presentation assessment rubric

Rubrics for Oral Presentations

Introduction.

Many instructors require students to give oral presentations, which they evaluate and count in students’ grades. It is important that instructors clarify their goals for these presentations as well as the student learning objectives to which they are related. Embedding the assignment in course goals and learning objectives allows instructors to be clear with students about their expectations and to develop a rubric for evaluating the presentations.

A rubric is a scoring guide that articulates and assesses specific components and expectations for an assignment. Rubrics identify the various criteria relevant to an assignment and then explicitly state the possible levels of achievement along a continuum, so that an effective rubric accurately reflects the expectations of an assignment. Using a rubric to evaluate student performance has advantages for both instructors and students.  Creating Rubrics

Rubrics can be either analytic or holistic. An analytic rubric comprises a set of specific criteria, with each one evaluated separately and receiving a separate score. The template resembles a grid with the criteria listed in the left column and levels of performance listed across the top row, using numbers and/or descriptors. The cells within the center of the rubric contain descriptions of what expected performance looks like for each level of performance.

A holistic rubric consists of a set of descriptors that generate a single, global score for the entire work. The single score is based on raters’ overall perception of the quality of the performance. Often, sentence- or paragraph-length descriptions of different levels of competencies are provided.

When applied to an oral presentation, rubrics should reflect the elements of the presentation that will be evaluated as well as their relative importance. Thus, the instructor must decide whether to include dimensions relevant to both form and content and, if so, which one. Additionally, the instructor must decide how to weight each of the dimensions – are they all equally important, or are some more important than others? Additionally, if the presentation represents a group project, the instructor must decide how to balance grading individual and group contributions.  Evaluating Group Projects

Creating Rubrics

The steps for creating an analytic rubric include the following:

1. Clarify the purpose of the assignment. What learning objectives are associated with the assignment?

2. Look for existing rubrics that can be adopted or adapted for the specific assignment

3. Define the criteria to be evaluated

4. Choose the rating scale to measure levels of performance

5. Write descriptions for each criterion for each performance level of the rating scale

6. Test and revise the rubric

Examples of criteria that have been included in rubrics for evaluation oral presentations include:

• Knowledge of content
• Organization of content
• Presentation of ideas
• Research/sources
• Visual aids/handouts
• Language clarity
• Grammatical correctness
• Time management
• Volume of speech
• Rate/pacing of Speech
• Mannerisms/gestures
• ​​​​​​​Eye contact/audience engagement

Examples of scales/ratings that have been used to rate student performance include:

• Strong, Satisfactory, Weak
• Beginning, Intermediate, High
• Exemplary, Competent, Developing
• Excellent, Competent, Needs Work
• Exceeds Standard, Meets Standard, Approaching Standard, Below Standard
• Exemplary, Proficient, Developing, Novice
• Excellent, Good, Marginal, Unacceptable
• Advanced, Intermediate High, Intermediate, Developing
• Exceptional, Above Average, Sufficient, Minimal, Poor
• Master, Distinguished, Proficient, Intermediate, Novice
• Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Poor, Unacceptable
• Always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never
• Exemplary, Accomplished, Acceptable, Minimally Acceptable, Emerging, Unacceptable

Grading and Performance Rubrics Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation

Creating and Using Rubrics Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation

Using Rubrics Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation

Rubrics DePaul University Teaching Commons

Building a Rubric University of Texas/Austin Faculty Innovation Center

Building a Rubric Columbia University Center for Teaching and Learning

Rubric Development University of West Florida Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment

Creating and Using Rubrics Yale University Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning

Designing Grading Rubrics ​​​​​​​ Brown University Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning

Examples of Oral Presentation Rubrics

Oral Presentation Rubric Pomona College Teaching and Learning Center

Oral Presentation Evaluation Rubric University of Michigan

Oral Presentation Rubric Roanoke College

Oral Presentation: Scoring Guide Fresno State University Office of Institutional Effectiveness

Presentation Skills Rubric State University of New York/New Paltz School of Business

Oral Presentation Rubric Oregon State University Center for Teaching and Learning

Oral Presentation Rubric Purdue University College of Science

Group Class Presentation Sample Rubric Pepperdine University Graziadio Business School

Oral Presentation Rubric

About this printout

This rubric is designed to be used for any oral presentation. Students are scored in three categories—delivery, content, and audience awareness.

Teaching with this printout

More ideas to try, related resources.

Oral presentation and speaking are important skills for students to master, especially in the intermediate grades. This oral presentation rubric is designed to fit any topic or subject area. The rubric allows teachers to assess students in several key areas of oral presentation. Students are scored on a scale of 1–4 in three major areas. The first area is Delivery, which includes eye contact, and voice inflection. The second area, Content/Organization, scores students based on their knowledge and understanding of the topic being presented and the overall organization of their presentation. The third area, Enthusiasm/Audience Awareness, assesses students based on their enthusiasm toward the topic and how well they came across to their intended audience. Give students the oral presentation rubric ahead of time so that they know and understand what they will be scored on. Discuss each of the major areas and how they relate to oral presentation.

• After students have completed their oral presentations, ask them to do a self-assessment with the same rubric and hold a conference with them to compare their self-assessment with your own assessment.
• Provide students with several examples of oral presentations before they plan and execute their own presentation. Ask students to evaluate and assess the exemplar presentations using the same rubric.
• Students can do a peer evaluation of oral presentations using this rubric. Students meet in partners or small groups to give each other feedback and explain their scoring.
• Lesson Plans
• Student Interactives

Students research engineering careers and create poetry to understand the vocabulary of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).

Useful for a wide variety of reading and writing activities, this outlining tool allows students to organize up to five levels of information.

• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

Search form

• About Faculty Development and Support
• Programs and Funding Opportunities

Consultations, Observations, and Services

• Strategic Resources & Digital Publications
• Canvas @ Yale Support
• Learning Environments @ Yale
• Teaching Workshops
• Teaching Consultations and Classroom Observations
• Teaching Programs
• Spring Teaching Forum
• Written and Oral Communication Workshops and Panels
• Writing Resources & Tutorials
• About the Graduate Writing Laboratory
• Writing and Public Speaking Consultations
• Writing Workshops and Panels
• Writing Peer-Review Groups
• Writing Retreats and All Writes
• Online Writing Resources for Graduate Students
• About Teaching Development for Graduate and Professional School Students
• Teaching Programs and Grants
• Teaching Forums
• Resources for Graduate Student Teachers
• About Undergraduate Writing and Tutoring
• Academic Strategies Program
• The Writing Center
• STEM Tutoring & Programs
• Humanities & Social Sciences
• Center for Language Study
• Online Course Catalog
• Antiracist Pedagogy
• NECQL 2019: NorthEast Consortium for Quantitative Literacy XXII Meeting
• STEMinar Series
• Teaching in Context: Troubling Times
• Helmsley Postdoctoral Teaching Scholars
• Pedagogical Partners
• Instructional Materials
• Evaluation & Research
• STEM Education Job Opportunities
• Yale Connect
• Online Education Legal Statements

You are here

Creating and using rubrics.

A rubric describes the criteria that will be used to evaluate a specific task, such as a student writing assignment, poster, oral presentation, or other project. Rubrics allow instructors to communicate expectations to students, allow students to check in on their progress mid-assignment, and can increase the reliability of scores. Research suggests that when rubrics are used on an instructional basis (for instance, included with an assignment prompt for reference), students tend to utilize and appreciate them (Reddy and Andrade, 2010).

Rubrics generally exist in tabular form and are composed of:

• A description of the task that is being evaluated,
• The criteria that is being evaluated (row headings),
• A rating scale that demonstrates different levels of performance (column headings), and
• A description of each level of performance for each criterion (within each box of the table).

When multiple individuals are grading, rubrics also help improve the consistency of scoring across all graders. Instructors should insure that the structure, presentation, consistency, and use of their rubrics pass rigorous standards of validity , reliability , and fairness (Andrade, 2005).

Major Types of Rubrics

There are two major categories of rubrics:

• Holistic : In this type of rubric, a single score is provided based on raters’ overall perception of the quality of the performance. Holistic rubrics are useful when only one attribute is being evaluated, as they detail different levels of performance within a single attribute. This category of rubric is designed for quick scoring but does not provide detailed feedback. For these rubrics, the criteria may be the same as the description of the task.
• Analytic : In this type of rubric, scores are provided for several different criteria that are being evaluated. Analytic rubrics provide more detailed feedback to students and instructors about their performance. Scoring is usually more consistent across students and graders with analytic rubrics.

Rubrics utilize a scale that denotes level of success with a particular assignment, usually a 3-, 4-, or 5- category grid:

Figure 1: Grading Rubrics: Sample Scales (Brown Sheridan Center)

Sample Rubrics

Instructors can consider a sample holistic rubric developed for an English Writing Seminar course at Yale.

The Association of American Colleges and Universities also has a number of free (non-invasive free account required) analytic rubrics that can be downloaded and modified by instructors. These 16 VALUE rubrics enable instructors to measure items such as inquiry and analysis, critical thinking, written communication, oral communication, quantitative literacy, teamwork, problem-solving, and more.

Recommendations

The following provides a procedure for developing a rubric, adapted from Brown’s Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning :

• Define the goal and purpose of the task that is being evaluated - Before constructing a rubric, instructors should review their learning outcomes associated with a given assignment. Are skills, content, and deeper conceptual knowledge clearly defined in the syllabus , and do class activities and assignments work towards intended outcomes? The rubric can only function effectively if goals are clear and student work progresses towards them.
• Decide what kind of rubric to use - The kind of rubric used may depend on the nature of the assignment, intended learning outcomes (for instance, does the task require the demonstration of several different skills?), and the amount and kind of feedback students will receive (for instance, is the task a formative or a summative assessment ?). Instructors can read the above, or consider “Additional Resources” for kinds of rubrics.
• Define the criteria - Instructors can review their learning outcomes and assessment parameters to determine specific criteria for the rubric to cover. Instructors should consider what knowledge and skills are required for successful completion, and create a list of criteria that assess outcomes across different vectors (comprehensiveness, maturity of thought, revisions, presentation, timeliness, etc). Criteria should be distinct and clearly described, and ideally, not surpass seven in number.
• Define the rating scale to measure levels of performance - Whatever rating scale instructors choose, they should insure that it is clear, and review it in-class to field student question and concerns. Instructors can consider if the scale will include descriptors or only be numerical, and might include prompts on the rubric for achieving higher achievement levels. Rubrics typically include 3-5 levels in their rating scales (see Figure 1 above).
• Write descriptions for each performance level of the rating scale - Each level should be accompanied by a descriptive paragraph that outlines ideals for each level, lists or names all performance expectations within the level, and if possible, provides a detail or example of ideal performance within each level. Across the rubric, descriptions should be parallel, observable, and measurable.
• Test and revise the rubric - The rubric can be tested before implementation, by arranging for writing or testing conditions with several graders or TFs who can use the rubric together. After grading with the rubric, graders might grade a similar set of materials without the rubric to assure consistency. Instructors can consider discrepancies, share the rubric and results with faculty colleagues for further opinions, and revise the rubric for use in class. Instructors might also seek out colleagues’ rubrics as well, for comparison. Regarding course implementation, instructors might consider passing rubrics out during the first class, in order to make grading expectations clear as early as possible. Rubrics should fit on one page, so that descriptions and criteria are viewable quickly and simultaneously. During and after a class or course, instructors can collect feedback on the rubric’s clarity and effectiveness from TFs and even students through anonymous surveys. Comparing scores and quality of assignments with parallel or previous assignments that did not include a rubric can reveal effectiveness as well. Instructors should feel free to revise a rubric following a course too, based on student performance and areas of confusion.

Additional Resources

Cox, G. C., Brathwaite, B. H., & Morrison, J. (2015). The Rubric: An assessment tool to guide students and markers. Advances in Higher Education, 149-163.

Creating and Using Rubrics - Carnegie Mellon Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and & Educational Innovation

Creating a Rubric - UC Denver Center for Faculty Development

Grading Rubric Design - Brown University Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning

Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: What, when and how? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 7(3).

Quinlan A. M., (2011) A Complete Guide to Rubrics: Assessment Made Easy for Teachers of K-college 2nd edition, Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Andrade, H. (2005). Teaching with Rubrics: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. College Teaching 53(1):27-30.

Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435-448.

Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning , Brown University

Downloads 

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Reserve a Room

The Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning partners with departments and groups on-campus throughout the year to share its space. Please review the reservation form and submit a request.

Instructional Enhancement Fund

The Instructional Enhancement Fund (IEF) awards grants of up to $500 to support the timely integration of new learning activities into an existing undergraduate or graduate course. All Yale instructors of record, including tenured and tenure-track faculty, clinical instructional faculty, lecturers, lectors, and part-time acting instructors (PTAIs), are eligible to apply. Award decisions are typically provided within two weeks to help instructors implement ideas for the current semester.

The Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning routinely supports members of the Yale community with individual instructional consultations and classroom observations.

