According to the Center for Instructional Technology and Training at the University of Florida (UF),
A well-designed rubric will not only set a clear blueprint for an assignment, but by defining and clarifying expectations and demonstrating the importance of individual components, it encourages authentic self-assessment by students.”
As the subject matter expert, you will create a rubric for assessing performance on each assignment you develop. Using rubrics helps students to know what is expected of them and it also reduces the number of questions students have about their grades. Here are some general suggestions for creating rubrics (An eLearning team member can provide guidance and assistance if needed):
- Identify the most important criteria for evaluating work based on the learning objectives related to the assignment.
- Make sure the rubric relates to the outcomes being measured. It should not reward or penalize students based on skills that aren’t related to the outcome.
- Create levels of success based on expectations of performance. Make sure the scale fits what you’re trying to measure.
- Use clear indicators for performance and make sure you use the same terms across the varying levels of performance. This provides a clear basis for assigning scores.
- Use descriptive language rather than vague words like “satisfactory” or “partially”.
- Weigh criteria based on their relative importance to the whole assignment e.g. more points are based on content than on spelling.
- You can use and reuse rubrics or templates for rubrics to help you develop a new one. Please read through UF’s guide on rubrics and review the examples below!
Each course contains a standard rubric for discussions. This rubric allows instructors to add free-form comments and is already attached to all graded discussions in the course.
| Criteria | Description | Max Points |
|---|---|---|
| Application | Explicitly and thoroughly explains, applies, and integrates a) concepts from this or other courses, b) outside resources or research, c) life experiences, and/or d) processes used to solve problems. | 30 pts |
| Critical Thinking | Clearly articulates a desire to a) reflect, b) explore possibility, c) recognize ambiguity, d) question assumptions, and/or e) search for logical relationships among ideas. Selects, analyzes, and synthesizes relevant information to demonstrate original thinking. | 30 pts |
| Collaboration | Fosters collaborative learning while a) problem-solving, b) respectfully challenging others, and/or c) expanding thinking through responses and reflection with other learners throughout the week. Builds on classmate and instructor contributions to deepen the conversation. | 30 pts |
| Presentation | Demonstrates attention to APA/MLA style and structure, adheres to rules of grammar and etiquette, and properly cites references to literature and course materials. | 10 pts |
| Total: 100 pts |
The eLearning team has a few pre-made assignment rubrics to choose from. You may use these rubrics as they appear or request specific changes.
Here are a few examples of pre-made rubrics.
A rubric for brainstorming or peer feedback discussions
| Criteria | Full Engagement | Developing Engagement | Basic Engagement | No Engagement | Max Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assignment Guidelines | Follows all of the assignment guidelines (30 pts) | Follows most of the assignment guidelines. (25.5 pts) | Does not follow the assignment guidelines. (22.5 pts) | Assignment not completed. (0 pts) | 30 |
| Workshop Purpose | All aspects of the lab/assignment are addressed. All questions are responded to in a thorough, thoughtful, well-developed manner. (30 pts) | Demonstrates developing understanding of the workshop’s purpose. (25.5 pts) | Demonstrates unclear understanding of the workshop’s purpose. (22.5 pts) | Assignment not completed. (0 pts) | 30 |
| Writing Conventions | Follows standard conventions of written English in a way that doesn’t impede reading or understanding. Minimal errors are present. (10 pts) | Follows standard conventions of written English in a way that doesn’t seriously impede reading or understanding, although there are errors present. (8.5 pts) | Frequent errors in grammar & mechanics impede reading or understanding. (7.5 pts) | Assignment not completed. (0 pts) | 10 |
| Participation | Actively contributes to discussion with substantive comments to multiple classmates. Raises questions or provides new information to generate further discussion. (30 pts) | Contributes to discussion with substantive comments to at least one classmate. (25.5 pts) | Responds with general agreement or encouragement. (22.5 pts) | Assignment not completed. (0 pts) | 30 |
| Total Points: 100 |
A rubric for writing assignments
| Criteria | Exceeds Expectations | Meets Expectations | Nearly Meets Expectations | Does Not Meet Expectations | Max Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content | The assignment clearly addresses all aspects of the assignment directions. The ideas contained in it are clear, based in solid logic, and concise at all times. The work provides multiple textual examples and details that clearly support the ideas presented within it. Creative arguments or evaluations are skillfully used to persuade readers and to substantiate logical points.60 pts | The assignment addresses all aspects of the assignment directions. The ideas contained in it are usually clear, based in logic, and concise. The work provides some textual examples and details to support the ideas presented within it. Good arguments or evaluations are used to persuade readers and to substantiate points.51 pts | The essay addresses most aspects of the assignment directions. The ideas contained in it are general, lack solid logic and/ or wordy. The work provides few textual examples and details to support the ideas presented within it. Ordinary arguments or evaluations are used to substantiate points.45 pts | The content of the assignment is unclear making it difficult to read.30 pts | 60 pts |
