A. What is a rubric? A rubric is a set of scoring
guidelines for evaluating student work.
Rubrics answer the questions: By
what criteria should performance be judged?
Where should we look and what should we look for to judge performance
success? What does the range in the
quality of performance look like? How
do we determine validly, reliably, and fairly what score should be given and
what that score means? How should the
different levels of quality be described and distinguished from one another?[1]
A typical rubric:
1. Contains
a scale of possible points to be assigned in scoring work, on a
continuum of quality. High numbers
usually are assigned to the best performances: scales typically use 4, 5 or 6
as the top score, down to 1 or 0 for the lowest scores in performance
assessment.
2. Provides descriptors
for each level of performance to enable more reliable and unbiased
scoring.
3. Is either holistic
or analytic. If holistic, a
rubric has only one general descriptor for performance as a whole. If analytic, there are multiple rubrics
corresponding to each independent dimension of performance being
scored. Examples:
·
“Syntax,” “focus,” and “voice” in writing
·
“Precision of calculations” and “understanding of scientific
method” in science
4. Is generic,
genre or task specific.
If generic, it can be used to judge a very broad performance, such as
communication or problem solving. If
genre specific, it applies to a more specific type of performance within the
broad performance category (e.g. essay or speech or narrative as forms of
communication; open-ended problems or closed-ended problems as kinds of
problems solved). Task specific is unique
to a single task.
5. May be longitudinal. It measures progress over time toward
mastery of educational objectives such that we assess developmental change in
sophistication or level of performance.
B. The best rubrics:
1. Are
sufficiently generic to relate to general goals beyond an individual
performance task but specific enough to enable useful and sound inferences on
the task.
2. Discriminate among performances validly,
not arbitrarily - by the central features of performance, not by
the easiest to see, count, or score.
3. Do not combine independent criteria in one
rubric.
4. Are based on analysis of many work samples,
and based on the widest possible range of work samples - including valid
exemplars.
5. Rely on descriptive language - what
quality, or its absence, looks like - as opposed to relying heavily on mere
comparatives or value language (e.g. “not as thorough as,” or “excellent
product”) to make the discrimination.
6. Provide useful and apt discrimination to
enable sufficiently fine judgments -- but not using so many points on
the scale as to threaten reliability (typically involving, therefore, 6-12
points on a scale).
7. Use descriptors that are sufficiently rich
to enable student performers to verify their score, accurately
self-assess, and self-correct.
• The use of bulleted “indicators” makes the
description less ambiguous- hence, more reliable - by providing examples of
what to look for in recognizing each level of performance. (Indicators are useful concrete signs or
examples of criteria being met, but not always reliable or appropriate in a
given context.)
8. Highlight the judging of the “impact” of
performance - the effect, given the purpose - as opposed to over-rewarding
merely the processes, the formats, or the content used; and/or the good-faith
effort made.
C. Technical
Requirements of Rubrics:
1.
Continuous: The change in quality from score point to
score point must be “equal”: the degree
of difference between a 5 and 4 should be the same as between a 2 and a 1. The descriptors should reflect this
continuity.
2.
Parallel: Each descriptor should be constructed
parallel to all of the others, in terms of the crititical language used in each
sentence.
3.
Coherent: The rubric must focus on the same criteria
throughout. While the descriptor for
each point on the scale will be different from the ones before and after, the
changes should refer to the variance of quality for the (fixed) criteria, not
language that explicitly or implicitly introduces new criteria or a shift in
the importance of the various criteria.
4.
Aptly Weighted: With multiple rubrics there must be an apt,
not arbitrary weighting of each criterion in reference to the others.
5.
Valid: The rubric permits valid inferences about
performance to the degree that what is scored is what is central to
performance, not what is merely easy to see and score. The proposed differences in quality should
a) reflect task analysis and be based
upon samples of work across the full range of performance, b) describe qualitative, not quantitative
differences in performance, and c) not confuse merely correlative behaviors
with actual authentic criteria. (e.g. many speakers use note cards, but using
note cards or not using note cards should not be a criterion in judging
relative success in speaking effectiveness.
Rather, the rubric should enable assessment of the relative smoothness
and informativeness of the presentation)
6.
Reliable: The rubric enables consistent scoring across
judges and time. Rubrics allow reliable
scoring to the degree that evaluative language (“excellent,” “poor”) and
comparative language (“better than,” “worse than”) is transformed into highly-descriptive
language which helps judges recognize the salient and distinctive features of
each level of performance.
D. Stages in
Rubric Construction:
1. There are many important decisions to be
made in rubric construction:
• The
criteria to be used in assessing
performance
• How many rubrics will be used (whether
there will be one holistic rubric, separate rubrics for each criterion,
or separate rubrics for various feasible combinations of criteria)
• How
fine a discrimination needs to be
made, (i.e. how many different points on the scale there will be)
• How
different criteria will be weighted
relative to other criteria (if there are separate rubrics for various criteria)
• What
point on the scale will be the “cut
score,” (i.e. the difference between passing and failing the task)
• Which
standard (hence, which performance
samples) will anchor the rubric
a.
The initial design decisions will likely (and appropriately) change
as the work of design unfolds and the feedback from actual use emerges and
suggests apt refinements
b.
Rubric editing decisions,
based on the feedback from peer reviewers, performers, and designer
self-assessment after use, typically involve:
• Making
sure impact criteria are represented and aptly weighted
• Revising
the language of descriptors to make it more descriptive and less based on
comparative or evaluative language - using bulleted specific indicators under
each general paragraph description, where possible
• Refining
the language of the descriptors based on more performance samples
• Including
more score points so as to make finer distinctions
• Revising
the descriptor for the highest score and the cut score to demand higher
standards of performance
• Revising
the descriptors to make sure that the rubric language is consistent, parallel,
and smooth across score points (i.e. the gaps between score points are equal).
2. The logic of rubric design and refinement[2]
a.
Establish a first-draft of the possible criteria to be used in scoring the work.
1.
The criteria derive from the achievement target: if the aim is “effective writing,” then the
criteria might be engaging, mindful of
audience, clear, focused, effective voice, etc.
2.
There are different types of
criteria, relating to different aspects of performance, that need to be considered
in designing assessments.
|
work
quality and craftsmanship |
adequacy
of methods and behaviors |
||||
|
validity
of content |
sophistication
of knowledge employed |
|
||
Many
assessments make the mistake of over-emphasizing content, format, and
conventions while under-emphasizing “impact” and “methods”.
b.
Decide which of the possible criteria are most important for the purpose and nature of this particular assessment,
vs. the feasibility of using those criteria or that many criteria.
