are followed. Some indicators include free body diagrams, equilibrium equations, constitutive equations, and geometry/comparability equations (as appropriate). |
10.0 points A range The problem is set up correctly and all appropriate sets are followed. |
8.8 points AB/B range The problem is generally set up correctly, and appropriate steps are followed with some improvement possible. There may be some errors in setting up the problem, but this does not detract from the overall process. |
7.8 points BC/C range The problem is attempted and some steps may be accurate, but key steps are missing. The majority of the steps are incorrect. Errors in setting up the problem detract from the overall process. |
5.0 range F range The majority of the steps are incorrect. Errors in setting up the problem greatly detract from the overall process. |
0.0 points No Credit |
10.0 points |
| Application of Course Concepts The relevant course content's equations, variables, and analysis are appropriately selected and applied. Short-answer conceptual questions are answered correctly by referring to the appropriate course content (if applicable). |
10.0 points A range Related concepts from the course have been applied effectively to analyze and solve the problem. |
8.8 points AB/B range Related equations and concepts from the course have generally been applied correctly to analyze and attempt a solution for the problem, but there may be minor errors in the variables or lack of clarity in the short answer. |
7.8 points BC/C range The related equations and concepts from the course may be present, but problems with the analysis or application of concepts demonstrate a lack of understanding of one or more key course concepts. |
5.0 points F range The related equations and concepts from the course have not been used in the response, and/or an understanding of the appropriate course content has not been demonstrated. |
0.0 points No Credit |
10.0 points |
| Mathematical Precisions & Accuracy The calculation has been carried out through all its steps with acceptable accuracy and precision. |
5.0 points A range No mathematical mistakes or only very minor mistakes that do not affect the accuracy and precision of the calculation. |
4.4 points AB/B range There may be some mathematical mistakes that slightly affect the accuracy and precision of the calculation. |
3.9 points BC/C range Mathematical mistakes significantly affect the accuracy and precision of the calculation, and/or the problem may be over-simplified or not all work was shown. |
2.5 points F range The attempt at mathematics is fundamentally flawed, and/or no work is shown. |
0.0 points No Credit |
5.0 points |
| Completeness The full assignment has been completed. |
5.0 points A range All parts of the problem have been completed. |
4.4 points AB/B range All parts of the problem have been attempted, but some may be partially incomplete. |
3.9 points BC/C range Most parts of the problem have been attempted, but some are incomplete. |
2.5 points F range Less than half of the questions have been attempted. |
0.0 points No Credit |
5.0 points |
| Total Points: | 50 points | |||||
|
Jacob Notbohm, Assistant Professor, Engineering Physics, College of Engineering
Shiva Rudrajaru, Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering
Daniel Pell, Strategic Learning Technology Consultant, DoIT Academic Technology
|
||||||
Summative Assignments - Using Rubrics To Detail Levels of Achievement
A detailed rubric for a summative assignment can ground the students’ efforts and the instructor’s assessment. This example, from Anthropology 104 - Cultural Anthropology and Human Diversity, highlights the flexibility and level of detail you can achieve with Canvas rubrics. Notably, some criteria are set to a definitive score while others capture a range - using either option, graders can modify the final score entered.
