Types of rubrics.

"* Checklist A checklist is not a rubric-because thereare no levels of performance specified-but it doesprovide criteria students should address.

"* Task-specific rubric: This type of rubric is detailed foreach component of an assignment. Task-specific ru-brics can be helpful for grading complex questions,but cannot be used repeatedly because they are tar-geted for a particular assignment.

"* Generic rubric: This type of rubric can be used withmore than one assessment. It is powerful because itcan be applied to many assessments and help stu-dents learn what "high quality" work should look like(Siegel et al. 2006; Wiggins 1998).

FIGURE I

"Stem Cells: You Decide" assignment.Over the course of a month, students developed the fourof their papers in four different stages (see Halverson, SielFreyermuth 2009 for details):

"1.2.3.4.

The introduction and science background material.A description of the controversy and multiple viewpoints.A critique of the websites used.Their personal, evidence-based opinions on the controversy.

For the critique portion of the assignment, we provided stuwith prompts, including:

"* Do any of the websites leave out critical information abottopic?

"* Does the person or organization responsible for the materiaa mission statement listed on the website? Is it clear why thisupplying this information?

"* Are there inconsistencies in the information reported?"* Are there statements that show the bias of the website? Are

statements accurate?

After all stages were complete, and students compiled eacltion into complete drafts of their papers, they exchanged thepeer review. Students used the provided rubric (Figure 2) and thlowing prompts to review one another's work:

"* Do you understand the science as the student-author desit?

"* Do you understand the controversies?"* Does the student-author do a sufficient job of analyzing his

website references?"* Does the student-author thoroughly explain his or her pei

opinion and reasons for it?

(Note: Many helpful rubric templates are available inooks [e.g., Stevens and Levi 2004] and online [see RubistarOn the web" at the end of this article].)

Evolution" rubricVe created another task-specific rubric for our advancediology course. The "Evolution" assignment requiredtudents to write a four-page scientific argument provid-ng evidence for evolution and how this idea has shapedhe way biology is currently studied. We gave each stu-ent a copy of this rubric (see "On the web") with thessignment.

For this paper, students had to review primary litera-ure, such as the journal Evolution, for sources of evidencenstead of websites). We required students to use at leasthree "current" sources, published in 2000 or later, and to

write for an audience of somewhat scientificallyliterate individuals debating the authenticityof evolution. Students also reviewed editorialsfrom scientific journals to better understand the

ctions expected style. We encouraged them to use da-1, and tabase searches (e.g., JSTOR, ERIC) to identify

and obtain these primary resources.Students then had two weeks to write

their first drafts and bring them to class forpeer review. Each student reviewed anotherstudent's paper using the task-specific rubric.They made comments based on the rubric

dents guidelines and wrote a summative section tohighlight the paper's perceived strengths andweaknesses. After the written feedback was

it the completed, the reviewer and author pairedup to discuss comments and suggestions. Stu-

I have dents said that this process helped strengthen

ey are their papers.After completing the peer reviews, students

had one week to revise their papers and submit

these a second draft. This time, we provided a secondround of feedback using the rubric. Based on thisfeedback, students were allowed to complete a

h sec- final rewrite of their papers. These final versionsm for were collected and evaluated based on the task-ie fol- specific rubric we provided at the beginning of

the assignment. (Note: This task-specific rubricis available online [see "On the web"].);cribes

More than gradingThe benefits of using rubrics for grading pur-or her poses are well-known, but the lesser-known

benefits go beyond simply grading. For ex-rsonal ample, rubrics can be used to clarify learning

goals, build complex understandings, andencourage intellectual risk-taking. We have

30 The Science Teacher

Beyond Grading

FIGURE 2

"Stem Cells: You Decide": Task-specific rubric.

Name: ________________________________

Noic Deeopn A .ccomplishe

Paper is not introduced well,or contains major inaccuracies.

(0-4 points)

Introduction does not meshwith rest of paper, or hasminor inaccuracies.

(5-7 points)

Introduction is logical andprovides accurate scientificinformation.

(8-10 points)Alternatives Alternative opinions are Alternative opinions contain Alternative opinions are

irrelevant or inaccurate. somte minor flaws. logical, imaginative, wellexplained, and related to thecontroversy.

______________(0-2 points) (3-4 points) ( onsEvidence Content is inaccurate, Content has minor flaws or Content is well explained

irrelevant, or repetitive, is not elaborated. Less than and accurate. At least fourand contains questionable four statements address the statements address theevidence, critique for each website. critique (e.g., are there

inconsistencies in theinformation reported?) ofeach website.