Keep in mind that, regardless of the criteria implied
in the targeted achievement, the particular demands of the specific performance
task may imply additional, task-specific criteria.
•
For example: if the task is to
write a winning proposal for a new museum, there would likely be specific
criteria related to writing proposals or including task-specific information
c.
Decide whether there will be one holistic
rubric or various analytic-trait
rubrics for each of the priority criteria.
1.
The trade-offs are efficiency vs.
effectiveness: holistic rubrics are
quicker and easier to write and use, but analytic rubrics give better feedback
and more valid results.
2.
Beyond issues of time and labor, the question to be asked is: will a holistic score conceal more than it
reveals? Would similar scores likely be
given to such vastly different performances that the rubric doesn’t really help
anyone know the meaning of the scores?
•
For example: if one paper is
weak in clarity but strong in the power of the ideas, and another paper is the
opposite, only one score is given, and they thereby get the same score, has the
efficiency cost us too much in understanding?
d. Begin by trying to build a
4-point or 6-point rubric, regardless
of how many points on a scale you want the rubric(s) to eventually have.
1.
It is customary for the best scores to get the highest numbers, e.g. a
“6” on a 6-point rubric would be the most successful performance and a “1”
would be the least successful.
2.
In many systems, the number “0” is a special score, reserved for
performance that are not scorable due to work that is illegible, too
incomplete, completely off the subject, etc.
3. The refinement of the discrimination to 7 or more points will best
come later -- from looking at (somewhat differing) samples of student work that
get the same score and from reflecting upon the judging process with its
inevitable conflicted decisions, suggesting the need to refine the scoring
process.
e.
Though your rubric(s) should eventually minimize the use of
comparative and evaluative language, begin at first to sketch out the rubric language for each point on the scale by using words
like excellent/good/fair/poor so as to set the right tone for each point on the
scale.
1.
The key to good rubric construction is to eventually replace (or amplify the meaning of) words like
“excellent” with language which, in effect, describes what excellence
actually looks like in performance.
•
The key to the eventual validity and clarity of the rubrics therefore
depends upon summarizing the traits of many actual performance samples
taken from each point on the scale:
what do the “4’s” have in common?
What do the “6’s” do that the “5’s” don’t do well or at all? etc.
2.
Once you have a paragraph for each point on the proposed scale, add various concrete indicators of when
such a criterion is met. The refinement
of the descriptor typically requires the designer to carefully distinguish between valid criteria and indicators.
• Criteria provide the general description
of what must occur (e.g. “the ‘3’ paper is clear and accurate, but
not always focused or fully developed”).
• Indicators provide specific examples of
the criterion being met (e.g. “the writer makes claims without providing
evidence for them, the writer answers a question different than the one posed,”
etc.)
• Indicators
suggest the criterion has been met; they are neither foolproof nor
appropriate in every situation, but they help the performer and the judge
better know the quality of the performance.
f.
Always build your rubrics from
the top, starting from a description
of exemplary performance.
1.
Regardless of whether or not students can perform at exemplary levels,
the rubric must be built from a picture
of excellence to establish a valid target and anchor for scoring.
2.
Therefore, it is rarely wise to mechanically
translate performance scores into letter grades!! Scores are meant to report out performance against standards, not
against expectations of performers.
•
For example: we would not give a
novice diver an “F” simply because their first dives in performance never
earned scores above 4.5 on a 10-point scale.
3.
In the absence of any performance samples in initial construction of
rubrics, either produce an exemplary performance sample yourself or collect and
analyze samples of performance excellence as found in the adult world of
similar performance.
4.
Make sure that you use 2-3
different samples of excellence so as not too limit your or your students’
thinking about possible excellence. The
goal is not to limit performance or creativity but to make clear what
performances must be, no matter how diverse, to be excellent.
g.
Begin by writing your descriptors as if you were writing for
knowledgeable judges of performance, not novice performers. Edit
them later, based on purpose, audience, and feasibility.
•
You may decide at a later stage to edit the descriptors for student use
in self-assessment OR you might decide to write parallel versions of the
rubrics for student use.
h.
Carefully craft the language of the cut score point on the scale, so as
to make clear what the performer must do for minimal success. Resist the urge to describe the lowest
points on the scale in deficit terms only.
(What is accomplished at even the lowest levels?)
i.
Edit and amplify the rubric as necessary, based on feedback from use and
from peer review.
E. Criteria and Indicators, elaborated:
1. What is a
criterion?
A
criterion is a specific achievement, providing one or more ways of operationalizing
success at meeting a goal or a targeted achievement (educational outcome). If the criteria are met, then we may
conclude that the performance has been successful - (i.e. that an educational
goal has been met). Criteria are thus
necessary and sufficient: the success
has not occured unless the criteria are met, and the criteria apply in all
attempted performances.
Examples
of criteria, in relation to performance goals:
• Criteria
for the high jump = clear the bar without knocking it off
• Criteria
for effective speaking = engage and inform the audience
• Criteria
for solving problems = accurate,
cost-effective, efficient solutions
2. There are different types of criteria.
As
noted above, we believe it is useful to make assessment designers aware that
there are different types of criteria,
relating to different aspects of performance:
|
"impact
of performance" |
refers
to the success of performance, given
the purposes, goals and desired
results |
|
"work
quality and craftsmanship" |
refers
to the overall polish, organization, and rigor of the work |
|
"adequacy
of methods and behaviors" |
refers
to the quality of the procedures and manner of presentation, prior to
and during performance |
|
"validity
of content" |
refers
to the correctness of the ideas, skills, or materials used |
|
“
sophistication of knowledge employed” |
refers
to the relative complexity or maturity of the knowledge employed |
3. For example: There are different
types of criteria implied in a specific achievement:
Targeted
Achievement: Cook a good meal
·
impact: meal is nutritious, pleasing to senses
·
work
quality: meal is appeallingly presented and all
dishes are cooked to taste
·
methods:
meal is efficiently
prepared, and uses the freshest ingredients
·
content: meal reflects knowledge of food, cooking, situation, and diners'
requests
·
knowledge: meal
reflects sophisticated techniques and tastes
4. Indicators
An
indicator is a concrete sign or symptom of a criterion being met. Indicators help make assessment and
self-assessment easier by identifying typical behaviors or traits of
performance that signify a criterion being met or not met.