Rubric Best Practices, Examples, and Templates

A rubric is a scoring tool that identifies the different criteria relevant to an assignment, assessment, or learning outcome and states the possible levels of achievement in a specific, clear, and objective way. Use rubrics to assess project-based student work including essays, group projects, creative endeavors, and oral presentations.

Rubrics can help instructors communicate expectations to students and assess student work fairly, consistently and efficiently. Rubrics can provide students with informative feedback on their strengths and weaknesses so that they can reflect on their performance and work on areas that need improvement.

How to Get Started

Best practices, moodle how-to guides.

• Workshop Recording (Fall 2022)
• Workshop Registration

Step 1: Analyze the assignment

The first step in the rubric creation process is to analyze the assignment or assessment for which you are creating a rubric. To do this, consider the following questions:

• What is the purpose of the assignment and your feedback? What do you want students to demonstrate through the completion of this assignment (i.e. what are the learning objectives measured by it)? Is it a summative assessment, or will students use the feedback to create an improved product?
• Does the assignment break down into different or smaller tasks? Are these tasks equally important as the main assignment?
• What would an “excellent” assignment look like? An “acceptable” assignment? One that still needs major work?
• How detailed do you want the feedback you give students to be? Do you want/need to give them a grade?

Step 2: Decide what kind of rubric you will use

Types of rubrics: holistic, analytic/descriptive, single-point

Holistic Rubric. A holistic rubric includes all the criteria (such as clarity, organization, mechanics, etc.) to be considered together and included in a single evaluation. With a holistic rubric, the rater or grader assigns a single score based on an overall judgment of the student’s work, using descriptions of each performance level to assign the score.

Advantages of holistic rubrics:

• Can p lace an emphasis on what learners can demonstrate rather than what they cannot
• Save grader time by minimizing the number of evaluations to be made for each student
• Can be used consistently across raters, provided they have all been trained

Disadvantages of holistic rubrics:

• Provide less specific feedback than analytic/descriptive rubrics
• Can be difficult to choose a score when a student’s work is at varying levels across the criteria
• Any weighting of c riteria cannot be indicated in the rubric

Analytic/Descriptive Rubric . An analytic or descriptive rubric often takes the form of a table with the criteria listed in the left column and with levels of performance listed across the top row. Each cell contains a description of what the specified criterion looks like at a given level of performance. Each of the criteria is scored individually.

Advantages of analytic rubrics:

• Provide detailed feedback on areas of strength or weakness
• Each criterion can be weighted to reflect its relative importance

Disadvantages of analytic rubrics:

• More time-consuming to create and use than a holistic rubric
• May not be used consistently across raters unless the cells are well defined
• May result in giving less personalized feedback

Single-Point Rubric . A single-point rubric is breaks down the components of an assignment into different criteria, but instead of describing different levels of performance, only the “proficient” level is described. Feedback space is provided for instructors to give individualized comments to help students improve and/or show where they excelled beyond the proficiency descriptors.

Advantages of single-point rubrics:

• Easier to create than an analytic/descriptive rubric
• Perhaps more likely that students will read the descriptors
• Areas of concern and excellence are open-ended
• May removes a focus on the grade/points
• May increase student creativity in project-based assignments

Disadvantage of analytic rubrics: Requires more work for instructors writing feedback

Step 3 (Optional): Look for templates and examples.

You might Google, “Rubric for persuasive essay at the college level” and see if there are any publicly available examples to start from. Ask your colleagues if they have used a rubric for a similar assignment. Some examples are also available at the end of this article. These rubrics can be a great starting point for you, but consider steps 3, 4, and 5 below to ensure that the rubric matches your assignment description, learning objectives and expectations.

Step 4: Define the assignment criteria

Make a list of the knowledge and skills are you measuring with the assignment/assessment Refer to your stated learning objectives, the assignment instructions, past examples of student work, etc. for help.

  Helpful strategies for defining grading criteria:

• Collaborate with co-instructors, teaching assistants, and other colleagues
• Brainstorm and discuss with students
• Can they be observed and measured?
• Are they important and essential?
• Are they distinct from other criteria?
• Are they phrased in precise, unambiguous language?
• Revise the criteria as needed
• Consider whether some are more important than others, and how you will weight them.

Step 5: Design the rating scale

Most ratings scales include between 3 and 5 levels. Consider the following questions when designing your rating scale:

• Given what students are able to demonstrate in this assignment/assessment, what are the possible levels of achievement?
• How many levels would you like to include (more levels means more detailed descriptions)
• Will you use numbers and/or descriptive labels for each level of performance? (for example 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and/or Exceeds expectations, Accomplished, Proficient, Developing, Beginning, etc.)
• Don’t use too many columns, and recognize that some criteria can have more columns that others . The rubric needs to be comprehensible and organized. Pick the right amount of columns so that the criteria flow logically and naturally across levels.

Step 6: Write descriptions for each level of the rating scale

Artificial Intelligence tools like Chat GPT have proven to be useful tools for creating a rubric. You will want to engineer your prompt that you provide the AI assistant to ensure you get what you want. For example, you might provide the assignment description, the criteria you feel are important, and the number of levels of performance you want in your prompt. Use the results as a starting point, and adjust the descriptions as needed.

Building a rubric from scratch

For a single-point rubric , describe what would be considered “proficient,” i.e. B-level work, and provide that description. You might also include suggestions for students outside of the actual rubric about how they might surpass proficient-level work.

For analytic and holistic rubrics , c reate statements of expected performance at each level of the rubric.

• Consider what descriptor is appropriate for each criteria, e.g., presence vs absence, complete vs incomplete, many vs none, major vs minor, consistent vs inconsistent, always vs never. If you have an indicator described in one level, it will need to be described in each level.
• You might start with the top/exemplary level. What does it look like when a student has achieved excellence for each/every criterion? Then, look at the “bottom” level. What does it look like when a student has not achieved the learning goals in any way? Then, complete the in-between levels.
• For an analytic rubric , do this for each particular criterion of the rubric so that every cell in the table is filled. These descriptions help students understand your expectations and their performance in regard to those expectations.

Well-written descriptions:

• Describe observable and measurable behavior
• Use parallel language across the scale
• Indicate the degree to which the standards are met

Step 7: Create your rubric

Create your rubric in a table or spreadsheet in Word, Google Docs, Sheets, etc., and then transfer it by typing it into Moodle. You can also use online tools to create the rubric, but you will still have to type the criteria, indicators, levels, etc., into Moodle. Rubric creators: Rubistar , iRubric

Step 8: Pilot-test your rubric

Prior to implementing your rubric on a live course, obtain feedback from:

• Teacher assistants

Try out your new rubric on a sample of student work. After you pilot-test your rubric, analyze the results to consider its effectiveness and revise accordingly.

• Limit the rubric to a single page for reading and grading ease
• Use parallel language . Use similar language and syntax/wording from column to column. Make sure that the rubric can be easily read from left to right or vice versa.
• Use student-friendly language . Make sure the language is learning-level appropriate. If you use academic language or concepts, you will need to teach those concepts.
• Share and discuss the rubric with your students . Students should understand that the rubric is there to help them learn, reflect, and self-assess. If students use a rubric, they will understand the expectations and their relevance to learning.
• Consider scalability and reusability of rubrics. Create rubric templates that you can alter as needed for multiple assignments.
• Maximize the descriptiveness of your language. Avoid words like “good” and “excellent.” For example, instead of saying, “uses excellent sources,” you might describe what makes a resource excellent so that students will know. You might also consider reducing the reliance on quantity, such as a number of allowable misspelled words. Focus instead, for example, on how distracting any spelling errors are.

Example of an analytic rubric for a final paper

Example of a holistic rubric for a final paper, single-point rubric, more examples:.

• Single Point Rubric Template ( variation )
• Analytic Rubric Template make a copy to edit
• A Rubric for Rubrics
• Bank of Online Discussion Rubrics in different formats
• Mathematical Presentations Descriptive Rubric
• Math Proof Assessment Rubric
• Kansas State Sample Rubrics
• Design Single Point Rubric

Technology Tools: Rubrics in Moodle

• Moodle Docs: Rubrics
• Moodle Docs: Grading Guide (use for single-point rubrics)

Tools with rubrics (other than Moodle)

• Google Assignments
• Turnitin Assignments: Rubric or Grading Form

Other resources

• DePaul University (n.d.). Rubrics .
• Gonzalez, J. (2014). Know your terms: Holistic, Analytic, and Single-Point Rubrics . Cult of Pedagogy.
• Goodrich, H. (1996). Understanding rubrics . Teaching for Authentic Student Performance, 54 (4), 14-17. Retrieved from   
• Miller, A. (2012). Tame the beast: tips for designing and using rubrics.
• Ragupathi, K., Lee, A. (2020). Beyond Fairness and Consistency in Grading: The Role of Rubrics in Higher Education. In: Sanger, C., Gleason, N. (eds) Diversity and Inclusion in Global Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.

Center for Teaching Innovation

Resource library.

• AACU VALUE Rubrics

Using rubrics

A rubric is a type of scoring guide that assesses and articulates specific components and expectations for an assignment. Rubrics can be used for a variety of assignments: research papers, group projects, portfolios, and presentations.  

Why use rubrics? 

Rubrics help instructors: 

• Assess assignments consistently from student-to-student. 
• Save time in grading, both short-term and long-term. 
• Give timely, effective feedback and promote student learning in a sustainable way. 
• Clarify expectations and components of an assignment for both students and course teaching assistants (TAs). 
• Refine teaching methods by evaluating rubric results. 

Rubrics help students: 

• Understand expectations and components of an assignment. 
• Become more aware of their learning process and progress. 
• Improve work through timely and detailed feedback. 

Considerations for using rubrics 

When developing rubrics consider the following:

• Although it takes time to build a rubric, time will be saved in the long run as grading and providing feedback on student work will become more streamlined.  
• A rubric can be a fillable pdf that can easily be emailed to students. 
• They can be used for oral presentations. 
• They are a great tool to evaluate teamwork and individual contribution to group tasks. 
• Rubrics facilitate peer-review by setting evaluation standards. Have students use the rubric to provide peer assessment on various drafts. 
• Students can use them for self-assessment to improve personal performance and learning. Encourage students to use the rubrics to assess their own work. 
• Motivate students to improve their work by using rubric feedback to resubmit their work incorporating the feedback. 

Getting Started with Rubrics 

• Start small by creating one rubric for one assignment in a semester.  
• Ask colleagues if they have developed rubrics for similar assignments or adapt rubrics that are available online. For example, the  AACU has rubrics  for topics such as written and oral communication, critical thinking, and creative thinking. RubiStar helps you to develop your rubric based on templates.  
• Examine an assignment for your course. Outline the elements or critical attributes to be evaluated (these attributes must be objectively measurable). 
• Create an evaluative range for performance quality under each element; for instance, “excellent,” “good,” “unsatisfactory.” 
• Avoid using subjective or vague criteria such as “interesting” or “creative.” Instead, outline objective indicators that would fall under these categories. 
• The criteria must clearly differentiate one performance level from another. 
• Assign a numerical scale to each level. 
• Give a draft of the rubric to your colleagues and/or TAs for feedback. 
• Train students to use your rubric and solicit feedback. This will help you judge whether the rubric is clear to them and will identify any weaknesses. 
• Rework the rubric based on the feedback. 

Advertisement

Rubric formats for the formative assessment of oral presentation skills acquisition in secondary education

• Development Article
• Open access
• Published: 20 July 2021
• Volume 69 , pages 2663–2682, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Rob J. Nadolski   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6585-0888 1 ,
• Hans G. K. Hummel 1 ,
• Ellen Rusman 1 &
• Kevin Ackermans 1  

10k Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Acquiring complex oral presentation skills is cognitively demanding for students and demands intensive teacher guidance. The aim of this study was twofold: (a) to identify and apply design guidelines in developing an effective formative assessment method for oral presentation skills during classroom practice, and (b) to develop and compare two analytic rubric formats as part of that assessment method. Participants were first-year secondary school students in the Netherlands ( n  = 158) that acquired oral presentation skills with the support of either a formative assessment method with analytic rubrics offered through a dedicated online tool (experimental groups), or a method using more conventional (rating scales) rubrics (control group). One experimental group was provided text-based and the other was provided video-enhanced rubrics. No prior research is known about analytic video-enhanced rubrics, but, based on research on complex skill development and multimedia learning, we expected this format to best capture the (non-verbal aspects of) oral presentation performance. Significant positive differences on oral presentation performance were found between the experimental groups and the control group. However, no significant differences were found between both experimental groups. This study shows that a well-designed formative assessment method, using analytic rubric formats, outperforms formative assessment using more conventional rubric formats. It also shows that higher costs of developing video-enhanced analytic rubrics cannot be justified by significant more performance gains. Future studies should address the generalizability of such formative assessment methods for other contexts, and for complex skills other than oral presentation, and should lead to more profound understanding of video-enhanced rubrics.