| Style, Voice, Grammar, and Word Usage | The writing engages the reader. The writer uses a clear authoritative voice to convey their expertise. Word usage displays an excellent grasp of the vocabulary related to the subject. No spelling or grammatical errors.20 pts | The writing engages the reader. The writer uses a clear and appropriate voice to convey their expertise. Word usage displays a good grasp of the vocabulary related to the subject. Few spelling or grammatical errors.17 pts | The writing fails to engage the reader. The writer lacks a voice and conveys little knowledge. Demonstrates a poor grasp of the vocabulary related to the subject. Several spelling or grammatical errors.15 pts | The writing does not engage the reader and it is difficult to read. There are many spelling and grammatical errors.12 pts | 20 pts |
| Reference Citation | Writing includes requested number of references from published, reliable literature. All references and citations conform with APA format.20 pts | Writing includes less than the requested number of references from published reliable literature and/or references and citations do not conform with APA format.15 pts | Writing includes less than the requested number of references from published reliable literature and citations are not in correct APA format or are missing.12 pts | 20 pts |
A rubric for programming assignments
| Criteria | Meets | Nearly Meets | Slightly Meets | Does Not Meet |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program Specifications, Correctness & Execution | The program has no errors, always works correctly and meets the specifications (59 – 65 points) | The program compiles without errors. The program runs but may have minor problems in logic causing unexpected results or exceptions. (45-58 points) | The program compiles but only functions correctly in very limited cases. (39-44 points) | The program does not compile or run. (0-38 points) |
| Readability | The code is clean and formatted properly. Code is understandable and well-organized. (9-10 points) | Minor formatting issues with some inconsistent indentation, use of whitespace, overuse of blank lines, variable naming conventions, or general organization. (7-8 points) | Major formatting issues with indentation, use of whitespace, use of blank lines, naming conventions, or general organization. (5-6 points) | No consistency with indentation, use of whitespace, blank lines, naming conventions, or general organization. (0-4 points) |
| Code efficiency | No coding errors and code uses the best approach in every case. (14-15 points) | Minor errors observed with slight inefficiencies. (10-13 points) | Many inefficiencies observed in code. Program has repeated blocks of code where one set would suffice. (8-9 points) | Abundant inefficiencies observed in code. Program has repeated blocks of code where one set would suffice. More efficient code from lessons or text not utilized. (0-7 points) |
| Documentation | No errors. Code is well-commented. Header comment includes name, date, assignment, and description of the module. Classes properly named. (9-10 points) | One or two places that could benefit from comments are missing them or the code is overly commented. Header comment is partially filled in or classes have slight deviation in naming requirements. (7-8 points) | Incomplete header comment. Classes not named appropriately and limited commenting throughout. (5-6 points) | No header comment information. Classes not named appropriately and no commenting aside from template comments. (0-4 points) |
A rubric for case studies
| Criteria | Meets Expectations | Approaching Expectations | Does Not Meet Expectations | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Understanding | Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s).20.0 pts | Demonstrates an accomplished understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s).16.0 pts | Demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s).13.0 pts | 20 pts |
| Analysis | Presents an insightful and thorough analysis of all issues identified.20.0 pts | Presents a thorough analysis of most issues identified.16.0 pts | Presents superficial analysis of some of the issues identified.13.0 pts | 20 pts |
| Making Connections | Makes appropriate and powerful connections between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the readings; demonstrates complete command of the strategic concepts and analytical tools studies.20.0 pts | Makes appropriate connections between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the readings; demonstrates good command of the strategic concepts and analytical tools studies.16.0 pts | Makes appropriate but somewhat vague connections between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the readings; demonstrates limited command of the strategic concepts and analytical tools studies.13.0 pts | 20 pts |
| Strength of Arguments | Supports diagnosis and opinions with strong arguments and evidence; presents a balanced and critical view; interpretation is both reasonable and objective.20.0 pts | Supports diagnosis and opinions with reasons and evidence; presents a fairly balanced view; interpretation is both reasonable and objective.16.0 pts | Supports diagnosis and opinions with limited reasons and evidence; presents a somewhat one-sided argument.13.0 pts | 20 pts |
| Writing Mechanics | Writing demonstrates a sophisticated clarity, conciseness and correctness; includes thorough details and relevant data and information; extremely well organized.20.0 pts | Writing is accomplished in terms of clarity and conciseness and contains only a few errors; includes sufficient details and relevant data and information; well organized.8.0 pts | Writing lacks clarity or conciseness and contains numerous errors; gives insufficient detail and relevant data and information; lacks organization.6.0 pts | 10.0 pts |