Examples of Rubrics
Several examples of rubrics that can be found on the web are linked below to aid in the development of rubrics for post secondary education settings.
Template for Creating a Rubric
The below link is to a MSWord file that contains a template for a rubric and instructions for how to use and modify the template to meet individual grading needs. Instructors can download this file and modify it as needed to construct their own rubric.
AAC&U VALUE Rubrics
The AAC&U VALUE initiative (2007-09) developed 16 VALUE rubrics for the LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes. Elements and descriptors for each rubric were based on the most frequently identified characteristics or criteria of learning for each of the 16 learning outcomes. Drafts of each rubric have been tested by faculty with their own students’ work on over 100 college campuses.
The VALUE rubrics contribute to the national dialogue on assessment of college student learning. The AAC&U web is widely used by individuals working in schools, higher education associations, colleges, and universities in the United States and around the world.
Instructors can use the rubrics in their current form. They can also modify the language and rubric elements to meet the specific needs of their assignment or assessment goal.
Access to the VALUE Rubrics is free. AAC&U requests that users register before downloading PDF or Word versions of the rubrics to assist their research on rubric use.
External link to AAC&U Rubric download page: http://www.aacu.org/value-rubrics
Collections of Rubric Links
Interactive Quality of an Online Course
Student Peer Review
Theses and Dissertations
Updated: 06/20/16 gb
SCORING RUBRIC FOR WRITTEN ESSAYS IN UPPER-LEVEL FL COURSES
|Excellent to very good: knowledgeable; substantive, thorough development of the thesis, including appropriate examples; quotations are well chosen to support the argument; quotations are well integrated and presented correctly, good analysis and synthesis of the material; literary devices noted and analyzed, good use of comparison and contrast, critical inquiry and interpretation. Interpretation is imaginative and nuanced.|
|Good to average: some knowledge of the subject; adequate range of analysis and synthesis; limited thematic development and use of examples; mostly relevant to the topic, but lacks detail in critical interpretation of the material; quotations support the argument somewhat; quotations are adequately integrated, but may be too long or short. Interpretation shows some originality.|
|Fair to poor: limited knowledge of the subject; minimal substance, analysis and synthesis; poor thematic development, use of examples and critical interpretation of the material; inadequate use of quotations. Interpretation is predictable and/or unfocused.|
|Very poor: shows little or no knowledge of the subject; lacking analysis or synthesis of the material and lacking good examples; inadequate quantity; not relevant, or not enough to rate. Interpretation is overly predictable.|
ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT:
|Excellent to very good: clear statement of ideas; title that orients the reader to the thesis; clear organization (beginning, middle, and end) and smooth transitions; introduction leads reader into topic; conclusion effectively summarizes main findings and follows logically from the analysis presented, logical and cohesive sequencing both between and within paragraphs; quotations/footnotes properly cited; length, spacing, fonts, margins, numbered pages all carefully adhered to.|
|Good to average: main ideas clear but loosely organized or connected; title pertinent to the thesis; sequencing logical but incomplete; bibliographical material and formatting adequate.|
|Fair to poor: ideas not well connected; title too general; poor organization and transitions; logical sequencing and development lacking; formatting inadequate.|
|Very poor: ideas not communicated; no title; organization, sequencing and transitions lacking, or not enough to rate, formatting lacking.|
GRAMMAR, VOCABULARY, AND FLUENCY:
|Excellent to very good: fluent expression; accurate use of relatively complex structures; very few grammatical errors. Complex range of vocabulary; accurate word/idiom choice; mastery of word forms and expressions; appropriate level of usage.|
|Good to average: adequate fluency; simple constructions used effectively; some problems in use of complex constructions; some grammar and spelling errors.|
|Fair to poor: low fluency; significant mistakes in the use of complex constructions; frequent grammar and spelling errors, lack of accuracy interferes with meaning.|
|Very poor: lacks fluency; no mastery of simple sentence construction; text dominated by errors; does not communicate meaning, or not enough to rate.|
|Excellent to very good: all supporting documents required are attached and appropriately labeled: 1) a typed first draft; 2) peer review and evidence that you have addressed these comments , 3) the checklist/reflective statement, and 4) final draft reflecting all previous work.|
|Good to average: checklist/reflective statement missing.|
|Fair to poor: Two of the supporting documents missing.|
|Very poor: Three of the supporting documents missing.|
Late submissions will be penalized by 10 points/day, if an extension is not suggested or approved ahead of time by professor.
REMINDER TO STUDENTS:
ALL WORK SUBMITTED MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A SIGNED NC STATE ACADEMIC CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT HONOR PLEDGE. ANY VIOLATION OF THE PLEDGE WILL RESULT IN A FAILING GRADE FOR THE PAPER.
Adapted from: Hedgcock and Lefkowitz,Collaborative Oral/Aural Revision in Foreign Language Writing Instruction, Journal of Second Language Writing 1(3):255-76, 1992, cited in Scott, Rethinking Foreign LanguageWriting, 1995, p. 116.
Return to Home