Assessment is one of the most challenging and time-consuming tasks in teaching. Rubrics can help with developing objective and consistent grading standards that streamline the grading process. Providing students with grading rubrics at the beginning of the semester sets expectations for the quality and quantity of posts. They are also useful as a tool for providing feedback.
Rubrics can be included on the syllabus or presented with assignments. Blackboard also offers tools, including a useful template, for creating rubrics online.
Table of Contents
1. Online Participation Grading Rubrics
Evaluation of student participation in online discussions requires additional efforts to avoid bias against students. This is especially true of both synchronous and asynchronous classes. Providing students with grading rubrics helps with setting key parameters for evaluation. It is also useful for the students to understand grading criteria and expectations. Below are three examples of rubrics followed by additional resources also downloadable as Word documents:
| 0–60% Poor | 61–79% Fair | 80–89% Good | 90–100% Excellent | |
| Participation frequency (Number of posts) | Missing posts; plagiarized submissions. | Missing posts and/or late submissions. Missing answers to some of the questions and/or parts of the questions. | Posting regularly, mostly on time. | Posting consistently on time. |
| Quality (Substance and quality of posts) | Missing posts and/or plagiarized submissions. | Showing some ability to understand the concepts. Posting correct answers some of the time. Able to use some clear and thoughtful language to discuss issues and concepts. | Showing good ability to understand and engage with the concepts and themes. Providing thoughtful answers. Using clear language to communicate ideas. | Showing advanced understanding of concepts. Providing insightful and thorough responses to questions. Using exceptionally clear language. |
| Engagement (Comments on other students’ posts) | Missing posts and/or plagiarized submissions. | Sometimes responding to other students’ posts in a thoughtful and engaging manner. (Less than [INSERT NUMBER] posts during the grading period) | Frequently responding to other students’ posts in a thoughtful and engaging manner. ([INSERT NUMBER] posts during the grading period) | Always responding to other students’ posts in a thoughtful and engaging manner. Providing thorough responses. (Over [INSERT NUMBER] posts during the grading period) |
The following example is less detailed, but might be easier for the students to understand:
| Contributions | Descriptions | Points |
| Analytical | Responses go beyond simply answering the question; reveal systematic/deep engagement with the topic; attempt to stimulate further thought and discussion | 20 |
| Substantial | Responses provide most of the content required by the question, but do not include deeper analysis of the subject | 15 |
| Superficial | Responses provide obvious information without further analysis of the concept; lack depth of knowledge of reasoning | 10 |
| Incorrect | Responses do not accurately answer the question; rambling and/or without consistency | 5 |
| None | No responses provided within the associated timeframe | 0 |
Finally, the University of Illinois at Springfield suggests an even simpler Three Point Discussion Rubric:
Up to 1 point for original thought / contribution (perspective not previously posted)
Up to 1 point for development of thought (full explanation, detail, insight; this usually requires a couple of paragraphs or more to accomplish)
Up to 1 point for responding to posting of others
- For additional examples of online participation rubrics, visit resources prepared by:University of Iowa, Pierce College, and University of Central Florida.
2. Research Project Grading Rubric
Since research projects involve multiple elements, it is useful to develop rubrics for different steps such as evaluations for compiling bibliography lists, defining research questions and/or hypotheses, collecting and analyzing data, and writing up the paper, among other steps. Below are some examples of rubrics for different parts of individual student research project assessment:
- Kansas State University provides one of the most comprehensive rubrics covering various aspects of research project assignments.
- Cornell Colleges provides another helpful rubric with thorough descriptions of different categories.
- An example of the grading criteria and procedures for a small individual research project is available under the Local Grocery Project assignment in the SOC 1101 Model Course developed by Jinwon Kim.
3. Small-Group Assignment Rubric
Group projects are another frequently used teaching method that may pose challenges for evaluation. The Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center provides excellent guidelines for how to set up group assessment:
- Assess individual, as well as group, learning and performance.
- Assess process as well as product.
- Make your assessment criteria and grading scheme clear.
Most common assessments of group work include individual student performance evaluations; collaborative group product evaluation; and work process assessment. More specifically, the Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center staff identifies three types of student progress assessment in the context of small group work:
team evaluations: each member of the team evaluates the dynamics of the team as a whole.
peer evaluations: each team member evaluates the contributions of his/her teammates.
self-evaluations: each team member documents and evaluates his own contributions to the team.
From Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center
Below are examples of rubrics combining these approaches:
- The Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center also provides excellent examples of tools aimed at improving and assessing small group work such as team contract template, group skill set and roles and self-assessment rubric examples.