(0-10 points) (11-14 points) (15-17 points)

Choice Student provides little Student makes a choice, but it Well-supported choice is(the final decision accu4rate support for choice. is not well supported. drawn from the analysis. Paperincludes a student's discusses the usefulness and~personal opinions credlibliity of the websites inand analysis of reaching a concluision.sientific evidence) (0-7 points) (8-10 points) (11-13 points)

References Reference list contains two or Reference list contains three Reference list contains moreless (viable) websites. Citations to four (viable) websites. than four (viable) websitesare incomplete within the Correct in-text citations are with full citation (e.g., author,reference list or text. included in the body of the title, date, link). Correct in-text

paper. citations are included in thebody of the paper.

(0-2 points) (3-4 points) (5 points)Professionalism Paper has major clarity, Paper has minor clarity, Paper is coherent and clearly

organization, coherence, or organization, coherence, or written, with few grammaticalgrammatical issues. grammatical issues. or spelling errors.

(0-4 points) (5-7 points) (8-10 points)

Total points:__/60

found evidence of these benefits in the science education using assessments to make learning objectives explicitliterature and through our own experience, enhances learning (Wiliam et al. 2004). For example, we

explain the Stem Cells: You Decide rubric by providingClarifying learning goals detail about each criterion. We show students examples ofBeing explicit about learning objectives by providing ru- work at various levels of the rubric (e.g., novice, develop-brics at the beginning of a course or project helps students ing, accomplished) and explain why they fit into one leveltake control of their learning. Research has shown that or another.

January 2011 31

Background

FIGURE 3

"Stem Cells: You Decide": Generic rubric.(Note: This rubric can also be used for the "Evolution" assignment.)

Name:

I Noic Deeopn Accomlishe

Scientific information isinaccurate or irrelevant.Questionable evidence,unrelated content, or repetitionfills up space but does not makea convincing argument.

Scientific information is mostlyaccurate. Most pieces ofevidence are analyzed. Analysispartially addresses the reliabilityof evidence, the quantity ofevidence, and the source ofevidence with few flaws.

Scientific information isaccurate. All relevant piecesof evidence are analyzed.Analysis accurately addressesthe reliability of evidence, thequantity of evidence, and thesource of evidence.

Choice The choice is not based on The choice is drawn from an The student's choice is drawnevidence. The choice includes analysis of evidence. The choice from a thorough, evidence-only opinions, or they are hard mentions personal opinions, based analysis. The choiceto follow. No reflection is Some reflection on any change incorporates and explainswritten, in opinion or knowledge over personal opinions. Thoughtful

the course of the project is reflection on any change indiscussed. opinions or knowledge over

the course of the project isdiscussed.

Comments

The learning goals are represented in the rubric's criteria.For example, with the Evolution rubric (see "On the web"),students learn how to make valid claims that support anargument. The teacher can explain what a valid claim is orwhich argument the rubric is referring to, but for studentsto thoroughly understand the learning goals, they must usethe rubric themselves.

One idea is to have students rewrite the rubric in theirown words. This can be especially helpful if the rubric isterminology-heavy. Another strategy is to have students self-evaluate or peer-evaluate their work. Using the Evolutionand Stem Cells: You Decide rubrics, students peer reviewedone another's drafts and provided one-on-one feedback.This helped students understand the expectations outlinedin the rubric.

In one study, researchers found that training middleschool students to grade their own work with a rubric result-ed in excellent understanding of the objectives it outlined,as shown by high correlations between student and teacherrubric grades on test questions (r = 0.91 to 0.94) (Sadler andGood 2006). Studies have also shown that self-assessment,as completed through the revision process using rubrics,improves student achievement-especially with low-performing students (Black and Wiliam 1998).

Building complex understandingsThe most common type of rubric for a particular projector assignment is the task-specific rubric. This rubric canbe effective for building conceptual understanding, as inthe Stem Cells: You Decide assignment. While gaugingstudents' understanding, we administered a pretest andposttest about stem cells and stem cell research. Studentsshowed significant improvement of overall understandingon the posttest-and 10 different misconceptions were ad-dressed (Concannon et al. 2010; Halverson et al., forthcom-ing). Students learned, for example, that adult stem cellsexist in infants.

The advantage of a generic rubric-compared to a task-specific one-is that it can be used many times for differentassignments to reinforce major learning goals. Genericrubrics can be applied to different types of projects and helpstudents learn how "high quality" is defined (Siegel et al.2006; Wiggins 1998). For example, consider a major learninggoal that all students should master by the end of the course,such as rigorously analyzing data or effectively designingan experiment. By providing a rubric with these goals andrepeatedly using it to assess multiple types of work, studentshave more opportunities to learn and reinforce these skills.And research is beginning to indicate that using generic

32 The Science Teacher

Analysis ofevidence

Beyond Grading

rubrics appropriately over a semester or full-year course canstimulate student learning (Siegel et al. 2006).

Using a hybrid rubric allows teachers to reap thebenefits of each type. This kind of rubric includes somegeneric criteria, such as major learning goals that areincluded on all rubrics throughout the year, and sometask-specific criteria that relate specifically to the learninggoals of a particular task.

