Types
of rubrics
Rubrics are generally categorized as generic or
task-specific. As is so often the case in assessment,
the line between the two categories may blur so that rating instruments
appear more or less generic or task-specific. Indeed, many
task-based rubrics are adaptations of generic scales. It is also
possible to design hybrid rubrics that combine features of both
types.
Generic rubrics can
be applied to a number of different tasks. In language assessment,
one frequently finds generic rubrics used with assessment tasks
within a modality (generally writing and speaking) or mode (interpersonal
and presentational). A truly generic rubric could be applied to
any task within the same modality or mode.
The dimensions in a generic rubric for second-language assessment
often emphasize features of language production, such as comprehensibility,
accuracy, and vocabulary, without making reference to specific content
or task details. Generic rubrics are often derived from models of
language proficiency and/or second language acquisition.
Figure 1  shows
a sample generic, analytic rubric for oral presentations (presentational
mode) for Intermediate level learners adapted from the ACTFL
Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners (K-12 Guidelines).
This example reflects a focus on features of second-language production,
but additional dimensions might be included in order to measure
such aspects of oral presentation as content coverage, organization,
connection with audience, elocution, use of graphics, and so on.
The terminology in Figure 1 is accessible to language-teaching
professionals, but it may not provide meaningful feedback to learners.
Large-scale and external assessments for purposes such as certification,
placement, articulation, and program evaluation often use generic
scales that contain a high degree of professional language and require
modification for classroom use.
A high school French teacher who commented on the rubric in Figure
1 indicated that, for classroom use, he prefers a rubric with short
descriptors that he can take in at a glance and that serve primarily
to refresh his memory of what performance is like at each step on
the scale. Because he has only a few seconds to evaluate each student,
and because he wants to spend as little class time as possible explaining
the terms in the rubric to his students, he preferes
simple vocabulary that neither he nor his students must ponder (J.-L.
Roche, personal communication, October 22, 2002). Figure 2
presents an adaptation of the oral presentation generic rubric for
classroom use.
It is certainly most efficient to design or identify rubrics that
can be used for multiple purposes, but when weighing the use of
generic versus task-based rubrics, efficiency is not the only important
criterion. Tedick
(2002) writes: "While some rubrics are created in such
a way as to be generic in scope for use with any number of writing
or speaking tasks, it is best to consider the task first and make
sure that the rubric represents a good fit with the task and your
instructional objectives. Just as a variety of task-types should
be used in language classrooms, so should a variety of rubrics and
checklists be used for assessing performance on those tasks. (p.
37)" For learners who are new to performance assessment and
evaluation, Tedick recommends making students comfortable with the
process by first using generic rubrics and gradually introducing
task-specific rubrics.
Task-specific rubrics
are used with particular tasks, and their criteria and
descriptors reflect specific features of the elicited performance.
Rubrics developed for a defined group of tasks within a modality
or mode, such as writing narratives, performing role-plays, or exchanging
e-mail messages may combine elements of language production with
dimensions related to the content and language function(s) of the
lesson/task. For example, if an assessment task requires learners
to use a series of pictures to tell a
story in the past about a visit to monuments in Paris, the scoring
criteria would focus on language competencies related to narration
in past tense along with one or more dimensions measuring content
and cultural knowledge. A possible rubric for this task is shown
in Figure 3.
Rubrics that combine features of generic and task-specific rubrics
are very useful in classroom assessment because they provide feedback
to learners on broad dimensions of language production along with
their performance on the particular competencies and knowledge targeted
by course content and aligned assessments. When adapting the rubrics
for other tasks, teachers may keep the generic language production
elements as they are and change one or two categories to focus on
task expectations. For example, one might add level-appropriate,
generic dimensions such as pronunciation or fluency to the task-specific
categories of narration, use of past tense, and knowledge about
monuments of Paris to the rubric in Figure 3.
Holistic, analytic, primary
trait and multiple trait rubrics may be
seen as different ways of selecting and organizing rating criteria.
These rubric types come from different contexts, and although their
particular uses and characteristics have converged in current practice,
there are some general guidelines for choosing among them. In addition,
each type has advantages and disadvantages.
In practice, you will probably find considerable variability in
how rubric types are identified. Holistic and analytic scales may
be identified as generic or task-specific, or they may include rating
criteria of both types. Primary and multiple trait rubrics are essentially
task-specific, but general language production categories may be
added to multiple trait rubrics.
Read more about:
|
