Rubric Design

At a Lance King conference recently we heard something that struck a nerve. 'Frequency is not proficiency'... I'm not certain what was said after this because I spent the next 20 minutes reflecting on all the rubrics I had generated over the past 10 years and cringed when I thought about the 'amount' of time I used phrase such as 'occasionally', 'often' and so forth to describe proficiency.

Is it always the case that frequency is not proficiency? No I wouldn't believe so. I do think that there is an important point raised here, especially in relation to language acquisition and development, because the amount of times an idea or construct is used does not necessarily reflect understanding.

So what are the important rules for rubric design? We hope to have a list of good pointer on this page that apply from grade 1 to DP, hopefully seeing an evolution in design where students are doing it themselves in a qualitative fashion.

Sample Rubric from the unit:Is there life on Mars?

Students had to  research a predetermined planetary system and select the ‘goldilocks’ planet, clearly detailing the reasons why. The students also need to identify what measures could theoretically be taken to make the other planets habitable.

Students could display their knowledge by:

-Video blog/video entries (with script)

-Blog with diary entries supported by appropriate imagery

-Writing a short story, with appropriate referencing (for example memoirs)

-Booklet/brochure - like a travel brochure (done in the past tense - how the planet became a travel destination for humans.

Students have to identify two forms of life on the planet, plant or animal, identifying habitat and characteristics

CATEGORY	7-8	5-6	3-4	1-2
Criterion A: Knowing and understanding	I can apply my scientific knowledge and understanding of cells and planets in detail to consider the question of life on other planets. I accurately and clearly use my knowledge of cells and planets to make a scientific judgement to justify my opinion.	I apply my scientific knowledge and understanding of cells and planets in detail most of the times, to consider the question of life on other planets. I usually use my knowledge of cells and planets clearly to make a scientific judgement to justify my opinion.	I try to apply my scientific knowledge and understanding of cells and planets in to consider the question of life on other planets, but there are some errors. I use some knowledge of cells and planets and try to make a scientific judgement to justify my opinion, but it may have mistakes or lack evidence.	I demonstrate a limited ability to apply my scientific knowledge and understanding of cells and planets in to consider the question of life on other planets. I demonstrate little understanding of cells and planets. I also provide little evidence of providing scientific judgement to justify my opinion, and/or there are a lot of mistakes.
Criterion B: Inquiring and designing	I clearly address the question of life on other planets and use scientific reasoning to clearly justify my conclusion. I clearly suggest appropriate methods to justify my theory, using multiple sources	I usually address the question clearly of life on other planets and use scientific reasoning to clearly justify my conclusion. I provide an overview of appropriate methods to justify my theory, using a few sources	I try to answer the question of life on other planets but my use of scientific reasoning is limited when justifying my conclusion. I provide a limited overview of my methods, but there may be errors. I have few sources to support my argument	I demonstrate a limited ability to answer the question of life on other planets. There is little reference to my methods and there may be many errors. There is little or no evidence of sources to support my argument
Criterion C: Processing and evaluating	The information in my product is accurate, well organised. Everything is relevant to my deduction. I clearly use deductive reason to reach a conclusion based on strong scientific evidence.	The information in my product is mostly accurate and well organised. Most things are relevant to my deduction. I make a good effort to use deductive reason to reach a conclusion based on scientific evidence.	I try to organise my product but it can be unclear in structure at times. Not everything is relevant, or it is not clear. My deductive reasoning is basic, with some scientific evidence.	The organisation of my product is not clear with frequent errors. Little is relevant, or it is not clear. There is little or no deductive reasoning.

Criticisms of the rubric after implementation

Presentation and neatness needs to be added to the rubric, but students need to understand that many colourful pictures will not constitute a good piece of work. This was discussed quite a lot in class.

Some students did not include information about cells in their report, but did a good job with the rest of their information. However the fact that they left out an entire strand made it difficult to assess their work. Why did they omit an entire section of the unit? Where had I miscommunicated, because otherwise, their written piece was very good.