Similar content being viewed by others

Viewbrics: A Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Method to Mirror and Master Complex Skills with Video-Enhanced Rubrics and Peer Feedback in Secondary Education

Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of the Usability and Usefulness of the First Viewbrics-Prototype: A Methodology and Online Tool to Formatively Assess Complex Generic Skills with Video-Enhanced Rubrics (VER) in Dutch Secondary Education

The Dilemmas of Formulating Theory-Informed Design Guidelines for a Video Enhanced Rubric

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Both practitioners and scholars agree that students should be able to present orally (e.g., Morreale & Pearson, 2008 ; Smith & Sodano, 2011 ). Oral presentation involves the development and delivery of messages to the public with attention to vocal variety, articulation, and non-verbal signals, and with the aim to inform, self-express, relate to and persuade listeners (Baccarini & Bonfanti, 2015 ; De Grez et al., 2009a ; Quianthy, 1990 ). The current study is restricted to informative presentations (as opposed to persuasive presentations), as these are most common in secondary education. Oral presentation skills are complex generic skills of increasing importance for both society and education (Voogt & Roblin, 2012 ). However, secondary education seems to be in lack of instructional design guidelines for supporting oral presentation skills acquisition. Many secondary schools in the Netherlands are struggling with how to teach and assess students’ oral presentation skills, lack clear performance criteria for oral presentations, and fall short in offering adequate formative assessment methods that support the effective acquisition of oral presentation skills (Sluijsmans et al., 2013 ).

Many researchers agree that the acquisition and assessment of presentation skills should depart from a socio-cognitive perspective (Bandura, 1986 ) with emphasis on observation, practice, and feedback. Students practice new presentation skills by observing other presentations as modeling examples, then practice their own presentation, after which the feedback is addressed by adjusting their presentations towards the required levels. Evidently, delivering effective oral presentations requires much preparation, rehearsal, and practice, interspersed with good feedback, preferably from oral presentation experts. However, large class sizes in secondary schools of the Netherlands offer only limited opportunities for teacher-student interaction, and offer even fewer practice opportunities. Based on research on complex skill development and multimedia learning, it can be expected that video-enhanced analytic rubric formats best capture and guide oral presentation performance, since much non-verbal behavior cannot be captured in text (Van Gog et al., 2014 ; Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2013 ).

Formative assessment of complex skills

To support complex skills acquisition under limited teacher guidance, we will need more effective formative assessment methods (Boud & Molloy, 2013 ) based on proven instructional design guidelines. During skills acquisition students will perceive specific feedback as more adequate than non-specific feedback (Shute, 2008 ). Adequate feedback should inform students about (i) their task-performance, (ii) their progress towards intended learning goals, and (iii) what they should do to further progress towards those goals (Hattie & Timperly, 2007 ; Narciss, 2008 ). Students receiving specific feedback on criteria and performance levels will become equipped to improve oral presentation skills (De Grez et al., 2009a ; Ritchie, 2016 ). Analytic rubrics are therefore promising formats to provide specific feedback on oral presentations, because they can demonstrate the relations between subskills and explain the open-endedness of ideal presentations (through textual descriptions and their graphical design).

Ritchie ( 2016 ) showed that adding structure and self-assessment to peer- and teacher-assessments resulted in better oral presentation performance. Students were required to use analytic rubrics for self-assessment when following their (project-based) classroom education. In this way, they had ample opportunity for observing and reflecting on (good) oral presentations attributes, which was shown to foster acquisition of their oral presentation skills.

Analytic rubrics incorporate performance criteria to inform teachers and students when preparing oral presentation. Such rubrics support mental model formation, and enable adequate feedback provision by teachers, peers, and self (Brookhart & Chen, 2015 ; Jonsson & Svingby, 2007 ; Panadero & Jonsson, 2013 ). Such research is inconclusive about what are most effective formats and delivery media, but most studies dealt with analytic text-based rubrics delivered on paper. However, digital video-enhanced analytic rubrics are expected to be more effective for acquiring oral presentation skills, since many behavioral aspects refer to non-verbal actions and processes that can only be captured on video (e.g., body posture or use of voice during a presentation).

This study is situated within the Viewbrics project where video-modelling examples are integrated with analytic text-based rubrics (Ackermans et al., 2019a ). Video-modelling examples contain question prompts that illustrate behavior associated with (sub)skills performance levels in context, and are presented by young actors the target group can identify with. The question prompts require students to link behavior to performance levels, and build a coherent picture of the (sub)skills and levels. To the best of authors’ knowledge, there exist no previous studies on such video-enhanced analytic rubrics. The Viewbrics tool has been incrementally developed and validated with teachers and students to structure the formative assessment method in classroom settings (Rusman et al., 2019 ).

The purpose of our study is twofold. On the one hand, it investigates whether the application of evidence-based design guidelines results in a more effective formative assessment method in classroom. On the other hand, it investigates (within that method) whether video-enhanced analytic rubrics are more effective than text-based analytic rubrics.

Research questions

The twofold purpose of this study is stated by two research questions: (1) To what extent do analytic rubrics within formative assessment lead to better oral presentation performance? (the design-based part of this study); and (2) To what extent do video-enhanced analytic rubrics lead to better oral presentation performance (growth) than text-based analytic rubrics? (the experimental part of this study). We hypothesize that all students will improve their oral presentation performance in time, but that students in the experimental groups (receiving analytic rubrics designed according to proven design guidelines) will outperform a control group (receiving conventional rubrics) (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, we expect the experimental group using video-enhanced rubrics to achieve more performance growth than the experimental group using text-based rubrics (Hypothesis 2).

After this introduction, the second section describes previous research on design guidelines that were applied to develop the analytic rubrics in the present study. The actual design, development and validation of these rubrics is described in “ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section. “ Method ” section describes the experimental method of this study, whereas “ Results ” section reports its results. Finally, in the concluding “ Conclusions and discussion ” section, main findings and limitations of the study are discussed, and suggestions for future research are provided.

Previous research and design guidelines for formative assessment with analytic rubrics

Analytic rubrics are inextricably linked with assessment, either summative (for final grading of learning products) or formative (for scaffolding learning processes). They provide textual descriptions of skills’ mastery levels with performance indicators that describe concrete behavior for all constituent subskills at each mastery level (Allen & Tanner, 2006 ; Reddy, 2011 ; Sluijsmans et al., 2013 ) (see Figs.  1 and 2 in “ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section for an example). Such performance indicators specify aspects of variation in the complexity of a (sub)skill (e.g., presenting for a small, homogeneous group as compared to presenting for a large heterogeneous group) and related mastery levels (Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2013 ). Analytic rubrics explicate criteria and expectations, can be used to check students’ progress, monitor learning, and diagnose learning problems, either by teachers, students themselves or by their peers (Rusman & Dirkx, 2017 ).

Subskills for oral presentation assessment

Specification of performance levels for criterium 4

Several motives for deploying analytic rubrics in education are distinguished. A review study by Panadero and Jonsson ( 2013 ) identified following motives: increasing transparency, reducing anxiety, aiding the feedback process, improving student self-efficacy, and supporting student self-regulation. Analytic rubrics also improve reliability among teachers when rating their students (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007 ). Evidence has shown that analytic rubrics can be utilized to enhance student performance and learning when they were used for formative assessment purposes in combination with metacognitive activities, like reflection and goal-setting, but research shows mixed results about their learning effectiveness (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013 ).

It remains unclear what is exactly needed to make their feedback effective (Reddy & Andrade, 2010 ; Reitmeier & Vrchota, 2009 ). Apparently, transparency of assessment criteria and learning goals (i.e., make expectations and criteria explicit) is not enough to establish effectiveness (Wöllenschläger et al., 2016 ). Several researchers stressed the importance of how and which feedback to provide with rubrics (Bower et al., 2011 ; De Grez et al., 2009b ; Kerby & Romine, 2009 ). We now continue this section by reviewing design guidelines for analytic rubrics we encountered in literature, and then specifically address what literature mentions about the added value of video-enhanced rubrics.

Design guidelines for analytic rubrics

Effective formative assessment methods for oral presentation and analytic rubrics should be based on proven instructional design guidelines (Van Ginkel et al., 2015 ). Table 1 presents an overview of (seventeen) guidelines on analytic rubrics we encountered in literature. Guidelines 1–4 inform us how to use rubrics for formative assessment; Guidelines 5–17 inform us how to use rubrics for instruction, with Guidelines 5–9 on a rather generic, meso level and Guidelines 10–17 on a more specific, micro level. We will now shortly describe them in relation to oral presentation skills.

Guideline 1: use analytic rubrics instead of rating scale rubrics if rubrics are meant for learning

Conventional rating-scale rubrics are easy to generate and use as they contain scores for each performance criterium (e.g., by a 5-point Likert scale). However, since each performance level is not clearly described or operationalized, rating can suffer from rater-subjectivity, and rating scales do not provide students with unambiguous feedback (Suskie, 2009 ). Analytic rubrics can address those shortcomings as they contain brief textual performance descriptions on all subskills, criteria, and performance levels of complex skills like presentation, but are harder to develop and score (Bargainnier, 2004 ; Brookhart, 2004 ; Schreiber et al., 2012 ).

Guideline 2: use self-assessment via rubrics for formative purposes

Analytic rubrics can encourage self-assessment and -reflection (Falchikov & Boud, 1989 ; Reitmeier & Vrchota, 2009 ), which appears essential when practicing presentations and reflecting on other presentations (Van Ginkel et al., 2017 ). The usefulness of self-assessment for oral presentation was demonstrated by Ritchie’s study ( 2016 ), but was absent in a study by De Grez et al. ( 2009b ) that used the same rubric.

Guideline 3: use peer-assessment via rubrics for formative purposes

Peer-feedback is more (readily) available than teacher-feedback, and can be beneficial for students’ confidence and learning (Cho & Cho, 2011 ; Murillo-Zamorano & Montanero, 2018 ), also for oral presentation (Topping, 2009 ). Students positively value peer-assessment if the circumstances guarantee serious feedback (De Grez et al., 2010 ; Lim et al., 2013 ). It can be assumed that using analytic rubrics positively influences the quality of peer-assessment.

Guideline 4: provide rubrics for usage by self, peers, and teachers as students appreciate rubrics

Students appreciate analytic rubrics because they support them in their learning, in their planning, in producing higher quality work, in focusing efforts, and in reducing anxiety about assignments (Reddy & Andrade, 2010 ), aspects of importance for oral presentation. While students positively perceive the use of peer-grading, the inclusion of teacher-grades is still needed (Mulder et al., 2014 ) and most valued by students (Ritchie, 2016 ).

Guidelines 5–9

Heitink et al. ( 2016 ) carried out a review study identifying five relevant prerequisites for effective classroom instruction on a meso-level when using analytic rubrics (for oral presentations): train teachers and students in using these rubrics, decide on a policy of their use in instruction, while taking school- and classroom contexts into account, and follow a constructivist learning approach. In the next section, it is described how these guidelines were applied to the design of this study’s classroom instruction.

Guidelines 10–17

Van Ginkel et al. ( 2015 ) review study presents a comprehensive overview of effective factors for oral presentation instruction in higher education on a micro-level. Although our research context is within secondary education, the findings from the aforementioned study seem very applicable as they were rooted in firmly researched and well-documented Instructional Design approaches. Their guidelines pertain to (a) instruction, (b) learning, and (c) assessment in the learning environment (Biggs, 2003 ). The next section describes how guidelines were applied to the design of this study’s online Viewbrics tool.

• Video-enhanced rubrics

Early analytic rubrics for oral presentations were all text-based descriptions. This study assumes that such analytic rubrics may fall short when used for learning to give oral presentations, since much of the required performance refers to motoric activities, time-consecutive operations and processes that can hardly be captured in text (e.g., body posture or use of voice during a presentation). Text-based rubrics also have a limited capacity to convey contextualized and more ‘tacit’ behavioral aspects (O’Donnevan et al., 2004 ), since ‘tacit knowledge’ (or ‘knowing how’) is interwoven with practical activities, operations, and behavior in the physical world (Westera, 2011 ). Finally, text leaves more space for personal interpretation (of performance indicators) than video, which negatively influences mental model formation and feedback consistency (Lew et al., 2010 ).

We can therefore expect video-enhanced rubrics to overcome such restrictions, as they can integrate modelling examples with analytic text-based explanations. The video-modelling examples and its embedded question prompts can illustrate behavior associated with performance levels in context, and contain information in different modalities (moving images, sound). Video-enhanced rubrics foster learning from active observation of video-modelling examples (De Grez et al., 2014 ; Rohbanfard & Proteau, 2013 ), especially when combined with textual performance indicators. Looking at effects of video-modelling examples, Van Gog et al. ( 2014 ) found an increased task performance when the video-modelling example of an expert was also shown. De Grez et al. ( 2014 ) found comparable results for learning to give oral presentations. Teachers in training assessing their own performance with video-modelling examples appeared to overrate their performance less than without examples (Baecher et al., 2013 ). Research on mastering complex skills indicates that both modelling examples (in a variety of application contexts) and frequent feedback positively influence the learning process and skills' acquisition (Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2013 ). Video-modelling examples not only capture the ‘know-how’ (procedural knowledge), but also elicit the ‘know-why’ (strategic/decisive knowledge).