For
example, consider assessment of good speaking:
The
criterion: Student speaks in an engaging manner
Indicators
of that criterion being met might include:
• makes eye
contact
• modulates
voice pleasantly
• uses
stories and humor appropriate to
audience and context
• handles
audience questions gracefully
Note that
indicators are helpful but not always reliable. For example, some effective speakers do not
make eye contact; some engaging speakers use a deliberately serious but provocative
style to engage their audience; some speeches do not allow for listener
questions; etc.
Examples of different criteria
types for use in design:
F. Making Rubrics More
Authentic:
Criteria should validly, not
arbitrarily, distinguish different levels or degrees of quality
performance. Authentic assessment would
properly balance the impact of the work with an assessment of content and
process.
A subtle version of arbitrariness
involves the use of criteria that are necessary to good performance, but
not sufficient. Consider the
following criteria typically used to assess writing in many large-scale
performance tests:
|
Organization |
Sentence Construction |
|
|
|
|
Usage/Word Choice |
Mechanics |
|
|
|
|
Focus |
Voice |
Compare those work quality
criteria to the following four criteria related to impact:
|
Clarity |
Persuasiveness |
|
|
|
|
Memorability |
Enticingness[3] |
|
|
|
Note that
the bottom four criteria not only relate more clearly to the desired impact - hence,
the purpose of writing - but implicitly
incorporate the top four criteria - without arbitrarily restricting the writer
to conventions and rules.
1. An Exercise in Rubric Criteria Critique: “What is wrong here?”
Consider: What are the stated and implied criteria for
judging narrative here? Could a student
meet these criteria without creating excellent narratives? What criteria are not mentioned but should
be?
[from the National Assessment of
Education Progress (NAEP) Portfolio Assessment (1992) A rubric used to judge the quality of stories in 4th and
8th-grade writings:]
Narrative
Scoring Guide: 4th & 8th Grade
Writing
1. Event
Description: Paper is a list of
sentences minimally related or a list of sentences that all describe a single
event.
2. Undeveloped Story: Paper is a listing of related
events. More than one event is
described, but with few details about setting, characters, or the events. (Usually there is no more than one sentence
telling about each event.)
3. Basic
Story: Paper describes a series of events,
giving details (in at least two or three sentences) about some aspect of the
story (the events, the characters’ goals, or problems to be solved). But the story lacks cohesion because of
problems with syntax, sequencing, events missing, or an undeveloped ending.
4. Extended
Story: Paper describes a
sequence of episodes, including details about most story elements (i.e.,
setting, episodes, characters’ goals, problems to be solved). But the stories are confusing or incomplete
(i.e., at the end the characters’ goals are ignored or problems inadequately
resolved; the beginning does not match the rest of the story; the internal
logic or plausibility of characters’ actions is not maintained).
5. Developed Story: Paper describes a sequence of episodes in
which almost all story elements are clearly developed (i.e., setting, episodes,
characters’ goals, or problems to be solved) with a simple resolution of these
goals or problems at the end. May have
one or two problems or include too much detail.
6. Elaborated
Story: Paper describes a
sequence of episodes in which almost all story elements are well developed
(i.e., setting, episodes, characters’ goals, or problems to be solved). The resolution of the goals or problems at
the end are elaborated. The events are
presented and elaborated in a cohesive way.
G. Rubric
Samples:
1. Holistic
Rubrics
a. From an Advanced Placement U. S. History Essay
Question
“I am not, nor have ever been, in favor
of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and
black races.”
How can this 1858 statement by Abraham
Lincoln be reconciled with his 1862 Emancipation Proclamation?
|
13-15 |
Clear argument regarding
question of reconciliation; sophisticated understanding of Lincoln’s views on
race, and slavery; solid understanding of historical context of 1850’s and
1860’s (may emphasize one period); factual documentation may contain
inconsequential errors. |
|
|
|
|
10-12 |
Addresses question of
reconciliation; understanding of Lincoln’s views on race, slavery;
understanding of historical context of 1850’s and 1860’s (may emphasize one
period); factual documentation may contain minor errors. |
|
|
|
|
7-9 |
Attempts to address question of
reconciliation; discussion of Lincoln’s views and historical context of
1850’s and 1860’s may be uneven; limited factual documentation; some errors. |
|
|
|
|
4-6 |
Little or no attempt to address
question of reconciliation; factual documentation may be irrelevant,
inaccurate, confused; generalized discussion lacks substance; may contain
major errors. |
|
|
|
|
1-3 |
Vague on question; evidence
inaccurate, incompetent; an inept or inappropriate response. |
b. Mark Twain Elementary School - 5th Grade Inquiry:
the Oral Presentation
Student performance will be rated
according to the following criteria.
Scores will be assigned that best describes the student’s oral
performance.
5 Excellent: The student clearly describes
the question studied and provides strong reasons for its importance. Specific information is given to support the
conclusions that are drawn and described.
The delivery is engaging and sentence structure is consistently
correct. Eye contact is made and
sustained throughout the presentation.
There is strong evidence of preparation, organization, and enthusiasm
for the topic. The visual aid is used
to make the presentation more effective.
Questions from the audience are clearly answered with specific and
appropriate information.
4 Very Good: The student described the
question studied and provides reasons for its importance. An adequate amount of information is given
to support the conclusions that are drawn and described. The delivery and sentence structure are
generally correct. There is evidence of
preparation, organization, and enthusiasm for the topic. The visual aid is mentioned and used. Questions from the audience are answered
clearly.
3 Good: The student describes the question
studied and conclusions are stated, but supporting information is not as strong
as a 4 or 5. The delivery and sentence
structure are generally correct. There
is some indication of preparation and organization. The visual aid is mentioned.
Questions from the audience are answered.
2 Limited: The student states the question
studied, but fails to fully describe it.
No conclusions are given to answer the question. The delivery and sentence structure is
understandable, but with some errors.
Evidence of preparation and organization is lacking. The visual aid may or may not be
mentioned. Questions from the audience
are answered with only the most basic response.
1 Poor: The student makes a
presentation without stating the question or its importance. The topic is unclear and no adequate
conclusions are stated. The delivery is
difficult to follow. There is no
indication of preparation or organization.
Questions from the audience receive only the most basic, or no,
response.
0 - No oral presentation
is attempted.
c. Rubric for Open-Ended Math Problems [from
California CAP math report (1989)]
Demonstrated Competence
6 Exemplary Response: Gives a
complete response with a clear, coherent, unambiguous, and elegant explanation;
includes a clear and simplified diagram; communicates effectively to the
identified audience; shows understanding of the problem’s mathematical ideas
and processes; identifies all the important elements of the problem; may
include examples and counter-examples; presents strong supporting arguments.
