Scoring Rubrics Conceptual Model

This conceptual model has three axes, one for quality of work, one for the scope of the work, and one for the type of outcome being assessed. There may be more than three increments for an axis but because the model was created to look like the famous Rubiks Cube, three was thought to be an adequate starting point for a model. This model has been presented by Dr(s) Parsons in workshops at Bakersfield College and at the AECT National Convention 2002. A basic understanding of rubrics is prerequisite to clearly seeing what this model models.

Quality

The quality level for a criteria can range from inadequate to superior, with a total of three to five quality levels, but seldom more than that. In a rubric, of course, quality levels are explained or described so what is expected is clear to both the teacher and the student. Sometimes examples are provided, also called exemplars, so students can see what "the real thing" might look like at a given level of quality. Sometimes descriptive material is provided only for the bottom and top levels, or for bottom middle and top levels. Interpolation as to what lies between is left a little flexible. It is sometimes quite difficult to describe what is expected at a certain level, and it is sometimes quite difficult for the reader to understand what is expected. It is also not easy for multiple teachers to agree on what describes a certain level and they must work together to establish what the team or department means so that all students can be assessed as equivalently as possible.

Scope

The rubric can be a primary trait rubric, that is, only one traits/criteria is being assessed. Alternatively, it can be an analytical trait rubric, that is, one that looks at multiple traits/criteria. Finally, it can be an holistic rubric with the intent of looking at the gestalt, at all traits/criteria collectively as if they were one homogenous entity.

Outcome (Type)

There are three separate tracks of assessment outcome or type. One looks at the quality of the presentation, that is, use of color, visual clarity, readability, audibility, perhaps even the comfort of the room. A second type considers the quality of the facts/content, and whether they are accurate, relevant, current, and of appropriate quantity. Yet a third type looks at the level of HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills) invoked/used. In other words, did the presenter get higher on Bloom's Taxonomy than level 2? And did the presenter provide for challenging the participants at levels higher than 2?

Comments to the author
Last updated: 12/9/02