Development of analytic rubrics tool

This section describes how design guidelines from previous research were applied in the actual development of the rubrics in the Viewbrics tool for our study, and then presents the subskills and levels for oral presentation skills as were defined.

Application of design guidelines

The previous section already mentioned that analytic rubrics should be restricted to formative assessment (Guidelines 2 and 3), and that there are good reasons to assume that a combination of teacher-, peer-, and self-assessment will improve oral presentations (Guidelines 1 and 4). Teachers and students were trained in rubric-usage (Guidelines 5 and 7), whereas students were motivated for using rubrics (Guideline 7). As participating schools were already using analytic rubrics, one might assume their positive initial attitude. Although the policy towards using analytic rubrics might not have been generally known at the work floor, the participating teachers in our study were knowledgeable (Guideline 6). We carefully considered the school context, as (a representative set of) secondary schools in the Netherlands were part of the Viewbrics team (Guideline 8). The formative assessment method was embedded within project-based education (Guideline 9).

Within this study and on the micro-level of design, the learning objectives for the first presentation were clearly specified by lower performance levels, whereas advice on students' second presentation focused on improving specific subskills, that had been performed with insufficient quality during the first presentation (Guideline 10). Students carried out two consecutive projects of increasing complexity (Project 1, Project 2) with authentic tasks, amongst which the oral presentations (Guideline 11). Students were provided with opportunities to observe peer-models to increase their self-efficacy beliefs and oral presentation competence. In our study, only students that received video-enhanced rubrics could observe videos with peer-models before their first presentation (Guideline 12). Students were allowed enough opportunities to rehearse their oral presentations, to increase their presentation competence, and to decrease their communication apprehension. Within our study, only two oral presentations could be provided feedback, but students could rehearse as often as they wanted outside the classroom (Guideline 13). We ensured that feedback in the rubrics was of high quality, i.e., explicit, contextual, adequately timed, and of suitable intensity for improving students’ oral presentation competence. Both experimental groups in the study used digital analytic rubrics within the Viewbrics tool (both teacher-, peer-, and self-feedback). The control group received feedback by a more conventional rubric (rating scale), and could therefore not use the formative assessment and reflection functions (Guideline 14). The setup of the study implied that all peers play a major role during formative assessment in both experimental groups, because they formatively assessed each oral presentation using the Viewbrics tool (Guideline 15). The control group received feedback from their teacher. Both experimental groups used the Viewbrics tool to facilitate self-assessment (Guideline 16). The control group did not receive analytic progress data to inform their self-assessment. Specific goal-setting within self-assessment has been shown to positively stimulate oral presentation performance, to improve self-efficacy and reduce presentation anxiety (De Grez et al., 2009a ; Luchetti et al., 2003 ), so the Viewbrics tool was developed to support both specific goal-setting and self-reflection (Guideline 17).

Subskills and levels for oral presentation

Reddy and Andrade ( 2010 ) stress that rubrics should be tailored to the specific learning objectives and target groups. Oral presentations in secondary education (our study context) involve generating and delivering informative messages with attention to vocal variety, articulation, and non-verbal signals. In this context, message composition and message delivery are considered important (Quianthy, 1990 ). Strong arguments (‘logos’) have to be presented in a credible (‘ethos’) and exciting (‘pathos’) way (Baccarini & Bonfanti, 2015 ). Public speaking experts agree that there is not one right way to do an oral presentation (Schneider et al., 2017 ). There is agreement that all presenters need much practice, commitment, and creativity. Effective presenters do not rigorously and obsessively apply communication rules and techniques, as their audience may then perceive the performance as too technical or artificial. But all presentations should demonstrate sufficient mastery of elementary (sub)skills in an integrated manner. Therefore, such skills should also be practiced as a whole (including knowledge and attitudes), making the attainment of a skill performance level more than the sum of its constituent (sub)skills (Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2013 ). A validated instrument for assessing oral presentation performance is needed to help teachers assess and support students while practicing.

When we started developing rubrics with the Viewbrics tool (late 2016), there were no studies or validated measuring instruments for oral presentation performance in secondary education, although several schools used locally developed, non-validated assessment forms (i.e., conventional rubrics). For instance, Schreiber et al. ( 2012 ) had developed an analytic rubric for public speaking skills assessment in higher education, aimed at faculty members and students across disciplines. They identified eleven (sub)skills of public speaking, that could be subsumed under three factors (‘topic adaptation’, ‘speech presentation’ and ‘nonverbal delivery’, similar to logos-ethos-pathos).

Such previous work holds much value, but still had to be adapted and elaborated in the context of the current study. This study elaborated and evaluated eleven subskills that can be identified within the natural flow of an oral presentation and its distinctive features (See Fig.  1 for an overview of subskills, and Fig.  2 for a specification of performance levels for a specific subskill).

Between brackets are names of subskills as they appear in the dashboard of the Viewbrics tool (Fig.  3 ).

Visualization of oral presentation progress and feedback in the Viewbrics tool

The upper part of Fig.  2 shows the scoring levels for first-year secondary school students for criterium 4 of the oral presentation assessment (four values, from more expert (4 points) to more novice (1 point), from right to left), an example of the conventional rating-scale rubrics. The lower part shows the corresponding screenshot from the Viewbrics tool, representing a text-based analytic rubric example. A video-enhanced analytic rubric example for this subskill provides a peer modelling the required behavior on expert level, with question prompts on selecting reliable and interesting materials. Performance levels were inspired by previous research (Ritchie, 2016 ; Schneider et al., 2017 ; Schreiber et al., 2012 ), but also based upon current secondary school practices in the Netherlands, and developed and tested with secondary school teachers and their students.

All eleven subskills are to be scored on similar four-point Likert scales, and have similar weights in determining total average scores. Two pilot studies tested the usability, validity and reliability of the assessment tool (Rusman et al., 2019 ). Based on this input, the final rubrics were improved and embedded in a prototype of the online Viewbrics tool, and used for this study. The formative assessment method consisted of six steps: (1) study the rubric; (2) practice and conduct an oral presentation; (3) conduct a self-assessment; (4) consult feedback from teacher and peers; (5) Reflect on feedback; and (6) select personal learning goal(s) for the next oral presentation.

After the second project (Project 2), that used the same setup and assessment method as for the first project, students in experimental groups could also see their visualized progress in the ‘dashboard’ of the Viewbrics tool (see Fig.  3 , with English translations provided between brackets), by comparing performance on their two project presentations during the second reflection assignment. The dashboard of the tool shows progress (inner circles), with green reflecting improvement on subskills, blue indicating constant subskills, and red indicating declining subskills. Feedback is provided by emoticons with text. Students’ personal learning goals after reflection are shown under ‘Mijn leerdoelen’ [My learning goals].

The previous sections described how design guidelines for analytic rubrics from literature (“ Previous research and design guidelines for formative assessment with analytic rubrics ” section) were applied in a formative assessment method with analytic rubrics (“ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section). “ Method ” section describes this study’s research design for comparing rubric formats.

Research design of the study

All classroom scenarios followed the same lesson plan and structure for project-based instruction, and consisted of two projects with specific rubric feedback provided in between. Both experimental groups used the same formative assessment method with validated analytic rubrics, but differed on the analytic rubric format (text-based, video-enhanced). The students of the control group did not use such a formative assessment method, and only received teacher-feedback (via a conventional rating-scale rubric that consisted of a standard form with attention points for presentations, without further instructions) on these presentations. All three scenarios required similar time investments for students. School classes (six) were randomly assigned to conditions (three), so students from the same class were in the same condition. Figure  4 graphically depicts an overview of the research design of the study.

Research design overview

A repeated-measures mixed-ANOVA on oral presentation performance (growth) was carried out to analyze data, with rubric-format (three conditions) as between-groups factor and repeated measures (two moments) as within groups factor. All statistical data analyses were conducted with SPSS version 24.

Participants

Participants were first-year secondary school students (all within the 12–13 years range) from two Dutch schools, with participants equally distributed over schools and conditions ( n  = 166, with 79 girls and 87 boys). Classes were randomly allocated to conditions. Most participants completed both oral presentations ( n  = 158, so an overall response rate of 95%). Data were collected (almost) equally from the video-enhanced rubrics condition ( n  = 51), text-based condition ( n  = 57), and conventional rubrics (control) condition ( n  = 50).

A related study within the same context and participants (Ackermans et al., 2019b ), analyzed the concept maps elicited from participants to reveal that their mental models (indicating mastery levels) for oral presentation across conditions were similar. From that finding we can conclude that students possessed similar mental models for presentation skills before starting the projects. Results from the online questionnaire (“ Anxiety, preparedness, and motivation ” section) reveal that students in experimental groups did not differ in anxiety, preparedness and motivation before their first presentation. Together with the teacher assessments of similarity of classes, we can assume similarity of students across conditions at the start of the experiment.

Materials and procedure

Teachers from both schools worked closely together in guaranteeing similar instruction and difficulty levels for both projects (Project 1, Project 2). Schools agreed to follow a standardized lesson plan for both projects and their oral presentation tasks. Core team members then developed (condition-specific) materials for teacher- and student workshops on how to use rubrics and provide instructions and feedback (Guidelines 5 and 7). This also assured that similar measures were taken for potential problems with anxiety, preparedness and motivation. Teachers received information about (condition-specific) versions of the Viewbrics tool (see “ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section). The core team consisted of three researchers and three (project) teachers, with one teacher also supervising the others. The teacher workshops were given by the supervising teacher and two researchers before starting recruitment of students.

Teachers estimated similarity of all six classes with respect to students’ prior presentation skills before starting the first project. All classes were informed by an introduction letter from the core team and their teachers. Participation in this study was voluntary. Students and their parents/caretakers were informed about 4 weeks before the start of the first project, and received information on research-specific activities, time-investment and -schedule. Parents/caretakers signed, on behalf of their minors of age, an informed consent form before the study started. All were informed that data would be anonymized for scientific purposes, and that students could withdraw at any time without giving reasons.

School classes were randomly assigned to conditions. Students of experimental groups were informed that the usability of the Viewbrics tool for oral presentation skills acquisition were investigated, but were left unaware of different rubric formats. Students of the control group were informed that their oral presentation skills acquisition was investigated. From all students, concept maps about oral presentation were elicited (reflecting their mental model and mastery level). Students participated in workshops (specific for their condition and provided by their teacher) on how to use rubrics and provide peer-feedback (all materials remained available throughout the study).

Before giving their presentations on Project 1, students filled in the online questionnaire via LimeSurvey. Peers and teachers in experimental groups provided immediate feedback on given presentations, and students immediately had to self-assess their own presentations (step 3 of the assessment method). Subsequently, students could view the feedback and ratings given by their teacher and peers through the tool (step 4), were asked to reflect on this feedback (step 5), and to choose specific goals for their second oral presentation (step 6). In the control group, students directly received teachers’ feedback (verbally) after completing their presentation, but did not receive any reflection assignment. Control group students used a standard textual form with attention points (conventional rating-scale rubrics). After giving their presentations on the second project, students in the experimental groups got access to the dashboard of the Viewbrics tool (see “ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section) to see their progress on subskills. About a week after the classes had ended, some semi-structured interviews were carried out by one of the researchers. Finally, one of the researchers functioned as a hotline for teachers in case of urgent questions during the study, and randomly observed some of the lessons.

Measures and instruments

Oral performance scores on presentations were measured by both teachers and peers. A short online questionnaire (with 6 items) was administered to students just before their first oral presentation at the end of Project 1 (see Fig.  4 ). Interviews were conducted with both teachers and students at the end of the intervention to collect more qualitative data on subjective perceptions.

Oral presentation performance

Students’ oral presentation performance progress was measured via comparison of the oral presentation performance scores on both oral presentations (with three months in between). Both presentations were scored by teachers using the video-enhanced rubric in all groups (half of the score in experimental groups, full score for control group). For participants in both experimental groups, oral presentation performance was also scored by peers and self, using the specific rubric-version (either video-enhanced or text-based) (other half of the score). For each of the (eleven) subskills, between 1 point (novice level) and 4 points (expert level) could be earned, with a maximum of 44 points for total performance score. For participants in the control group, the same scale applied but no scores were given by peers nor self. The inter-rater reliability of assessments between teachers and peers was a Cohen’s Kappa = 0.74 which is acceptable.

Anxiety, preparedness, and motivation

Just before presenting, students answered the short questionnaire with five-point Likert scores (from 0 = totally disagree to 4 = totally agree) as additional control for potential differences in anxiety, preparedness and motivation, since especially these factors might influence oral presentation performance (Reddy & Andrade, 2010 ). Notwithstanding this, teachers were the major source to control for similarity of conditions with respect to dealing with presentation anxiety, preparedness and motivation. Two items for anxiety were: “I find it exciting to give a presentation” and “I find it difficult to give a presentation”, a subscale that appeared to have a satisfactory internal reliability with a Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.90. Three items for preparedness were: “I am well prepared to give my presentation”, “I have often rehearsed my presentation”, and “I think I’ve rehearsed my presentation enough”, a subscale that appeared to have a satisfactory Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.75. The item for motivation was: “I am motivated to give my motivation”. Unfortunately, the online questionnaire was not administered within the control group, due to unforeseen circumstances.