5 Competent
Response: Gives a fairly complete response with reasonably clear
explanations; may include an appropriate diagram; communicates effectively to
the identified audience; shows understanding of the problems ideas and
processes; identifies most important elements of the problem; presents solid
supporting arguments.
Satisfactory Response
4 Minor Flaws But Satisfactory: Completes the
problem satisfactorily, but the explanation may be muddled; argumentation may
be incomplete; diagram may be inappropriate or unclear; understands the
underlying mathematical ideas; uses ideas effectively.
3 Serious Flaws but Nearly Satisfactory: Begins
the problem appropriately but may fail to complete or may omit significant
parts of the problem; may fail to show full understanding of math. ideas and
processes; may make major computational errors; may misuse or fail to use math.
terms; response may reflect an inappropriate strategy for solving the problem.
Inadequate Response
2 Begins, but Fails to Complete Problem: Explanation
is not understandable; diagram may be unclear; shows no understanding of the
problem situation; may make major computational errors.
1 Unable to Begin Effectively: Words
used do not reflect the problem; drawings misrepresent the problem situation;
fails to indicate which information is appropriate...
0
No Attempt
d. From the North Carolina State Department of Public
Instruction,
10th grade writing assessment:
ARGUMENTATIVE COMPOSITION
FOCUSED HOLISTIC SCORE SCALE
6 The
response exhibits a strong command of argumentative writing with an effective
sequence of events. It is focused and
has a fluent, clear progression of ideas and evenness of development. There are strengths in all four
criteria. The writer provides specific,
relevant details to support ideas.
These papers exhibit a strong command of an argumentative writing
strategy. The writer clearly develops
all parts of the prompt and uses an appropriate and highly effective approach
(i.e. tone, point of view, originality).
An appropriate sense of audience exists. Sentence structure is varied and effective, and word choice
demonstrates the ability to use a wide vocabulary skillfully. If a literary work is referred to, the work
must be from world literature (other than American or British literature). There is a sense of overall completeness. A clear persuasive tone exists where the
prompt requires it.
5 The response
is focused, progresses logically, and exhibits a command of argumentative
writing. There are strengths in all
four criteria. There is no break in
progression. The writer uses specific
details and clearly links events and relationships. A few minor flaws in coherence may be present. The writer addresses all aspects of the
prompt and uses effective vocabulary and sentence structure. If a literary work is referred to, the work
must be from world literature (other than American or British literature). An appropriate sense of audience
exists. There is a sense of overall
completeness. A persuasive tone exists
where the prompt requires it.
4 The response
is focused and established progression of ideas and events although minor
lapses in focus and progression may be present. The papers have elaboration and support in the form of specific
details. Papers scored “4” have an
organizational pattern, but minor flaws may exist. They may have minor weaknesses in coherence. The writer clearly addresses the topic and
supports it, although some aspect of the prompt may be missing. If a literary work is referred to, the work
must be from world literature (other than American or British literature). A sense of audience and persuasive tone must
exist if the prompt requires it.
3 This
response exhibits some progression of ideas and events and provides some
elaboration and support. The
elaboration may be flawed, but it has relevance to the requirements of the
prompt. Papers scored “3” have
generally organized pattern but contain minor flaws. The papers are generally coherent although minor weaknesses in
coherence may be present. Although
these papers are focused on the prompt, some may not address all aspects of the
prompt. Some papers may tend to
summarize at times, and other may have a list-like quality but may have
concrete, supporting details. In some
responses, a sense of audience and persuasive tone may exist.
2 There is
evidence that the writer has seen the prompt and responded to it, although the
response may be unclear. Some responses
may have little or no sense of connection between a controlling idea and
supporting details relevant to development.
Other responses may have a sense of focus but may lose it. Some “2” responses may be extended lists or
lists with some extension. The writer
has some sense of organization, but the composition may be too sparse for a
higher score point. Some of the
compositions may not directly address all aspects of the prompt, and others may
lapse into summary.
1 There
is evidence that the writer has seen and attempted to respond to the
prompt. However, the response may not
sustain focus on the topic or it may not maintain a constant position. The writer may attempt to support ideas, but
there may be no sense of strategy or control.
Many responses exhibit skeletal control but may be too sparse to be
scored higher than a “1.” Some
responses may lack coherence and/or may have an inappropriate strategy (i.e.
pure summary, pure list).
0 The response
addresses a literary work but is incorrect in its perception of the literary
concept.
Non-Scorable The
response is off topic, unreadable, or blank.
e. Heritage High School
(Littleton, Co.) SeniorEessay
(Using a
reading prompt and scoring rubric from the Colorado State placement exam)
9-8 The upper range responses satisfy
the following criteria:
|
a. Summary-the summary should identify main idea [of the
reading]. |
|
b. Focus of agreement. Agreement
and/or disagreement may be complete or partial but writer must make clear
what he/she is agreeing/disagreeing with. Specifically, 8-9 papers must address author's thesis, not
substance abuse generally. |
|
c. Support for agreement/disagreement-Support should provide an
analysis of argument and/or relevant and concrete examples... |
|
d. Style and coherence-These papers demonstrate clear style, overall
organization, and consecutiveness of thought. They contain few repeated errors in usage, grammar, or
mechanics. |
7 This grade is used for papers which fulfill basic
requirements for the 9-8 grade but have less development, support, or analysis.
6-5 Middle range papers omit or are
deficient in one of these four criteria:
a. Summary- Summary absent or
incomplete, listing only author's thesis
b. Focus of agreement/disagreement-What the writer is
agreeing/disagreeing with is not clear or unrelated to author's proposals.
Example: writer doesn’t use enough
phrasing like “on the one hand... on
the other hand...”
c. Support-Writer only counter-asserts; examples are highly
generalized or not distinguishable from examples in the article. Analysis may
be specious, irrelevant or thin.
d. Style and coherence-These papers are loosely organized or
contain noticeable errors in usage, grammar or mechanics....
4 This grade is used for papers slightly weaker than the 6-5
papers. Also, a student who writes
his/her own parallel essay in a competent style should receive a 4.
3-2 These papers are deficient in two or more of the
criteria. Typically, these papers
weakly paraphrase the article OR they have serious organization/coherence
problems. Papers with serious, repeated
errors in usage, grammar or mechanics must be placed in this range.