- The Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation provides an excellent rubric for evaluating group work product. (A downloadable Word document is also available; if reproducing, please acknowledge the source accordingly):
| Skills | 4 Advanced – Exceeds expectations | 3 Competent – Meets expectations | 2 Progressing – Does not fully meet expectations | 1 Beginning – Does not meet expectations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contributions, Attitude | Always willing to help and do more. Routinely offered useful ideas. Always displays positive attitude. | Cooperative. Usually offered useful ideas. Generally displays positive attitude. | Sometimes cooperative. Sometimes offered useful ideas. Rarely displays positive attitude. | Seldom cooperative. Rarely offers useful ideas. Is disruptive. |
| Cooperation with Others | Did more than others–highly productive. Works extremely well with others. Never argues. | Did their part of the work-cooperative. Works well with others. Rarely argues. | Could have done more of the work–has difficulty. Requires structure, directions, and leadership. Argues sometimes. | Did not do any work–does not contribute. Does not work well with others. Usually argues with teammates. |
| Focus, Commitment | Tries to keep people working together. Almost always focused on the task and what needs to be done. Is very self-directed. | Does not cause problems in the group. Focuses on the task and what needs to be done most of the time. Can count on this person. | Sometimes not a good team member. Sometimes focuses on the task and what needs to be done. Must be prodded and reminded to keep on task. | Often is not a good team member. Does not focus on the task and what needs to be done. Lets others do the work. |
| Team Role Fulfillment | Participated in all group meetings. Assumed leadership role as necessary. Did the work that was assigned by the group. | Participated in most group meetings. Provided leadership when asked. Did most of the work assigned by the group. | Participated in some group meetings. Provided some leadership. Did some of the work assigned by the group. | Participated in few or no group meetings. Provided no leadership. Did little or no work assigned by the group. |
| Ability to Communicate | Always listens to, shares with, and supports the efforts of others. Provided effective feedback to other members. Relays a great deal of information–all relates to the topic. | Usually listens to, shares with, and supports the efforts of others. Sometimes talks too much. Provided some effective feedback to others. Relays some basic information–most relates to the topic. | Often listens to, shares with, and supports the efforts of others. Usually does most of the talking–rarely listens to others. Provided little feedback to others. Relays very little information–some relates to the topic. | Rarely listens to, shares with, or supports the efforts of others. Is always talking and never listens to others. Provided no feedback to others. Does not relay any information to teammates. |
| Correctness | Work is complete, well organized, has no errors and is done on time or early. | Work is generally complete, meets the requirements of the task, and is mostly done on time. | Work tends to be disorderly, incomplete, not accurate, and is usually late. | Work is generally sloppy and incomplete, has excessive errors and is mostly late or not at all. |
| Total Score: |
- Another example of a rubric for evaluating student work is available from the Carnegie Mellon website.
- The University of Delaware also provides an excellent table for assessing individual performance in groups.
4. Low-Stakes Writing Assignment Rubric
Low-stakes writing assignments offer a great way for the students to engage in class materials. Grading with rubrics is an excellent opportunity to provide effective feedback. Below is an excellent example of such rubric:
- The University of Waterloo teaching resources site suggests using a simple rubric:
✔+ Your insights are strong and you developed a compelling argument and/or the information is correct and detailed.
✔ You highlighted important issues but your argument could be more persuasive and/or some information is incorrect or there is not enough detail.
✔- You summarized the articles but did not answer the assigned question and/or all or most of the information is incorrect.
- The Georgetown University Writing Center website lists examples of rubrics professors use in their classes. Professor Sherry Linkoln uses “Framing Documents” assignment (the rubric follows the assignment):
The most productive low-stakes writing assignment in my courses has been the framing document, a 500-word text focused on a particular day’s readings. Students sign up to produce 4 of these during the semester. In the framing document, they answer 3 questions:
1) How does this text deepen, contradict, complicate, or extend the discussions we’ve been having about cities and representations?
2) What do you think we should focus on when we discuss this text?
3) How do you suggest we begin the discussion? What specific moments or aspects, ways of reading, comparisons with other texts will help us dig into the issues you want us to explore?
Students send these to me 24 hours before class, so I can incorporate the best of their insights and questions into our class discussion.
I use a simple 5-point checklist for grading. Students earn 1 point for each answer, 1 point for accuracy, and 1 for offering especially thoughtful or insightful comments. In course evaluations and follow-up discussions, students have consistently identified the framing document as the most useful element of the course. It ensures that at least a few students come to class every day very well prepared for discussion, and the questions help students develop the ability to focus on big ideas, to make connections among texts, and to frame and approach substantive, generative questions.
5. Oral Presentation Grading Rubric
Oral presentations are one of the most commonly used assignments in a classroom setting and online. There are number of excellent rubrics providing detailed feedback and assessment for the students:
- The University State University provides a downloadable Word document with four excellent examples of oral presentation grading rubrics. All the rubrics cover multiple aspects of presentation, yet are presented in a concise and easy to follow manner. (If adopting, please cite the source accordingly.)
- The Rutgers University website provides a more elaborate rubric for grading oral presentations of group work (both in-person and online) and includes notes for instructors.
6. Additional Resources
- The University of Florida has website provides an excellent list of ready-to-use rubrics that can be used as feedback. These include rubrics for grading research papers, portfolios, reflective essays, and oral presentations, among other assignment types.
- The Institute for Transforming University Education at the University of Delaware includes a number of useful rubrics.