Semi-structured interviews with teachers (six) and students (thirty) were meant to gather qualitative data on the practical usability and usefulness of the Viewbrics tool. Examples of questions are: “Have you encountered any difficulties in using the Viewbrics online tool? If any, could you please mention which one(s)” (both students of experimental groups and teachers); “Did the feedback help you to improve your presentation skills? If not, what feedback do you need to improve your presentation skills?” (just students); “How do you evaluate the usefulness of formative assessment?” (both students and teachers); “Would you like to organize things differently in applying formative assessment as during this study? If so, what would you like to organize different?” (just teachers); “How much time did you spend on providing feedback? Did you need more or less time than before?” (just teachers).

Interviews with teachers and students revealed that the reported rubrics approach was easy to use and useful within the formative assessment method. Project teachers could easily stick to the lessons plans as agreed upon in advance. However, project teachers regarded the classroom scenarios as relatively time-consuming. They expected that for some other schools it might be challenging to follow the Viewbrics approach. None of the project teachers had to consult the hotline during the study, and no deviations from the lesson plans were observed by the researchers.

Most important results on the performance measures and questionnaire are presented and compared between conditions.

A mixed ANOVA, with oral presentation performance as within-subjects factor (two scores) and rubric format as between-subjects factor (three conditions), revealed an overall and significant improvement of oral presentation performance over time, with F (1, 157) = 58.13, p  < 0.01, η p 2  = 0.27. Significant differences over time were also found between conditions, with F (2, 156) = 17.38, p  < 0.01, η p 2  = 0.18. Tests of between-subjects effects showed significant differences between conditions, with F (2, 156) = 118.97, p  < 0.01, η p 2  = 0.59, and both experimental groups outperforming the control group as expected (so we could accept H1). However, only control group students showed significantly progress on performance scores over time (at the 0.01 level). At both measures, no significant differences between experimental groups were found as was expected (so we had to reject H2). For descriptives of group averages (over time) see Table 2 .

A post-hoc analysis, using multiple pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction, confirms that experimental groups significantly (with p  < 0.01 level) outperform the control group at both moments in time, and that both experimental groups not to differ significantly at both measures. Regarding performance progress over time, only the control group shows significant growth (again with p < 0.01). The difference between experimental groups in favour of video-enhanced rubrics did ‘touch upon’ significance ( p  = 0.053), but formally H2 had to be rejected. This finding however is a promising trend to be further explored with larger numbers of participants.

An independent t-test comparing the similarity of participants in both experimental groups before their first presentation for anxiety, preparedness, motivation showed no difference, with t (1,98) = 1.32 and p  = 0.19 for anxiety, t (1,98) = − 0.14 and p  = 0.89 for preparedness, and t (1,98) = − 1.24 and p  = 0.22 for motivation (see Table 3 for group averages).

As mentioned in the previous section (interviews with teachers), it was assessed by teachers that presentation anxiety, preparedness and motivation in the control group were no different from both experimental groups. It can therefore be assumed that all groups were similar regarding presentation anxiety, preparedness and motivation before presenting, and that these factors did not confound oral presentation results. There are missing questionnaire data from 58 respondents: Video-enhanced (one respondent), Text-based (seven respondents), and Control group (fifty respondents), respectively.

Conclusions and discussion

The first purpose was to study if applying evidence-informed design guidelines in the development of formative assessment with analytic rubrics supports oral presentation performance of first-year secondary school students in the Netherlands. Students that used such validated rubrics indeed outperform students using common rubrics (so H1 could be accepted). This study has demonstrated that the design guidelines can also be effectively applied and used for secondary education, which makes them more generic. The second purpose was to study if video-enhanced rubrics would be more beneficial to oral presentation skills acquisition when compared to text-based rubrics, but we did not find significant differences here (so H2 had to be rejected). However, post-hoc analysis shows that the growth on performance scores over time indeed seems higher when using video-enhanced rubrics, a promising difference that is ‘only marginally’ significant. Preliminary qualitative findings from the interviews point out that the Viewbrics tool can be easily integrated into classroom instruction and appears usable for the target audiences (both teachers and students), although teachers state it is rather time-consuming to conform to all guidelines.

All students had prior experience with oral presentations (from primary schools) and relatively high oral presentation scores at the start of the study, so there remained limited room for improvement between their first and second oral presentation. Participants in the control group scored relatively low on their first presentation, so had more room for improvement during the study. In addition, the somewhat more difficult content of the second project (Guideline 11) might have slightly reduced the quality of the second oral presentation. Also, more intensive training, additional presentations and their assessments might have demonstrated more added value of the analytic rubrics. Learning might have occurred, since adequate mental models of skills are not automatically applied during performance (Ackermans et al., 2019b ).

A first limitation (and strength at the same time) of this study was its contextualization within a specific subject domain and educational sector over a longer period of time, which implies we cannot completely exclude some influence of confounding factors. A second limitation is that the Viewbrics tool has been specifically designed for formative assessment, and not meant for summative assessment purposes. Although our study revealed the inter-rater reliability of our rubrics to be satisfactory (see “ Measures and instruments ” section), it is likely to become lower and less suitable when compared to more traditional summative assessment methods (Jonsson & Svinby, 2007 ). Thirdly, just having a reliable rubric bears no evidence for content-validity (representativeness, fidelity of scoring structure to the construct domain) or generalizability to other domains and educational sectors (Jonsson & Svinby, 2007 ). Fourth, one might criticize the practice-based research design of our study, as this is less-controlled than laboratory studies. We acknowledge that the application of more unobtrusive and objective measures to better understand the complex relationship between instructional characteristics, student characteristics and cognitive learning processes and strategies could best be achieved in a combination of more laboratory research and more practice-based research. Notwithstanding some of these issues, we have deliberately chosen for design-based research and evidence-informed findings from educational practice.

Future research could examine the Viewbrics approach to formative assessment for oral presentation skills in different contexts (other subject matters and educational sectors). The Viewbrics tool could be extended with functions for self-assessment (e.g., record and replay one's own presentations), for coping with speech anxiety (Leary & Kowalski, 1995 ), and goal-setting (De Grez et al., 2009a ). As this is a first study on video-enhanced rubrics, more fine-grained and fundamental research into beneficial effects on cognitive processes is needed, also to justify the additional development costs. Development of video-enhanced rubrics is more costly when compared to text-based rubrics. Another line of research might be directed to develop multiple measures for objectively determining oral presentation competence, for example using sensor-based data gathering and algorithms for data-gathering, guidance, and meaningful interpretation (Schneider et al., 2017 ), or direct measures of cortisol levels for speaking anxiety (Bartholomay & Houlihan, 2016 ; Merz & Wolf, 2015 ). Other instructional strategies might be considered, for example repeated practice of the same oral presentation might result in performance improvement, as has been suggested by Ritchie ( 2016 ). This also would enable to downsize the importance of presentation content and to put more focus on presentation delivery. The importance of finding good instructional technologies to support complex oral presentation skills will remain of importance throughout the twenty-first century and beyond.

Ackermans, K., Rusman, E., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Specht, M. (2019a). Solving instructional design dilemmas to develop Video-Enhanced Rubrics with modeling examples to support mental model development of complex skills: The Viewbrics-project use case. Educational Technology Research & Development, 67 (4), 993–1002.

Google Scholar  

Ackermans, K., Rusman, E., Nadolski, R. J., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Specht, M. (2019b). Video-or text-based rubrics: What is most effective for mental model growth of complex skills within formative assessment in secondary schools? Computers in Human Behavior, 101 , 248–258.

Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2006). Rubrics: Tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria explicit for both teachers and learners. CBE Life Sciences Education, 5 (3), 197–203.

Baccarini, C., & Bonfanti, A. (2015). Effective public speaking: A conceptual framework in the corporate-communication field. Corporate Communications, 20 (3), 375–390.

Baecher, L., Kung, S. C., Jewkes, A. M., & Rosalia, C. (2013). The role of video for self-evaluation in early field experiences. Teacher Teaching Education, 36 , 189–197.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Prentice-Hall.

Bargainnier, S. (2004). Fundamentals of rubrics. In D. Apple (Ed.), Faculty guidebook (pp. 75–78). Pacific Crest.

Bartholomay, E. M., & Houlihan, D. D. (2016). Public Speaking Anxiety Scale: Preliminary psychometric data scale validation. Personality Individual Differences, 94 , 211–215.

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at University . Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38 (6), 698–712.

Bower, M., Cavanagh, M., Moloney, R., & Dao, M. (2011). Developing communication competence using an online Video Reflection system: Pre-service teachers’ experiences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (4), 311–326.

Brookhart, S. M. (2004). Assessment theory for college classrooms. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 100 , 5–14.

Brookhart, S. M., & Chen, F. (2015). The quality and effectiveness of descriptive rubrics. Educational Review, 67 (3), 343–368.

Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39 (5), 629–643.

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Berings, M. (2010). Peer assessment of oral presentation skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2), 1776–1780.

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2009a). The impact of goal orientation, self-reflection and personal characteristics on the acquisition of oral presentation skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24 (3), 293–306.

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2009b). The impact of an innovative instructional intervention on the acquisition of oral presentation skills in higher education. Computers & Education, 53 (1), 112–120.

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2014). The differential impact of observational learning and practice-bases learning on the development of oral presentation skills in higher education. Higher Education Research Development, 33 (2), 256–271.

Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59 (4), 395–430.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81–112.

Heitink, M. C., Van der Kleij, F. M., Veldkamp, B. P., & Schildkamp, K. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17 , 50–62.

Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2 (2), 130–144.

Kerby, D., & Romine, J. (2009). Develop oral presentation skills through accounting curriculum design and course-embedded assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 85 (3), 172–179.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). Social anxiety . Guilford Press.

Lew, M. D. N., Alwis, W. A. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2010). Accuracy of students’ self-assessment and their beliefs about its utility. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (2), 135–156.

Lim, B. T., Moriarty, H., Huthwaite, M., Gray, L., Pullon, S., & Gallagher, P. (2013). How well do medical students rate and communicate clinical empathy? Medical Teacher, 35 , 946–951.

Luchetti, A. E., Phipss, G. L., & Behnke, R. R. (2003). Trait anticipatory public speaking anxiety as a function of self-efficacy expectations and self-handicapping strategies. Communication Research Reports, 20 (4), 348–356.

Merz, C. J., & Wolf, O. T. (2015). Examination of cortisol and state anxiety at an academic setting with and without oral presentation. The International Journal on the Biology of Stress, 18 (1), 138–142.

Morreale, S. P., & Pearson, J. C. (2008). Why communication education is important: Centrality of discipline in the 21st century. Communication Education, 57 , 224–240.

Mulder, R. A., Pearce, J. M., & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15 (2), 157–171.

Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., & Montanero, M. (2018). Oral presentations in higher education: A comparison of the impact of peer and teacher feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43 (1), 138–150.

Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–144). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

O’Donnevan, B., Price, M., Rust, C., & Donovan, B. O. (2004). Teaching in higher education know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teacher Higher Education, 9 (3), 325–335.

Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposed revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9 , 129–144.

Quianthy, R. L. (1990). Communication is life: Essential college sophomore speaking and listening competencies . National Communication Association.

Reddy, Y. M. (2011). Design and development of rubrics to improve assessment outcomes. Quality Assurance in Education, 19 (1), 84–104.

Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (4), 435–448.

Reitmeier, C. A., & Vrchota, D. A. (2009). Self-assessment of oral communication presentations in food science and nutrition. J. of Food Science Education, 8 (4), 88–92.

Ritchie, S. M. (2016). Self-assessment of video-recorded presentations: Does it improve skills? Active Learning in Higher Education, 17 (3), 207–221.

Rohbanfard, H., & Proteau, L. (2013). Live versus video presentation techniques in the observational learning of motor skills. Trends Neuroscience Education, 2 , 27–32.

Rusman, E., & Dirkx, K. (2017). Developing rubrics to assess complex (generic) skills in the classroom: How to distinguish skills’ mastery Levels? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.7275/xfp0-8228

Article   Google Scholar  

Rusman, E., Nadolski, R. J., & Ackermans, K. (2019). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the usability and usefulness of the first Viewbrics-prototype: A methodology and online tool to formatively assess complex generic skills with video-enhanced rubrics in Dutch secondary education. In S. Draaijer, D. Joosten-ten Brinke, E. Ras (Eds), Technology enhanced assessment. TEA 2018. Communications in computer and information science (Vol. 1014, pp. 27–41). Springer, Cham.

Schneider, J., Börner, D., Van Rosmalen, P., & Specht, M. (2017). Presentation trainer: What experts and computers can tell about your nonverbal communication. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33 (2), 164–177.

Schreiber, L. M., Paul, G. D., & Shibley, L. R. (2012). The development and test of the public speaking competence rubric. Communication Education, 61 (3), 205–233.

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78 (1), 153–189.