Encouraging intellectual risk-taking

As students -begin to expect rubrics in their courses, newchallenges arise. Occasionally, they might perform only theminimal amount of work needed to meet the criteria, ratherthan striving for greater intellectual achievement.

One way to counter this problem is to add an extra perfor-mance level. Consider a rubric with three levels (e.g., Arterand McTighe 2001; Siegel et al. 2006)-the third is "accom-plished" and describes the performance a teacher expectsfor the highest grade. For making a scientific argument, forexample, the rubric might read, "Level 3: Provides appropri-ate information to make a claim, good use of examples andcounter examples, and concise explanations."

A fourth level-called "beyond expectations"-could beadded to this rubric. To achieve this level, students wouldneed to accomplish Level 3 and add a significant componentto their argument. Level 4 might be described as, "Exceedsexpectations in a significant way; for example, questions thevalidity of the data."

This rubric provides clear expectations of student achieve-ment to receive a top grade (Level 3), but also challengesstudents to come up with other ways to improve their argu-ments (Level 4). Teachers can choose to provide a gradingincentive for Level 4 responses, such as extra credit points,or take attainment of Level 4 into consideration ifa student'sfinal grade is close to the next grade boundary.

Another way to foster higher-level thinking is torequire students to reflect on their learning. For theStem Cells: You Decide and Evolution assignments, forexample, students can be asked what they have learnedabout themselves and how scientific research is affectedand mediated by society. The quality of this reflectioncan be added to the rubric. Additional expectation levels,such as these, encourage students to reach for intellectualgoals instead of grades.

Conclusion

Rubrics can help students take control of the learningprocess, build complex understanding of the material,and take intellectual risks. Like any educational tool,simply adding a rubric to instruction is not enough.Rubrics must be part of the fabric of the class, in such away that the philosophy of enhanced learning is broughtto life. 0

Marcelle A. Siegel (siegelm@missouri.edu) is an assistant pro-

fessor of science education in the Department of Learning,

Teaching, & Curriculum and the Department of Biochemistry atthe University of Missouri in Columbia; Kristy Halverson (kristy.halverson@usm.edu) is an assistant professor in the Department

of Biological Sciences at the University of Southern Mississippiin Hattiesburg; Sharyn Freyermuth (freyermuths@missouri.edu)

is an associate teaching professor in the Department of Bio-chemistry and Catharine G. Clark (cgcvf2@mail.mizzou.edu) isa graduate student in the Department of Biomedical Sciences,both at the University of Missouri in Columbia.

On the web 1

Task-specific evolution rubric: www.nsta.org/highschoo/connections.aspx

Rubistar: www.rubistar.4teachers.org

References

Arter, J., and J. McTighe. 2001. Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using

performance cniteria for assessing and improving student performance.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998. Assessment and classroom learning.

Assessment in Education 5: 7-74.

Concannon, J., M.A. Siegel, K.L. Halverson, and S.K. Freyermuth.

2010. College students' conceptions of stem cells, stem cell research,

and cloning.Journal of Science Education and Technology 19 (2):

177-186.

Halverson, K.L., S.K. Freyermuth, M.A. Siegel, and C. Clark. Forth-

coming. What undergraduates misunderstand about stem cell

research. International Journal of Science Education.

Halverson, K.L., M.A. Siegel, and S.K. Freyermuth. 2009. Lenses for

framing decisions: Undergraduates' decision making about stem cell

research. International Journal of Science Education 31 (9): 1249-1268.

National Research Council (NRC). 2001. Knoowing what students

know: The science and design ofeducational assessment. Washing-

ton, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/openbook.

php?isbn=0309072727

Quinlan, A.M. 2006.A complete guide to rubrics: Assessment made easy

for teachers, K-College. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield

Education.

Sadler, PM., and E. Good. 2006. The impact of self- and peer-

grading on student learning. EducationalAssessment 11 (1): 1-31.

Siegel, M.A., P Hynds, M. Siciliano, and B. Nagle. 2006. Using rubrics

to foster meaningful learning. In Assessment in science: Practical

experiences and education research, ed. P Simmons, 89-106. Arlington,

VA: NSTA Press.

Stevens, D.D., and A.J. Levi. 2004. Introduction to rubrics: An assessment

tool to save grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student

learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Wiggins, G. 1998. Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform

and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wiliam, D., C. Lee, C. Harrison, and P Black. 2004. Teachers develop-

ing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assess-

ment in Education 11: 49-65.

January 2011 33

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Author:

Title:

Source:

ISSN:

Publisher:

Siegel, Marcelle A.; Halverson, Kristy; Freyermuth, Sharyn; Clark,catharine G.

Beyond Grading

Sci Teach 78 no1 Ja 2011 p. 28-33

0036-8555

National Science Teachers Association

1840 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22201

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproducedwith permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright isprohibited. To contact the publisher: http://www.nsta.org/highschool

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub- licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.