2. Analytic
Trait Rubrics:
a. Criteria and their weighting, from the Virginia “Literacy
Passport”
|
|
Criteria |
4 Consistent Control |
3 Reasonable Control |
2 Significant Control |
1 No Control |
|
x3 |
Composing • Central
Idea • Elaboration • Organization • Unity |
|
|
|
|
|
x1 |
Mechanics • Spelling • Format • Caps • Divided Words • Internal Punctuation • End Punctuation |
|
|
|
|
|
x1 |
Sentence Formation • Word Order • Completeness • Enjambment • Expansion • Embedding |
|
|
|
|
|
x2 |
Style • Vivid Vocabulary • Tone • Voice • Selecting Information • Sentence Variety |
|
|
|
|
|
x1 |
Usage • Inflections • Agreement • Conventions |
|
|
|
|
b. Assessing Performance in a
Socratic Seminar[4]
c. Mathematics Problem-Solving - from CLASS work in North Carolina
Criteria:
|
• Mathematical Insight |
• Accuracy |
|
• Mathematical Reasoning |
• Quality
of Presentation |
|
• Effectiveness & Inventiveness of
Solution |
|
Mathematical Insight
5 Shows a sophisticated understanding of
the underlying mathematics involved. The concepts, formulae, techniques, and/or
tools used go beyond the uses typically found at this level of experience. Grasps the essence of the problem: applies mathematically apt and powerful
tools to solving it. The work shows
that the student is able to move from the particulars and generalize to models.
4 Shows a thorough understanding of the
underlying mathematics involved. The
concepts, formulae, techniques, and tools that are used are appropriate and
adequate for solving the problem.
Grasps the essence of the problem and applies mathematically apt tools
to solving it.
3 Shows an adequate understanding of the
underlying mathematics involved. Work
reveals control over appropriate algorithms, formulae, concepts, etc. but has
some difficulty in seeing beyond the particulars of the problem to more
powerful and inclusive models, formulae, or generalizations. There may be gaps or an absence of some
needed concepts, formulae, algorithms that are necessary for solving the
problem, but they should be minor.
2 Shows a limited understanding of the
underlying mathematics involved. General principles or underlying formulae are
infrequently or incorrectly used. The
student's work may be adequate to solve the problem but typically relies on
crude inductive and empirical strategies or needlessly laborious trial and
error approaches.
1 Shows no understanding of the underlying
mathematics involved in the problem.
Little or no use is made of general principles, formulae, algorithms, or
available resources to help with their deficiency.
0 Insufficient evidence in the response to
judge the student's knowledge of the mathematics involved in this problem. (Typically due to a failure to complete the
problem.)
Mathematical Reasoning
5 Develops a methodical, powerful, and
thorough plan for solving the problem.
The approach and answers are explicitly detailed and reasonable throughout
(whether or not the knowledge used is sophisticated or accurate). The student
justifies all claims with compelling evidence and argument: counter‑arguments,
questionable data, and implicit premises are explored.
4 Develops
fully a methodical plan for solving the problem. The approach taken is appropriate, well‑thought out, and
based on reasonable data and strategies.
The student provides evidence and argument for most claims, and the
quality of the argument is high. All
important reasoning is explicit and logical, though the student may not have
considered one or two implicit variables or premises. Even when there is limited mathematical knowledge and a failure
to come up with the right answer by the preferred methods, all the answers and
methods are reasonable.
3 Grasps the problem adequately and develops
an acceptable plan for solving it. All
important variables have been considered, though the arguments may be
incomplete. The problem‑solving
plan may be inefficient: these papers provide some evidence that the student
had difficulty devising an appropriate strategy: the final write‑up of
the data and analysis may have gaps or illogical organizations of steps. Some answers or strategies along the way may
not be reasonable ones, but the work provides evidence that the student was
able to recognize questionable answers and re‑think the reasoning.
2 Provides a
barely adequate plan for solving the problem, and/or fails to consider certain
critical aspects of the problem in the overall strategy. Even when work is thorough, the answers and
strategies along the way may not be reasonable or sound, suggesting that the
student is "number crunching" with limited understanding of the meaning
of the results and the logic of proving a point. There is a semblance of sequential steps and organization of data
into a meaningful result, but no clear overall strategy or logic of working out
an approach based on the needs of the problem.
1 The
student has failed to come up with any clear, appropriate, and/or reasonable
strategy for solving the problem. There
is a semblance of proof or logic only:
randomness or inappropriate step after step characterize the work
provided. These papers never get much
beyond random calculations, hunches, and/or drawings and notes.
Math:
Effectiveness and Inventiveness of Solution
5 The solution to the problem is effective
and inventive. The essential details of
the problem and the real‑world context are fully addressed. The work reveals a clear understanding of
how the "ideal" mathematical results may or may not be the most apt
in the context of this problem: the real‑world variables and implicit
premises have been carefully and fully explored. The solution is creative in many possible ways: an unorthodox
approach, the thoughtful juggling of conflicting variables, the bringing in of
mathematics in ways not likely seen as apt by most students, etc.
4 The solution to the problem is
effective. The details of the problem
and the real‑world context are clearly addressed. The work reveals a clear understanding of
how the "ideal" mathematical results may or may not be the most apt
in the context of this problem. Most,
if not all ,of the real‑world variables and implicit premises have been
carefully and fully explored.
3 The solution to the problem is not fully effective. Some important assumptions and facts have
not been considered in the solution and methods. EITHER the work does
not reveal a clear understanding of how the “ideal” mathematical answer relates
to the practical aspects and constraints of this context (the more obvious
real-world variables are considered, but some implied variables are not
addressed); OR the solution is ineffective as a result of the
mathematical facts and principles involved not being used or understood. (An inventive but ineffective response
should be given a “3”.)
2 The solution to the problem is ineffective, due to weak
mathematical understanding of the problem and/or weakness in relating the mathematical calculations
and models to real‑world constraints and considerations.
1 The solution to the problem is incomplete and ineffective.
Math:
Accuracy of Written Work
(Note that
missing formulae or reasoning are not scored here; they are
scored in
"mathematical
knowledge" and "mathematical reasoning".)
5 The work
is accurate throughout. All
calculations are correct, provided to the proper degree of
precision/measurement error, and properly labeled.
4 The work is mostly accurate and complete. All important calculations are correct and
provided to the proper degree of precision; what mistakes are made are few and
related to minor calculations. The
student's work is clearly shown and able to be understood.
3 The work
is accurate. Most important
calculations are correct, but some are incorrect. The work may be somewhat difficult to follow, as presented, or
the work is very messy even if it can be followed.
2 The work
has inaccuracies throughout.
1 The work has many inaccuracies and is extremely difficult to
follow.