| Criteria | Ratings | Points | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Completion All the written parts of the assignment are complete. |
5.0 points A range All parts are complete and fully meet the requirements of the assignment. |
4.25 points AB/B range Most parts are complete and/or close to the assignment's requirements. |
3.75 points BC/C range Some parts of the assignment are incomplete or do not meet the requirements of the assignment. |
3.25 points F range The work is mostly incomplete or below the requirements of the assignment. |
0.0 points No Credit |
5.0 points |
| Clarity & Coherence of Writing The writing is clear, coherent, and logically organized. |
5.0 points A range The writing is clear, coherent, and logically organized. |
8.8 points AB/B range The writing is generally clear, coherent, and logically organized. |
7.8 points BC/C range The writing is not always clear, coherent, and logically organized, which can make it hard to understand. |
5.0 range F range There are problems in the writing which make it difficult to understand and significantly reduce the effectiveness of the answer. |
0.0 points No Credit |
5.0 points |
| Evidence of Research Process The research process has been followed through all its stages. |
10.0 points A range The research process has been followed through all of its stages. |
8.5 points AB/B range The research process has been generally followed, but some steps are not reported sufficiently or have not been given the expected effort. |
7.5 points BC/C range The research process has been loosely followed. Some steps are not reported sufficiently or have been given inadequate effort, which reduces the overall quality of the result. |
6.5 points F range The research process has generally not been followed or adequately reported, significantly reducing the results' overall quality. |
0.0 points No Credit |
10 points |
| Depth & Detail of Written Response Written responses are specific, detailed, and show depth. |
25 points A range The depth and detail of the responses exceed the expectations for the assignment. |
23.25 points AB/B range The depth and detail of the responses meet the expectations for the assignment. |
20.75 points BC/C range The depth and detail of the responses meet some of the expectations of the assignment, but explanations may be superficial or lack detail. |
17.5 points D range The depth and detail of the responses are below the assignment's expectations. Explanations are very superficial, and they lack key information and details. |
15.0 - 0 points F range The depth and detail of the responses are significantly below the expectations of the assignment. Explanations are limited, surface-level, or unjustified. |
25.0 points |
| Analysis and Critical Reflection Written responses are thoughtful and reflective and make connections to other course content and real-world situations. |
25.0 points A range The quality of the analysis, reflection, and connections made exceeds expectations for the assignment. |
23.35 points AB/B range The quality of the analysis, reflection, and connections meets the assignment's expectations. |
20.75 points BC/C range The quality of the analysis meets some of the expectations of the assignment, but there is little or no evidence of making connections to course content or real-world situations beyond the basic level. Those connections made may be inaccurate or unjustified. |
17.5 points F range The quality of the analysis is below the expectations of the assignment. There is little or no evidence of connecting to course content or real-world situations except at a very basic level. The connections made may be poorly explained, inaccurate, or unjustified. |
15.0 - 0 points F range The quality of the response is significantly below the expectations of the assignment. Any connections to other course content or real-world situations are poorly explained, inaccurate, or unjustified. |
25.0 points |
| Total Points: | 70 points | |||||
|
Claire Wendland, Professor, Anthropology, College of Letters and Science
Jerome Camal, Associate Professor, Anthropology, College of Letters and Science
Falina Enriquez, Assistant Professor, Anthropology, College of Letters and Science
Jennifer Estes, Teaching Assistant, Anthropology, College of Letters and Science
Daniel Pell, Strategic Learning Technology Consultant, DoIT Academic Technology
|
||||||
Rubrics Without Points - Using Rubrics To Provide Actionable Feedback
Rubrics aren’t only for grading! Canvas lets you remove the points from a rubric so that the descriptive text is all that students see. The assignment can also be graded separately from the rubric. In this example, the rubric is used to give students clear, actionable feedback on two draft research questions they submitted. The assignment is graded ‘Credit/No Credit’ separately from the rubric. The options you need to achieve this are accessed at set up or by clicking the ‘Pencil’ (e.g., if the rubric is used for multiple assignments).
| A104 | FWP #2.2 | Research Questions (no points) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
|||
| Research Question Comment Your TA uses this rubric to evaluate your proposed research questions. Please follow the advice you are given. If you have questions, contact your TA. |
Both Questions OK Both questions look like they can be successful for this project. Choose one. |
First Question OK The first question looks more likely to be successful for this assignment. Use this question. |
Second Question OK The second question looks more likely to be successful for this assignment. Use this question. |
Neither Question OK Neither of these questions seems likely to be successful for this project. Please get in touch with your TA right away for assistance. |
| Claire Wendland, Professor, Anthropology, College of Letters and Science Jerome Camal, Associate Professor, Anthropology, College of Letters and Science Falina Enriquez, Assistant Professor, Anthropology, College of Letters and Science Jennifer Estes, Teaching Assistant, Anthropology, College of Letters and Science Daniel Pell, Strategic Learning Technology Consultant, DoIT Academic Technology |
||||