Sluijsmans, D., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., & Van der Vleuten, C. (2013). Toetsen met leerwaarde [Assessments with value for learning] . The Hague, The Netherlands: NWO. Retrieved from https://sluijsmans.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Toetsen-met-leerwaarde.pdf

Smith, C. M., & Sodano, T. M. (2011). Integrating lecture capture as a teaching strategy to improve student presentation skills through self-assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12 , 151–162.

Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed.). Wiley.

Topping, K. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48 (1), 20–27.

Van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2015). Towards a set of design principles for developing oral presentation competence: A synthesis of research in higher education. Educational Research Review, 14 , 62–80.

Van Ginkel, S., Laurentzen, R., Mulder, M., Mononen, A., Kyttä, J., & Kortelainen, M. J. (2017). Assessing oral presentation performance: Designing a rubric and testing its validity with an expert group. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 9 (3), 474–486.

Van Gog, T., Verveer, I., & Verveer, L. (2014). Learning from video modeling examples: Effects of seeing the human model’s face. Computers and Education, 72 , 323–327.

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Ten steps to complex learning (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44 , 299–321.

Westera, W. (2011). On the changing nature of learning context: Anticipating the virtual extensions of the world. Educational Technology and Society, 14 , 201–212.

Wöllenschläger, M., Hattie, J., Machts, N., Möller, J., & Harms, U. (2016). What makes rubrics effective in teacher-feedback? Transparency of learning goals is not enough. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45 , 1–11.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on our paper and all students and teachers that participated in this study as well as the management from the participating schools.

The Viewbrics-project is funded by the practice-oriented research program of the Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (NRO), part of The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), under Grant Number: 405-15-550.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Educational Sciences, Open University of the Netherlands, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT, Heerlen, The Netherlands

Rob J. Nadolski, Hans G. K. Hummel, Ellen Rusman & Kevin Ackermans

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rob J. Nadolski .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This research has been approved by the ethics committee of the author's institution (U2017/05559/HVM).

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Nadolski, R.J., Hummel, H.G.K., Rusman, E. et al. Rubric formats for the formative assessment of oral presentation skills acquisition in secondary education. Education Tech Research Dev 69 , 2663–2682 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10030-7

Download citation

Accepted : 03 July 2021

Published : 20 July 2021

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10030-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital rubrics
• Analytic rubrics
• Oral presentation skills
• Formative assessment method
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Eberly Center

Teaching excellence & educational innovation, grading and performance rubrics, what are rubrics.

A rubric is a scoring tool that explicitly represents the performance expectations for an assignment or piece of work. A rubric divides the assigned work into component parts and provides clear descriptions of the characteristics of the work associated with each component, at varying levels of mastery. Rubrics can be used for a wide array of assignments: papers, projects, oral presentations, artistic performances, group projects, etc. Rubrics can be used as scoring or grading guides, to provide formative feedback to support and guide ongoing learning efforts, or both.

Advantages of Using Rubrics

Using a rubric provides several advantages to both instructors and students. Grading according to an explicit and descriptive set of criteria that is designed to reflect the weighted importance of the objectives of the assignment helps ensure that the instructor’s grading standards don’t change over time. Grading consistency is difficult to maintain over time because of fatigue, shifting standards based on prior experience, or intrusion of other criteria. Furthermore, rubrics can reduce the time spent grading by reducing uncertainty and by allowing instructors to refer to the rubric description associated with a score rather than having to write long comments. Finally, grading rubrics are invaluable in large courses that have multiple graders (other instructors, teaching assistants, etc.) because they can help ensure consistency across graders and reduce the systematic bias that can be introduced between graders.

Used more formatively, rubrics can help instructors get a clearer picture of the strengths and weaknesses of their class. By recording the component scores and tallying up the number of students scoring below an acceptable level on each component, instructors can identify those skills or concepts that need more instructional time and student effort.

Grading rubrics are also valuable to students. A rubric can help instructors communicate to students the specific requirements and acceptable performance standards of an assignment. When rubrics are given to students with the assignment description, they can help students monitor and assess their progress as they work toward clearly indicated goals. When assignments are scored and returned with the rubric, students can more easily recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their work and direct their efforts accordingly.

Examples of Rubrics

Here are links to a diverse set of rubrics designed by Carnegie Mellon faculty and faculty at other institutions. Although your particular field of study and type of assessment activity may not be represented currently, viewing a rubric that is designed for a similar activity may provide you with ideas on how to divide your task into components and how to describe the varying levels of mastery.

Paper Assignments

• Example 1: Philosophy Paper This rubric was designed for student papers in a range of philosophy courses, CMU.
• Example 2: Psychology Assignment Short, concept application homework assignment in cognitive psychology, CMU.
• Example 3: Anthropology Writing Assignments This rubric was designed for a series of short writing assignments in anthropology, CMU.
• Example 4: History Research Paper . This rubric was designed for essays and research papers in history, CMU.
• Example 1: Capstone Project in Design This rubric describes the components and standard of performance from the research phase to the final presentation for a senior capstone project in the School of Design, CMU.
• Example 2: Engineering Design Project This rubric describes performance standards on three aspects of a team project: Research and Design, Communication, and Team Work.

Oral Presentations

• Example 1: Oral Exam This rubric describes a set of components and standards for assessing performance on an oral exam in an upper-division history course, CMU.
• Example 2: Oral Communication
• Example 3: Group Presentations This rubric describes a set of components and standards for assessing group presentations in a history course, CMU.

Class Participation/Contributions

• Example 1: Discussion Class This rubric assesses the quality of student contributions to class discussions. This is appropriate for an undergraduate-level course, CMU.
• Example 2: Advanced Seminar This rubric is designed for assessing discussion performance in an advanced undergraduate or graduate seminar. 

Assessment Rubrics

A rubric is commonly defined as a tool that articulates the expectations for an assignment by listing criteria, and for each criteria, describing levels of quality (Andrade, 2000; Arter & Chappuis, 2007; Stiggins, 2001). Criteria are used in determining the level at which student work meets expectations. Markers of quality give students a clear idea about what must be done to demonstrate a certain level of mastery, understanding, or proficiency (i.e., "Exceeds Expectations" does xyz, "Meets Expectations" does only xy or yz, "Developing" does only x or y or z). Rubrics can be used for any assignment in a course, or for any way in which students are asked to demonstrate what they've learned. They can also be used to facilitate self and peer-reviews of student work.

Rubrics aren't just for summative evaluation. They can be used as a teaching tool as well. When used as part of a formative assessment, they can help students understand both the holistic nature and/or specific analytics of learning expected, the level of learning expected, and then make decisions about their current level of learning to inform revision and improvement (Reddy & Andrade, 2010). 

Why use rubrics?

Rubrics help instructors:

Provide students with feedback that is clear, directed and focused on ways to improve learning.

Demystify assignment expectations so students can focus on the work instead of guessing "what the instructor wants."

Reduce time spent on grading and develop consistency in how you evaluate student learning across students and throughout a class.

Rubrics help students:

Focus their efforts on completing assignments in line with clearly set expectations.

Self and Peer-reflect on their learning, making informed changes to achieve the desired learning level.

Developing a Rubric

During the process of developing a rubric, instructors might:

Select an assignment for your course - ideally one you identify as time intensive to grade, or students report as having unclear expectations.

Decide what you want students to demonstrate about their learning through that assignment. These are your criteria.

Identify the markers of quality on which you feel comfortable evaluating students’ level of learning - often along with a numerical scale (i.e., "Accomplished," "Emerging," "Beginning" for a developmental approach).

Give students the rubric ahead of time. Advise them to use it in guiding their completion of the assignment.

It can be overwhelming to create a rubric for every assignment in a class at once, so start by creating one rubric for one assignment. See how it goes and develop more from there! Also, do not reinvent the wheel. Rubric templates and examples exist all over the Internet, or consider asking colleagues if they have developed rubrics for similar assignments. 

Sample Rubrics

Examples of holistic and analytic rubrics : see Tables 2 & 3 in “Rubrics: Tools for Making Learning Goals and Evaluation Criteria Explicit for Both Teachers and Learners” (Allen & Tanner, 2006)

Examples across assessment types : see “Creating and Using Rubrics,” Carnegie Mellon Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and & Educational Innovation

“VALUE Rubrics” : see the Association of American Colleges and Universities set of free, downloadable rubrics, with foci including creative thinking, problem solving, and information literacy. 

Andrade, H. 2000. Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership 57, no. 5: 13–18. Arter, J., and J. Chappuis. 2007. Creating and recognizing quality rubrics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. Stiggins, R.J. 2001. Student-involved classroom assessment. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Reddy, Y., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education, 35(4), 435-448.

Skip to Content

Other ways to search:

• Events Calendar

Rubrics are a set of criteria to evaluate performance on an assignment or assessment. Rubrics can communicate expectations regarding the quality of work to students and provide a standardized framework for instructors to assess work. Rubrics can be used for both formative and summative assessment. They are also crucial in encouraging self-assessment of work and structuring peer-assessments. 

Why use rubrics?

Rubrics are an important tool to assess learning in an equitable and just manner. This is because they enable:

• A common set of standards and criteria to be uniformly applied, which can mitigate bias
• Transparency regarding the standards and criteria on which students are evaluated
• Efficient grading with timely and actionable feedback 
• Identifying areas in which students need additional support and guidance 
• The use of objective, criterion-referenced metrics for evaluation 

Some instructors may be reluctant to provide a rubric to grade assessments under the perception that it stifles student creativity (Haugnes & Russell, 2018). However, sharing the purpose of an assessment and criteria for success in the form of a rubric along with relevant examples has been shown to particularly improve the success of BIPOC, multiracial, and first-generation students (Jonsson, 2014; Winkelmes, 2016). Improved success in assessments is generally associated with an increased sense of belonging which, in turn, leads to higher student retention and more equitable outcomes in the classroom (Calkins & Winkelmes, 2018; Weisz et al., 2023). By not providing a rubric, faculty may risk having students guess the criteria on which they will be evaluated. When students have to guess what expectations are, it may unfairly disadvantage students who are first-generation, BIPOC, international, or otherwise have not been exposed to the cultural norms that have dominated higher-ed institutions in the U.S (Shapiro et al., 2023). Moreover, in such cases, criteria may be applied inconsistently for students leading to biases in grades awarded to students.

Steps for Creating a Rubric

Clearly state the purpose of the assessment, which topic(s) learners are being tested on, the type of assessment (e.g., a presentation, essay, group project), the skills they are being tested on (e.g., writing, comprehension, presentation, collaboration), and the goal of the assessment for instructors (e.g., gauging formative or summative understanding of the topic). 

Determine the specific criteria or dimensions to assess in the assessment. These criteria should align with the learning objectives or outcomes to be evaluated. These criteria typically form the rows in a rubric grid and describe the skills, knowledge, or behavior to be demonstrated. The set of criteria may include, for example, the idea/content, quality of arguments, organization, grammar, citations and/or creativity in writing. These criteria may form separate rows or be compiled in a single row depending on the type of rubric.

(See row headers  of  Figure 1 )

Create a scale of performance levels that describe the degree of proficiency attained for each criterion. The scale typically has 4 to 5 levels (although there may be fewer levels depending on the type of rubrics used). The rubrics should also have meaningful labels (e.g., not meeting expectations, approaching expectations, meeting expectations, exceeding expectations). When assigning levels of performance, use inclusive language that can inculcate a growth mindset among students, especially when work may be otherwise deemed to not meet the mark. Some examples include, “Does not yet meet expectations,” “Considerable room for improvement,” “ Progressing,” “Approaching,” “Emerging,” “Needs more work,” instead of using terms like “Unacceptable,” “Fails,” “Poor,” or “Below Average.”

(See column headers  of  Figure 1 )

Develop a clear and concise descriptor for each combination of criterion and performance level. These descriptors should provide examples or explanations of what constitutes each level of performance for each criterion. Typically, instructors should start by describing the highest and lowest level of performance for that criterion and then describing intermediate performance for that criterion. It is important to keep the language uniform across all columns, e.g., use syntax and words that are aligned in each column for a given criteria. 

(See cells  of  Figure 1 )

It is important to consider how each criterion is weighted and for each criterion to reflect the importance of learning objectives being tested. For example, if the primary goal of a research proposal is to test mastery of content and application of knowledge, these criteria should be weighted more heavily compared to other criteria (e.g., grammar, style of presentation). This can be done by associating a different scoring system for each criteria (e.g., Following a scale of 8-6-4-2 points for each level of performance in higher weight criteria and 4-3-2-1 points for each level of performance for lower weight criteria). Further, the number of points awarded across levels of performance should be evenly spaced (e.g., 10-8-6-4 instead of 10-6-3-1). Finally, if there is a letter grade associated with a particular assessment, consider how it relates to scores. For example, instead of having students receive an A only if they received the highest level of performance on each criterion, consider assigning an A grade to a range of scores (28 - 30 total points) or a combination of levels of performance (e.g., exceeds expectations on higher weight criteria and meets expectations on other criteria). 