Math: Quality
of Presentation
5 The
student's performance is very persuasive and unusually well-presented. The essence of the research and the problems
to be solved are summed up in a highly engaging and efficient manner, mindful
of the audience, context, and the purpose of the presentation. There is obvious craftsmanship in the final
product(s): effective use is made of
supporting material (visuals, models, overheads, video, etc.) and of team
members (where appropriate). The
audience is confident that the presenter understands what he/she is talking
about and understands the listeners' interests.
4 The student's
performance is persuasive and well presented.
The essence of the research and the problems to be solved are summed up
in a clear manner, mindful of the audience, context, and purpose of the
presentation. The products are thorough
and clear, if lacking in some elegance or neatness. EITHER the use of supporting material was only somewhat effective
OR the students made no use of helpful supporting material available to them to
make it effective. The presenter
appears to understand what he/she is talking about.
3 The student's performance and/or presentation is somewhat
persuasive and polished. The research
and solutions are summed up, but typically in a chronological fashion (‘then we
did this’) or without any clear sense of what would be of most importance to
highlight in the presentation for the listener. The presentation is not very engaging even if it covers all the
important points. The presenter does
not appear to understand the listeners' main interests.
2 The student's performance and/or presentation is not very
persuasive. The manner of presentation
is unpolished and/or the claims too unclear and illogically organized to really
engage and persuade the listener. The
methods of presentation used are adequate but unimaginative or ineffective in
making the points.
1 The student's performance and/or presentation is not at all
persuasive or engaging. The
presentation gives little or no indication of planning and practice, and the
final product looks slapdash. Or, the
methods used to display or communicate the information or inappropriate. (The presentation may also be ineffective
because the student has no understanding of the math. involved.)
d. From Nyack, NY English Department “Writing Handbook 1994-95”.
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
||||
|
CLARITY |
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Structure |
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Opening |
Catches reader’s
attention; introduces characters/ setting |
Appropriate, but not
catchy; introduces characters/setting |
Inappropriate; does
not introduce characters/setting |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Sequence of Events |
Clearly established
relations between events |
Unclear relationships
between events |
Events are
confusing/out of order |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Closing |
Completes the story
effectively |
Completes the story
satisfactorily |
No real closing |
||||||
|
Mechanics |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Grammar |
Few/no
grammatical errors |
Some
grammatical errors |
Many
grammatical errors |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Usage |
Few/no usage errors |
Some usage errors |
Many usage errors |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Spelling |
Few/no spelling errors |
Some spelling errors |
Many spelling errors |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Neatness |
Clearly written; no
errors; typed |
Handwritten; some
cross-outs; difficult to read |
Handwritten; many
cross-outs very difficult to read |
||||||
|
CONTENT |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Story |
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
Thorough treatment of
story elements |
Satisfactory treatment
of story elements |
Inadequate treatment
of story elements |
||||||
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
||||
|
CONTENT (continued) |
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Use
of language |
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Purpose/ |
Language appropriate
to purpose/ audience |
Some language not
appropriate to purpose/audience |
Language not
appropriate to purpose/audience |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Details |
Extensive, specific
detail; |
Some detail used |
Little or no detail |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Sentence Variety |
Sentence structure
varied |
Simple, complete
sentences, but little variety |
Simple sentence
structure; run-ons, fragments |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Diction |
Correct, fresh, precise
use of words |
Correct, but
unoriginal vague use of words |
Incorrect, worn out,
non-standard use of words |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Dialogue |
Dialogue used
effectively |
Dialogue used
satisfactorily |
Little/no dialogue
used |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Figurative Language |
Fresh, effective use
of figurative language |
Satisfactory use of
figurative language; some cliché |
Little/no figurative
language; all cliché |
||||||
|
CREATIVITY |
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Insight |
Exceptional perception
and understanding of subject; thought provoking |
Ordinary understanding
of subject’s significance; somewhat thought provoking |
Superficial
understanding of story |
||||||
|
|
Originality |
Innovative writing style;
distinctive voice |
Ordinary writing
style; emergent voice |
Bland writing |
||||||
e. Rubrics for 5th-grade science
experiments[5]
|
4 Design
shows student has analyzed the problem and has independently designed and
conducted a thoughtful experiment. |
|
4
Pamphlet explained with convincing clarity the solution to the
problem. Information from other sources
or other experiments was used in explaining. |
|
3 Design
shows student grasps the basic idea of the scientific process by conducting
experiment that controlled obvious variables. |
|
3
Pamphlet showed student understands the results and knows how to
explain them. |
|
2 Design
shows student grasps basic idea of scientific process but needs some help in
controlling obvious variables. |
|
2
Pamphlet showed results of experiment. Conclusions reached were incomplete or were explained only
after questioning. |
|
1
Design shows student can conduct an experiment when given considerable
help by the teacher. |
|
1
Pamphlet showed results of the experiment. Conclusions drawn were lacking, incomplete, or confused. |
|
Data
Collection |
|
Verbal
Expression |
|
4 Data
were collected and recorded in an orderly manner that accurately reflects the
results of the experiment. |
|
4 Speech
presented a clearly defined point of view that can be supported by
research. Audience interest was
considered as were gestures, voice, and eye contact. |
|
3 Data
were recorded in a manner that probably represents the results of the
experiment. |
|
3 Speech
was prepared with some adult help but uses experiment’s result. Speech was logical and used gestures,
voice, and eye contact to clarify meaning. |
|
2 Data
were recorded in a disorganized manner or only with teacher assistance. |
|
2 Speech was given after active instruction
from an adult. Some consideration was
given to gestures, voice, and eye contact. |
|
1 Data
were recorded in an incomplete, haphazard manner or only after considerable
teacher assistance. |
|
1
Speech was given only after active instruction from an adult. |
3. Developmental/Longitudinal
Rubrics:
a. From the ACTFL Spanish proficiencies
|
Novice-High: |
Able to satisfy immediate needs using learned
utterances... Can ask questions or make statements with reasonable accuracy
only where this involves short memorized utterances or formulae. Most utterances are telegraphic, and
errors often occur when word endings and verbs are omitted or confused...
Speech is characterized by enumeration, rather than by sentences. There is some concept of the present tense
forms of regular verbs particular -ar
verbs, and some common irregular verbs... There is some use of articles,
indicating a concept of gender, although mistakes are constant and numerous... |
|
|
|
|
Intermediate-High: |
Able to satisfy most survival needs and limited
social demands. Developing
flexibility in language production although fluency is still uneven. Can initiate and sustain a general
conversation on factual topics beyond basic survival needs. Can give autobiographical
information... Can provide
sporadically, although not consistently, simple directions and narration of
present, past, and future events, although limited vocabulary range and
insufficient control of grammar lead to much hesitation and
inaccuracy.... Has basic knowledge of
the differences between ser and estar, although errors are
frequent.... Can control the present
tense of most regular and irregular verbs.... Comprehensible to native speakers used to dealing with
foreigners, but still has to repeat utterances frequently to be understood by
general public. |
b. Upper Arlington Development Reading Scale
The step score must be based on repeated
classroom observations over a period of time.
PREREADER
|
Step 1 |
Engages
briefly with book or pictures on a one-on-one basis. Relies on others to read or share books. |
|
|
|
|
Step 2 |
May
participate in shared reading experiences.
Enjoys looking at books on his/her own or being read to. May repeat words or phrases with familiar
books. May make up his/her own story
with books. |
|
|
|
|
Step 3 |
Responds
to books during shared reading experiences.
Begins to choose books on his/her own. Able to retell a story using pictures after repeated listening
experiences. Demonstrates the
awareness that the meaning, sequence, and words in a book remain the same
with repeated listening experiences.
Knows how to progress from the beginning to the end of a book. |
EMERGING READER
|
Step 4 |
Able
to engage in reading re-enactment.
Memorizes some texts.
Mimics some texts.
Mimics reading behaviors.
Displays directionality (left to right and top to bottom) by running
finger along entire line(s) of text.
After a pattern has been established, he/she is able to read the
pattern. |
|
|
|
|
Step 5 |
Knows
the difference between a letter and a word.
Is moving toward one-on-one correspondence (matching
printed word with spoken word).
Re-reads familiar stories or environmental print (i.e., signs, logos,
cereal boxes). Reads his/her own written
messages. Able to re-tell a familiar story without the book. Uses primarily meaning (picture) and
his/her own language as cues when reading text. Able to predict story events, words, and story endings. May need encouragement to take risks
(i.e., selection, word analysis). |
|
|
|
|
Step 6 |
Demonstrates
one-to-one correspondence. Uses
one-to-one correspondence to monitor and then self correct errors. May predict and confirm a word by using
beginning and ending letters/sounds.
Begins to integrate meaning, language, and visual print as
cues. Begins to develop fluency with
familiar text. May need support in
selecting appropriate reading material.
Begins to develop sight vocabulary. |
DEVELOPING READER
|
Step 7 |
Demonstrates
understanding through discussion, re-telling, and/or extensions. May compare or contrast his/her
experiences with story. May
make connections with other literature.
Makes predictions using book language and story structure. May read new text word by word but shows
some evidence of phrasing. Self
corrects most errors that interfere with meaning. Comments upon patterns, characters, plot
and setting with prompts. Chooses
new, as well as familiar books.
Begins to analyze words and make connections (word family patterns,
beginnings, endings compound words).
Is moving toward independence. |
|
|
|
|
Step 8 |
Reads
fluently with expression most of the time.
Uses a variety of strategies when reading. Recognizes which errors are important to self-correct. Demonstrates understanding of material read
in a variety of ways: discussion,
re-tellings, changes in expressions, rate, inflection when reading aloud, and
through book extensions. Makes good
predictions using prior knowledge.
Makes good use of reading time; often chooses to read. Views self as a reader; often takes
risks. Usually selects appropriate
reading materials. Makes some
generalizations about patterns, characters, plot, setting, and genre. Re-tellings include some of the following
elements: setting, sequence of
events, main idea, characters, and conclusion. |
EXCEPTIONAL READER
|
Step 9 |
Reads
fluently with proper intonations and expression. Uses a wide variety of strategies automatically. Rarely makes miscues. Good comprehension of what is read. Demonstrates involvement with nuances in
books (i.e., humor, sadness, injustice).
Makes informed predictions using prior knowledge. Independently makes connections. Spends quality time reading. Chooses to read for a variety of
purposes. Welcomes challenges as a
reader. Reads a variety of reading
materials (fiction, nonfiction, poetry). Independently makes generalizations about pattern,
characters, plot, setting, genre, style, and purpose. Re-tellings are effective and complete. |
4. A 1st-grade reading
assessment and self-assessment[6]:
SCORING
RUBRIC
|
Standards:
The levels at which students perform the task. |
||||
|
|
In Progress |
Basic |
Proficient |
Advanced |
|
Self-Selection of Books |
Reading
is painful. Reading takes too much time. Doesn’t like to choose books. Would rather do other things. Chooses only picture books. |
Likes or needs help to choose a
book. Chooses picture books or “easy”
familiar books. |
Initiates own selection of
books. Chooses books that are “just
right.” Chooses books of different
lengths. Chooses books by different
authors. Chooses different types of
books. |
Initiates own selection of
books. Chooses some “challenging”
books. Reads widely. Knows many authors or different
types of books. |
|
Sustained Reading Engagement |
Easily distracted during reading
time. Requires monitoring to ensure
on-task. Flips through pages. Quits or gives up when text is
encountered. |
Complies with reading when
assigned or requested. Concentrates on reading for
brief periods of time. |
Concentrates on reading for
periods of time. Chooses to read as one option. |
Concentrates on reading for
lengthy periods of time. Chooses to read when has free
choice. |
|
Response to Literature through Conversations / Conferencing |
Answers questions with a few
details. Retelling of content is not
correct or complete. Often does not understand main
idea, even if only represented in pictures. |
Needs teacher prompt clues to
talk about book. Volunteers some additional
details when answering questions. Retells details with near
accuracy – but may include details that are not important. Seldom offers own opinions or
feelings. Sticks to telling facts. |
Shares information and feelings
about books in response to discussion. Retells details with accuracy. Is aware of humor. States opinions in response to
questions. |
Shares information and feelings
about books freely. Retells details accurately. Enjoys and appreciates humor. Raises questions and opinions. Uses language expressions from
book. |
SCORING
RUBRIC
First Grade
|
STANDARD: |
Literacy: Reading |
Students will be able to construct meaning when reading in all subject
areas for the purposes of becoming informed, performing a task, and enjoying
literature. |
|
INDICATOR: |
Students will integrate reading
strategies to bring meaning to written language and to analyze content. |
|
Standards:
The levels at which students perform the task. |
||||
|
|
In Progress Pre-emergent Reader |
Basic Emergent Reader |
Proficient Early Reader |
Advanced Fluent Reader |
|
Criteria: The specific behaviors, products, and qualities we look
for in judging student work. |
These characteristics indicate
the child is learning about communication: He/she takes an active part by
listening and discussing stories. Can listen to stories. Knows how to turn pages. Demonstrates beginning of book. Demonstrates end of book. Uses pictures to help with
words. Can rely on memory to retell. Uses pictures to tell story. Shows interest in books. Can name some letters. Can write name. |
These characteristics indicate
the child is learning that a book tells a story: Initiates reading. Can find cover, author, title,
and title page. Knows first and last words in a
sentence. Has left-to-right movement in
sentence. Can identify a word in sentence. Can identify a letter in word. Has 1:1 correspondence. Can match words that are the
same: here, went, this, we, here. Can recognize similarities in
words: me, my, mouse. Can guess a caption for a
picture. Can identify some high-frequency
words. Knows how story begins and ends. Starting to decode words. Can rely on memory for reading |
These characteristics indicate
the child’s becoming a reader by learning to read for meaning: Can sit for a while and read. Can use cueing strategies
(meaning, structure, visual). Can take risks in reading. can read on to gain meaning. Can use text and pictures to
sample, predict, and confirm. Can re-read to monitor
understanding. Can retell story identifying
specific parts of text: characters,
main idea, details, sequence. Self-corrects. Can identify punctuation: ? . ,
“ Beginning to read with
expression. |
These characteristics indicate
the child is reading independently as confidence and competence are
increasing: Can read independently. Can read silently. Gives attention to expression,
intonation, and pace. Selects suitable reading
material. Can differentiate between
fiction and non-fiction. Can recognize cause and effect. Can make comparisons. |
d. A Writing Rubric for use K - 12, from the United Kingdom:
|
Level |
Pupils should be able to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
• Use pictures, symbols or isolated letters,
words or phrases to communicate meaning. |
|
|
|
|
2 |
• Produce, independently, pieces of writing
using complete sentences, some of them demarcated with capital letters,
periods or question marks. • Structure sequences of real or imagined
events coherently in chronological accounts. • Write stories showing an understanding of
the rudiments of story structure by establishing an opening, characters, and
one or more events. • Produce simple, coherent non-chronological
writing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
• Produce, independently, pieces of writing
using complete sentences, mainly demarcated with capitals, periods, and
question marks. • Shape chronological writing by beginning
to use a wider range of sentence connectives than “and” and “then”. • Write more complex stories with detail
beyond simple events and with a defined ending. • Begin to revise and re-draft in
consultation with the teacher or other children in the class, paying
attention to meaning and clarity as well as checking for things such as correct
use of tenses and pronouns. |
|
Level |
Pupils should be able to: |
|
|
4 |
•
Produce pieces of writing in which there is a rudimentary attempt to present
subject matter in a structured way (e.g., title, paragraphs, verses); in which
punctuation is generally accurate; and where evidence exists of ability to
make meaning clear to readers. • Write
stories which have an opening, a setting, characters, a series of events and
a resolution. •
Organize non-chronological writings in orderly ways. • Begin
to use some sentence structures different from those most characteristic of
speech (e.g., subordinate clauses). •
Attempt independent revising of their own writing and talk about the changes
made. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
• Write
in a variety of forms, (e.g., notes, letters, instructions, stories, poems)
for a range of purposes (e.g., to plan, inform, explain, entertain, express
attitudes or emotions). •
Produce pieces of writing in which there is a more successful attempt to
present simple subject matter in a structured way (e.g., lay-out, headings,
paragraphing); in which sentence punctuation is almost accurately used, and
in which simple uses of the comma are handled successfully. • Write
in standard English (except in contexts where non-standard forms are
appropriate), and show an increasing differentiation between speech and
writing (e.g., using constructions which decrease repetition). •
Assemble ideas on paper, show some ability to produce a draft from them, and
to redraft or revise as necessary. |
|
|
Level |
Pupils Should Be Able to: |
|
|
|
6 |
• Write in a variety of forms for a range of
purposes, showing some ability to present subject matter differently for
different specified audiences. • Make use of literary stylistic features,
such as alteration of word order for emphasis or the deliberate repetition of
words or sentence patterns. • Show some ability to recognize when
planning, drafting, redrafting and revising are appropriate, and to carry
these processes out. |
|
|
|
7 |
• Produce well-structured pieces of writing,
some of which handle more demanding subject-matter (e.g., going beyond
first-hand experience). • Make a more assured and selective use of a
wider range of grammatical and lexical features appropriate for topic and
audience... • Show an increased awareness that a first
draft is malleable (e.g., by changing form in which writing is cast (as in from
a story to a play), or by altering sentence structure and placement. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
• Write, at appropriate length, in a wide
variety of forms, with assured sense of purpose and audience. • Organize complex subject matter clearly and
effectively. Produce well-structured
pieces in which relationships between successive paragraphs are helpfully
signaled. • Make an assured, selective, and
appropriate use of a wide range of grammatical constructions and of an
extensive vocabulary. Sustain the
chosen style consistently. Achieve
felicitous or striking effects, showing evidence of a personal style. |
|
|
e. From
the 1986 NAEP Report on U. S.
mathematics proficiency:
Levels of Mathematics Proficiency (150-350)
Level 150 - Simple Arithmetic
Learners
at this level know some basic addition and subtraction facts, and most can add
2-digit numbers without regrouping.
They recognize simple situations in which addition and subtraction
apply. They are also developing rudimentary
classification skills.
Level 200 - Beginning Skills & Understanding
Learners
at this level have considerable understanding of 2-digit numbers. They can add 2-digit numbers, but are still
developing an ability to regroup in subtraction. They know some basic multiplication and division facts, recognize
relations among coins, can read information from charts and graphs, and use
simple measurement instruments. They
are developing some reasoning skills.
Level 250 - Basic Operations and Beginning Problem
Solving
Learners
have an initial understanding of the four basic operations. They are able to apply whole number addition
and subtraction skills to 1-step word problems and money situations. In multiplication, they can find the product
of a 2-digit and 1-digit number. They
can compare information from graphs and charts, and are developing an ability
to analyze logical relations.
Level 300 - Moderately Complex Procedures and
Reasoning
Learners
are developing an understanding of number systems. They can compute with decimals, simple fractions and
commonly-encountered percents. They can identify geometric figures, measure
lengths and angles, and calculate areas of rectangles. They are also able to
interpret simple inequalities, evaluate formulas and solve simple linear
equations. They can find averages, make
decisions on information drawn from graphs, and use logical reasoning to solve
problems. They are developing the
skills to operate with signed numbers, exponents and square roots.
Level
350 - Multi-Step Problem Solving and Algebra
Learners
can solve routine problems involving fractions and percents, recognize
properties of geometric figures, and work with exponents and square roots. They can solve a variety of two-step
problems using variables, identify equivalent algebraic expressions and solve
linear equations and inequalities. They
are developing an understanding of functions and coordinate systems.