(See the numerical values in the column headers  of  Figure 1 )

Figure 1:  Graphic describing the five basic elements of a rubric

Note : Consider using a template rubric that can be used to evaluate similar activities in the classroom to avoid the fatigue of developing multiple rubrics. Some tools include Rubistar or iRubric which provide suggested words for each criteria depending on the type of assessment. Additionally, the above format can be incorporated in rubrics that can be directly added in Canvas or in the grid view of rubrics in gradescope which are common grading tools. Alternately, tables within a Word processor or Spreadsheet may also be used to build a rubric. You may also adapt the example rubrics provided below to the specific learning goals for the assessment using the blank template rubrics we have provided against each type of rubric. Watch the linked video for a quick introduction to designing a rubric . Word document (docx) files linked below will automatically download to your device whereas pdf files will open in a new tab.

Types of Rubrics

In these rubrics, one specifies at least two criteria and provides a separate score for each criterion. The steps outlined above for creating a rubric are typical for an analytic style rubric. Analytic rubrics are used to provide detailed feedback to students and help identify strengths as well as particular areas in need of improvement. These can be particularly useful when providing formative feedback to students, for student peer assessment and self-assessments, or for project-based summative assessments that evaluate student learning across multiple criteria. You may use a blank analytic rubric template (docx) or adapt an existing sample of an analytic rubric (pdf) . 

Fig 2: Graphic describing a sample analytic rubric (adopted from George Mason University, 2013)

These are a subset of analytical rubrics that are typically used to assess student performance and engagement during a learning period but not the end product. Such rubrics are typically used to assess soft skills and behaviors that are less tangible (e.g., intercultural maturity, empathy, collaboration skills). These rubrics are useful in assessing the extent to which students develop a particular skill, ability, or value in experiential learning based programs or skills. They are grounded in the theory of development (King, 2005). Examples include an intercultural knowledge and competence rubric (docx)  and a global learning rubric (docx) .

These rubrics consider all criteria evaluated on one scale, providing a single score that gives an overall impression of a student’s performance on an assessment.These rubrics also emphasize the overall quality of a student’s work, rather than delineating shortfalls of their work. However, a limitation of the holistic rubrics is that they are not useful for providing specific, nuanced feedback or to identify areas of improvement. Thus, they might be useful when grading summative assessments in which students have previously received detailed feedback using analytic or single-point rubrics. They may also be used to provide quick formative feedback for smaller assignments where not more than 2-3 criteria are being tested at once. Try using our blank holistic rubric template docx)  or adapt an existing sample of holistic rubric (pdf) . 

Fig 3: Graphic describing a sample holistic rubric (adopted from Teaching Commons, DePaul University)

These rubrics contain only two levels of performance (e.g., yes/no, present/absent) across a longer list of criteria (beyond 5 levels). Checklist rubrics have the advantage of providing a quick assessment of criteria given the binary assessment of criteria that are either met or are not met. Consequently, they are preferable when initiating self- or  peer-assessments of learning given that it simplifies evaluations to be more objective and criteria can elicit only one of two responses allowing uniform and quick grading. For similar reasons, such rubrics are useful for faculty in providing quick formative feedback since it immediately highlights the specific criteria to improve on. Such rubrics are also used in grading summative assessments in courses utilizing alternative grading systems such as specifications grading, contract grading or a credit/no credit grading system wherein a minimum threshold of performance has to be met for the assessment. Having said that, developing rubrics from existing analytical rubrics may require considerable investment upfront given that criteria have to be phrased in a way that can only elicit binary responses. Here is a link to the checklist rubric template (docx) .

Fig. 4: Graphic describing a sample checklist rubric

A single point rubric is a modified version of a checklist style rubric, in that it specifies a single column of criteria. However, rather than only indicating whether expectations are met or not, as happens in a checklist rubric, a single point rubric allows instructors to specify ways in which criteria exceeds or does not meet expectations. Here the criteria to be tested are laid out in a central column describing the average expectation for the assignment. Instructors indicate areas of improvement on the left side of the criteria, whereas areas of strength in student performance are indicated on the right side. These types of rubrics provide flexibility in scoring, and are typically used in courses with alternative grading systems such as ungrading or contract grading. However, they do require the instructors to provide detailed feedback for each student, which can be unfeasible for assessments in large classes. Here is a link to the single point rubric template (docx) .

Fig. 5 Graphic describing a single point rubric (adopted from Teaching Commons, DePaul University)

Best Practices for Designing and Implementing Rubrics

When designing the rubric format, descriptors and criteria should be presented in a way that is compatible with screen readers and reading assistive technology. For example, avoid using only color, jargon, or complex terminology to convey information. In case you do use color, pictures or graphics, try providing alternative formats for rubrics, such as plain text documents. Explore resources from the CU Digital Accessibility Office to learn more.

Co-creating rubrics can help students to engage in higher-order thinking skills such as analysis and evaluation. Further, it allows students to take ownership of their own learning by determining the criteria of their work they aspire towards. For graduate classes or upper-level students, one way of doing this may be to provide learning outcomes of the project, and let students develop the rubric on their own. However, students in introductory classes may need more scaffolding by providing them a draft and leaving room for modification (Stevens & Levi 2013). Watch the linked video for tips on co-creating rubrics with students . Further, involving teaching assistants in designing a rubric can help in getting feedback on expectations for an assessment prior to implementing and norming a rubric. 

When first designing a rubric, it is important to compare grades awarded for the same assessment by multiple graders to make sure the criteria are applied uniformly and reliably for the same level of performance. Further, ensure that the levels of performance in student work can be adequately distinguished using a rubric. Such a norming protocol is particularly important to also do at the start of any course in which multiple graders use the same rubric to grade an assessment (e.g., recitation sections, lab sections, teaching team). Here, instructors may select a subset of assignments that all graders evaluate using the same rubric, followed by a discussion to identify any discrepancies in criteria applied and ways to address them. Such strategies can make the rubrics more reliable, effective, and clear.

Sharing the rubric with students prior to an assessment can help familiarize students with an instructor’s expectations. This can help students master their learning outcomes by guiding their work in the appropriate direction and increase student motivation. Further, providing the rubric to students can help encourage metacognition and ability to self-assess learning.

Sample Rubrics

Below are links to rubric templates designed by a team of experts assembled by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) to assess 16 major learning goals. These goals are a part of the Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) program. All of these examples are analytic rubrics and have detailed criteria to test specific skills. However, since any given assessment typically tests multiple skills, instructors are encouraged to develop their own rubric by utilizing criteria picked from a combination of the rubrics linked below.

• Civic knowledge and engagement-local and global
• Creative thinking
• Critical thinking
• Ethical reasoning
• Foundations and skills for lifelong learning
• Information literacy
• Integrative and applied learning
• Intercultural knowledge and competence
• Inquiry and analysis
• Oral communication
• Problem solving
• Quantitative literacy
• Written Communication

Note : Clicking on the above links will automatically download them to your device in Microsoft Word format. These links have been created and are hosted by Kansas State University . Additional information regarding the VALUE Rubrics may be found on the AAC&U homepage . 

Below are links to sample rubrics that have been developed for different types of assessments. These rubrics follow the analytical rubric template, unless mentioned otherwise. However, these rubrics can be modified into other types of rubrics (e.g., checklist, holistic or single point rubrics) based on the grading system and goal of assessment (e.g., formative or summative). As mentioned previously, these rubrics can be modified using the blank template provided.

• Oral presentations  
• Painting Portfolio (single-point rubric)
• Research Paper
• Video Storyboard

Additional information:

Office of Assessment and Curriculum Support. (n.d.). Creating and using rubrics . University of Hawai’i, Mānoa

Calkins, C., & Winkelmes, M. A. (2018). A teaching method that boosts UNLV student retention . UNLV Best Teaching Practices Expo , 3.

Fraile, J., Panadero, E., & Pardo, R. (2017). Co-creating rubrics: The effects on self-regulated learning, self-efficacy and performance of establishing assessment criteria with students. Studies In Educational Evaluation , 53, 69-76

Haugnes, N., & Russell, J. L. (2016). Don’t box me in: Rubrics for àrtists and Designers . To Improve the Academy , 35 (2), 249–283. 

Jonsson, A. (2014). Rubrics as a way of providing transparency in assessment , Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 39(7), 840-852 

McCartin, L. (2022, February 1). Rubrics! an equity-minded practice . University of Northern Colorado

Shapiro, S., Farrelly, R., & Tomaš, Z. (2023). Chapter 4: Effective and Equitable Assignments and Assessments. Fostering International Student Success in higher education (pp, 61-87, second edition). TESOL Press.

Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2013). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning (second edition). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Teaching Commons (n.d.). Types of Rubrics . DePaul University

Teaching Resources (n.d.). Rubric best practices, examples, and templates . NC State University 

Winkelmes, M., Bernacki, M., Butler, J., Zochowski, M., Golanics, J., & Weavil, K.H. (2016). A teaching intervention that increases underserved college students’ success . Peer Review , 8(1/2), 31-36.

Weisz, C., Richard, D., Oleson, K., Winkelmes, M.A., Powley, C., Sadik, A., & Stone, B. (in progress, 2023). Transparency, confidence, belonging and skill development among 400 community college students in the state of Washington . 

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2009). Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) . 

Canvas Community. (2021, August 24). How do I add a rubric in a course? Canvas LMS Community.

 Center for Teaching & Learning. (2021, March 03). Overview of Rubrics . University of Colorado, Boulder

 Center for Teaching & Learning. (2021, March 18). Best practices to co-create rubrics with students . University of Colorado, Boulder.

Chase, D., Ferguson, J. L., & Hoey, J. J. (2014). Assessment in creative disciplines: Quantifying and qualifying the aesthetic . Common Ground Publishing.

Feldman, J. (2018). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms . Corwin Press, CA.

Gradescope (n.d.). Instructor: Assignment - Grade Submissions . Gradescope Help Center. 

Henning, G., Baker, G., Jankowski, N., Lundquist, A., & Montenegro, E. (Eds.). (2022). Reframing assessment to center equity . Stylus Publishing. 

 King, P. M. & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity . Journal of College Student Development . 46(2), 571-592.

Selke, M. J. G. (2013). Rubric assessment goes to college: Objective, comprehensive evaluation of student work. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

The Institute for Habits of Mind. (2023, January 9). Creativity Rubrics - The Institute for Habits of Mind . 

• Assessment in Large Enrollment Classes
• Classroom Assessment Techniques
• Creating and Using Learning Outcomes
• Early Feedback
• Five Misconceptions on Writing Feedback
• Formative Assessments
• Frequent Feedback
• Online and Remote Exams
• Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
• Student Peer Assessment
• Student Self-assessment
• Summative Assessments: Best Practices
• Summative Assessments: Types
• Assessing & Reflecting on Teaching
• Departmental Teaching Evaluation
• Equity in Assessment
• Glossary of Terms
• Attendance Policies
• Books We Recommend
• Classroom Management
• Community-Developed Resources
• Compassion & Self-Compassion
• Course Design & Development
• Course-in-a-box for New CU Educators
• Enthusiasm & Teaching
• First Day Tips
• Flexible Teaching
• Grants & Awards
• Inclusivity
• Learner Motivation
• Making Teaching & Learning Visible
• National Center for Faculty Development & Diversity
• Open Education
• Student Support Toolkit
• Sustainaiblity
• TA/Instructor Agreement
• Teaching & Learning in the Age of AI
• Teaching Well with Technology

Center for Excellence in Teaching

Home > Resources > Group presentation rubric

Group presentation rubric

This is a grading rubric an instructor uses to assess students’ work on this type of assignment. It is a sample rubric that needs to be edited to reflect the specifics of a particular assignment. Students can self-assess using the rubric as a checklist before submitting their assignment.

Download this file

Download this file [63.74 KB]

Back to Resources Page

Using Rubrics to Assess Learning

The assessments students complete in your courses (e.g., projects, papers, presentations, performances, exams) provide a way for students to demonstrate how well they have achieved the student learning outcomes . Designing rubrics that clearly convey your assessment criteria to students will help them understand how you will be grading their work and provide them with meaningful feedback they can use to self-assess their strengths and areas for improvement. This resource offers guidance for understanding, creating, and using rubrics effectively.

What is a rubric?

Rubrics are guidelines, criteria, or expectations used to assess student work and provide feedback. Most people think of rubrics as a tool that lays out the criteria to evaluate (grade) written student work after it is submitted or presented. However, rubrics can also be used to provide feedback on other demonstrations of learning like class participation or contributions to a specific discussion.

Rubrics support student learning by providing a structured and consistent way to assess student work, promoting transparency and fairness in assessment.

How do I create a rubric?

Components of a rubric.

Rubrics typically contain several components, which may include:

• Criteria: These are the specific aspects or dimensions of the task or performance that you’re assessing (e.g., content, organization, clarity, argumentation, use of sources). Criteria should be clear, specific, and relevant to the learning outcomes or purpose of the assignment.
• Performance Levels & Scoring Scale: Each criterion is typically broken into different levels of performance, ranging from exceeds expectations to does not meet expectations . The scoring scale corresponds with the levels of performance and can be numerical (e.g., 1-4) or descriptive (e.g., excellent, good, fair, poor).
• Descriptors: Each criterion is accompanied by a description or a set of descriptors that outline the different levels of performance.
• Weighting: In some cases, criteria may be weighted differently to reflect their relative importance.
• Feedback Space: Rubrics may include space for providing written feedback or comments on each criterion or overall performance. This feedback helps students understand their personal strengths and areas for improvement.
• Overall Score: Rubrics typically provide a mechanism for calculating an overall score based on the scores assigned to each criterion. The score can be used to summarize the students’ performance on task. Students can also use the rubric to score themselves and self-assess their performance before submitting an assignment.

Different Types of Rubrics

Checklist rubric.

The simplest type of rubric is a checklist rubric, which is a list of criteria and descriptors with only two performance levels possible (e.g., yes/no, present/not present, meets/does not meet). These types of rubrics can include written feedback for each criterion. One benefit is that they are quicker to use; however, they only assess for proficiency or completion in a binary way.

Checklist rubrics are great for smaller assignments or formative assessments, such as an online discussion board post, an in-class reflection, or drafts of an upcoming larger project.

Example: Online Discussion Checklist Rubric

Single-Point Rubric

The single-point rubric is similar to the checklist rubric, in that there is one single column of criteria; however, it makes space for written feedback for each criterion. Like the checklist, single-point rubrics are quicker to create and easy for students to read since the only descriptors are the target expectations. Another benefit is that they allow for higher-quality, more individualized feedback because teachers specify areas of growth and strengths for that particular student.

Single-point rubrics are very useful to provide formative feedback and support students’ growth. Thus, you could use the rubric without assigning any points, or you could assign points for completion but use the rubric to provide feedback that the student can apply to future work.

Example: Online Discussion Single-Point Rubric

Holistic Rubric

Another simple type of rubric is a holistic rubric, which consists of a single scoring scale where all criteria are considered together. For each level of performance, there is a detailed description that allows for an overall assessment. Thus, the students’ performance is matched to a single description on the scale. However, the feedback is more general than specific, and it may be difficult to determine which level of performance is most fitting.

Like checklists, holistic rubrics are useful for smaller assignments and formative assessments or behaviors like in-class participation. They can even be used for learning activities that are not formally graded by providing a summary of expectations.

Example: In-Class Participation Holistic Rubric

Analytic Rubric

The analytic rubric is what people typically imagine when thinking of a rubric. It resembles a grid or a table with the criteria listed in the leftmost column and the levels of performance listed across the top row. When scoring with an analytic rubric, each criterion is scored individually.

Analytic rubrics provide the most detailed and useful feedback on areas of strengths and weaknesses. They tend to provide more consistent grading. The one drawback is that they may take longer to create.

Example: Reflection Journal Analytic Rubric

Steps to Create a Rubric

• Determine the purpose of the assessment. Identify what is most important for students to demonstrate with the assignment based on the course learning outcomes and how the assignment aligns with those outcomes.
• Decide what type of rubric is most relevant. Based on the descriptions of checklist, holistic, and analytic above, determine which is best fit for the assessment.
• Identify criteria and performance levels. Determine the specific aspects that you are assessing and, if you are creating a holistic or analytic rubric, a scale of performance for those criteria.
• Write clear descriptions for each level of performance. If you are creating an analytic rubric, be sure to use parallel language between the different levels of performance for each criterion so that the distinctions between them are clear. For instance, if full marks for “background information” in a research report is, “The brief overview of the concept provides accurate and thorough connections to course concepts and cites at least 3 peer-reviewed sources,” then the next level down might be, “The brief overview of the concept provides some connections to course concepts and cites at least 1 peer-reviewed source,” and the lowest level might be, “The overview of the concept does not include connections to course concepts or any peer-reviewed sources.”
• Determine relative weight of each criterion. Consider if certain criteria are more important than others and should be worth a larger percentage of the grade. For instance, for a research project, evidence and analysis might be more important than organization and presentation of the information.
• Consider the format and layout of the rubric. We recommend inputting the rubric into Canvas so that it is accessible for students to review in conjunction with the assignment and so that students will have access to the rubric-based feedback.
• Test and revise the rubric. Before deploying to assess student work, test your rubric on a hypothetical or actual example of student work to ensure it works in the way you intended.

Using Rubrics in an Equitable Way

Rubrics are very beneficial for learning if implemented in an equitable way. Here are some additional considerations to help ensure fairness and consistency in assessing diversity in student performance.

• Use rubrics consistently and fairly. If working with teaching assistants or using the same rubric across instructors, practice applying the rubric together.
• Keep rubrics clear, concise, and aligned with learning outcomes.
• Review and revise rubrics periodically to ensure relevance and accuracy.
• Communicate rubric expectations to students. Go through the rubric when introducing the assignment. You could even look at an example together and have students practice using the rubric to assess that example. Ask students if they have any clarifying questions about the rubric or potential changes.
• Provide written comments as feedback in addition to ranking student work based on rubric criteria.
• Encourage self-assessment and reflection using rubrics. You could also ask students to peer review each other’s work using the rubric.

Additional Examples of Rubrics

We highly recommend you draw upon existing examples when creating a rubric. The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) has developed Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) rubrics for 16 broad, cross-cutting learning outcomes, including ethical reasoning, global learning, intercultural knowledge and competence, and teamwork.

The EMRN rubric is a four-level rubric framework that uses a simple flowchart to categorize student work/learning into one of four categories: Excellent, Meets expectations, Revision needed, and Not assessable. You might use EMRN as your levels of performance for a holistic or analytical rubric.

Generative AI can also help you to create a rubric. For instance, when prompted with, “Create a rubric for an undergraduate research project,” and, “Create a rubric for an undergraduate research presentation,” ChatGPT provided a list of criteria with detailed descriptions for the highest level of performance. You could present this rubric as a checklist rubric or use this information as a start to build a full analytical rubric.

Example: ChatGPT Rubric for Undergraduate Research Project

• Clear articulation of research question(s) and objectives.
• Relevance of the research question to the field of study.
• Alignment between research question(s) and objectives.
• Comprehensive review of relevant literature.
• Critical analysis and synthesis of existing research.
• Identification of gaps or areas for further investigation.
• Clarity and appropriateness of research design.
• Rigor in data collection methods.
• Justification for chosen methodology and data analysis techniques.
• Presentation of empirical evidence or findings.
• Depth of analysis and interpretation of results.
• Use of appropriate statistical or analytical tools.
• Coherent discussion of findings in relation to research question(s).
• Consideration of implications and significance of results.
• Reflection on limitations and potential areas for future research.
• Structure and organization of the research project.
• Clarity and coherence of writing style.
• Use of appropriate citations and references.
• Originality and creativity in approach or perspective.
• Innovative solutions to research problems.
• Contribution to advancing knowledge in the field.
• Adherence to ethical guidelines in research conduct.
• Professionalism in communication and collaboration.
• Proper acknowledgment of sources and contributions.
• Overall impact of the research project.
• Contribution to the field of study.
• Potential for dissemination or further development.

Each criterion can be scored on a scale (e.g., 1-5) with corresponding descriptors to provide detailed feedback to students on their research projects.

Example: ChatGPT Rubric for Undergraduate Research Presentation

• Clarity and coherence of presentation structure.
• Clear articulation of research question(s), objectives, and significance.
• Logical flow of ideas and transitions between sections.
• Engaging introduction that captures the audience’s attention.
• Clear statement of the research problem and objectives.
• Background information provided to contextualize the research.
• Description of research design and methodology.
• Explanation of data collection procedures.
• Justification for chosen methodology and techniques.
• Clear presentation of research findings.
• Use of appropriate visual aids (e.g., graphs, charts) to illustrate data.
• Interpretation of results and connections to research objectives.
• Interpretation of findings in relation to research question(s).
• Consideration of limitations and potential sources of error.
• Exploration of implications and significance of results.
• Summary of key findings and their implications.
• Restatement of research objectives and contributions.
• Suggestions for future research directions.
• Confidence and clarity in oral delivery.
• Eye contact and engagement with the audience.
• Use of appropriate vocal tone and gestures to enhance communication.
• Clarity and effectiveness of visual aids.
• Consistency in design and formatting.
• Integration of visual aids to support key points.
• Adherence to allocated presentation time.
• Ability to cover key points within the time limit.
• Effective use of time for each section of the presentation.
• Ability to respond to audience questions or comments.
• Engagement with audience feedback and discussion.
• Demonstration of knowledge and expertise during Q&A session.

Each criterion can be scored on a scale (e.g., 1-5) with corresponding descriptors to provide comprehensive feedback to students on their research presentations.

AU's Center for Teaching, Research & Learning © A Unit of the Office of the Provost American University, Washington, DC

Get in touch!

Address: Hurst 214 Phone: 202-885-2117 Email:   [email protected]

Records Management Services

Faculty search records: recommended folder structures.

This resource is made to accompany the Faculty Search Records resource and to provide practical examples of how to organize segregate and organize the records created throughout the faculty search process. It is the responsibility of the Admin assigned to the search committee, or Chair of the Search Committee if no Admin is appointed, to request, gather and maintain the substantive records for the appropriate retention period. Below are examples of folder structures and file naming conventions on how to sequester and organize your digital records. The record retention periods differ depending on where in the search process the records are created. As such, it’s important to follow the Faculty Search Records resource and the examples below to appropriately separate records based on their category. Doing so will ensure records are retained for the legally approved retention period and then promptly deleted. For questions or more details on how to best organize your digital records, contact Records Management Services at [email protected] .

If there are paper records created and gathered (ballots, campus visit feedback forms), the paper can only be scanned and subsequently shredded if your unit or department has an approved scanning policy. To check if your unit has an existing scanning policy, check the Records Management Services website . To create a scanning policy or to update an existing policy, fill out the Scanning Policy Builder form or contact Records Management Services at [email protected] . Otherwise, it is your responsibility to retain the paper records accordingly.

Reminder: You only need to retain one copy of a finalized document. For example, if you receive 6 copies of the search committee charge letter, you should only retain one copy for the retention period. The duplicate copies of the same document do not need to be retained.  

Search Committees for Faculty Records

Search Committees for Faculty Records are records created by the search committee in the Preparation Stage . These records can be consolidated and organized based on current searches versus ones that have been concluded. Labeling a subfolder based on the position title will allow the Admin or Chair to keep track of the documents related to that specific search, which is especially important if involved in multiple searches over several years. Organizing the closed searches based on the year the search concluded will allow for easy indication of when the 6 year period has passed and to allow for simpler deletion.

Faculty Employment Applications

Faculty Employment Applications gathered during the Outreach and Assessment Stages can be consolidated and organized based on active searches versus ones that have been concluded. Labeling a subfolder based on the position title will allow the Admin or Chair to keep track of the documents related to that specific search, which is especially important if involved in multiple searches over several years. Organizing the concluded searches based on the year the search concluded will allow for easy indication of when the 3 year period has passed and to allow for simpler deletion. It may be helpful to break down records by interview stages or by applicant name, but the three year retention after completion of hiring process will apply to all the substantive records for the hired applicant as well as the applicants not selected.*

*Note: Once the offer of employment has been accepted by the candidate, the subsequent records created (acceptance letter, appointment package, background checks, signed offer letter, etc.) will become the basis of the Personnel Record for the Academic Personnel retained by the UW.

Note: See ISO Resource for Visa Intake Forms, Visa Request Forms, policies on How to Sponsor/Extend Visas and the recruiting requirements: https://ap.washington.edu/ahr/visas/admin-resources/

Penn State Harrisburg to host workshop to enhance General Education Assessment

MIDDLETOWN, Pa. — Penn State Harrisburg, in collaboration with the Office for General Education and the Office of Planning, Assessment, and Institutional Research (OPAIR), is hosting a free, in-person faculty workshop to enhance the assessment of general education. Scheduled Monday, June 3, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Penn State Harrisburg’s campus, the workshop will offer faculty an opportunity to delve into the University’s assessment approach and contribute to refining assessment materials and processes.

“Harrisburg is delighted to be hosting this workshop for faculty teaching general education courses,” says Chancellor David Callejo Perez. “By supporting faculty who teach in such pivotal courses, we reaffirm our commitment to preparing students for success in their careers and communities.”

Faculty teaching general education courses are encouraged to apply to attend this workshop where they will consider how to align course assignments with Penn State’s General  Education Learning Objectives, Foundation, and Domain  criteria. Space is limited, and priority consideration will be given to those who apply by May 20. The workshop will be conducted in person only, and mileage will be reimbursed for participants who travel from campuses other than Penn State Harrisburg.

The workshop will include presentations, including one on Penn State’s General Education Learning Objectives (GELOs) and assessment process, small group discussions, and hands-on activities. Small group sessions will focus on specific objectives, brainstorming connections between learning and intention, and exploring related rubrics. Participants will analyze sample student work and update their course assignments. Participants will be provided resources and references to continue professional development. In addition, participants will receive priority consideration for select future General Education funding opportunities and professional development. The workshop concludes with sharing of examples and future engagement directions, empowering faculty to integrate assessment strategies into their teaching practices.

More details and the application can be found on the  Enhancing General Education Workshop page .

Share this post: