Do you use rubrics to assess learning in your course? Rubrics may not seem like the most exciting part of designing your course, but they’re still worth the time to develop!

Photo from Pixabay

Why Rubrics?

Set Expectations: Rubrics provide students with clear guidelines to an assignment’s desired outcome and can make grading more transparent. By providing a rubric to students before they begin an assignment, the instructor offers them a roadmap to success. Rubrics aid the students’ learning process and help them improve the quality of their work.

Equity: Rubrics allow you to assess complex learning criteria consistently and objectively, whether there’s just one grader or multiple. All student work is judged by the same standards. You will have a concrete reference point for sparking teacher-student dialogue about performance expectations and areas for improvement, and you’ll be able to measure student progress over time.

Save Time: While rubrics do take a bit of extra initial effort, you’ll save time during the grading process. For example, when you develop and integrate rubrics in Canvas, it becomes available to you in SpeedGrader; you can select boxes in the grid and the rubric will calculate a score based on your selections. This will allow you to devote more time to provide customized content-related feedback to individual students.

Rubrics in Canvas

Designed as a table, rubrics in Canvas list the criteria by which the assignment will be graded and a clearly defined range of performance on those criteria, from what would be considered accomplished to what needs improvement. For example, if “making a clear and persuasive argument” were one of the areas a student should address in an assignment, the rubric would include a scale that would define what met or didn’t meet expectations. Using the rubric as a guide makes grading an easier process and provides students with more information about how they did or didn’t meet the learning objectives of a particular criteria.

This guide can help you build a rubric: How do I add a rubric in a course?

Once you have your rubric, you need to add it into Canvas and attach it to your assignment. This guide can help you get started: How do I add a rubric to an assignment?

Instructors should think about whether their grading strategies are reliable, valid, fair, and transparent, and if what they are assessing aligns with the stated learning objectives. The percentages and criteria for each assessment should be clearly conveyed to the students on the course syllabus and/or in other materials, such as assignment descriptions.

Questions to Consider

So, are you ready to build that rubric? Consider these questions:

What are the specific tasks of the assignment? Make sure your rubric addresses all of them.
What are the learning outcomes you are trying to achieve with this assignment? Ensure that your rubric measures your goals.
What is the purpose of the rubric?
- Is it meant to provide formative assessment (feedback to students) or to provide a grade (summative assessment)?
- Is it qualitative or quantitative?
What levels of performance might you expect to see? Using neutral language, decide on descriptors that show a full range of skills and knowledge, with clear indicators of each level of performance.

Start with a Template

Here’s a tip for integrating rubrics into your class: Don’t reinvent the wheel!

Below is a sample of rubrics for different kinds of assessments. Find one that is close to what you are looking for and make modifications to fit the needs of the assignment in your course.

If you would like help brainstorming ideas for new rubrics, exploring additional sample rubrics, modifying or workshopping an existing rubric, or even just copying one of these examples to your course site, please schedule a Consultation with a member of the Distance Learning team.

Discussion Boards

This example is drawn from HCA 401: The American Healthcare System: Patient, Payor, and Provider, and is used to assess students’ discussion posts and responses throughout the course.

Criteria	Ratings			Points
Initial Post	8 to >5.0 pts Excellent The student’s initial post was excellent. They explained their argument clearly and provided details. They backed up their post with evidence to support their points. It was a persuasive response. The citations were in APA style. The student’s initial post was on time.	5 to >2.0 pts Satisfactory The student’s initial post was adequate, but, at times, their explanation was not entirely clear or lacked details. The student could have done more to explain their points and persuade their audience. The citations were in APA style. The student’s initial post was on time.	2 to >0 pts Needs Work The student’s initial post was inadequate. Their writing was unclear, lacked detail, and did not include a citation. It is possible that they failed to respond at all or were extremely late.	8
Response to Peers	7 to >5.0 pts Excellent The student responded to at least two peers in a robust way (meaning they raised a meaningful question, engaged with their peer’s response in a thoughtful way. They may have brought in a new perspective. The student’s responses to their classmates were on time, so their classmates could benefit from the conversation.	5 to >2.0 pts Satisfactory The student responded to at least two peers in an adequate way. This means that their response was unclear at times or did not always include enough detail. They needed to respond in a thoughtful way, raising a meaningful question or possibly challenging their classmate’s initial post with some contrary evidence. They did write more than a simple “I agree or “good idea”. The student’s responses to their classmates were on time, so their classmates could benefit from the conversation.	2 to >0 pts Needs Work The student did not respond to their peers on time and/or their responses were unclear or not substantive.	7
Total				15

Coding Assignment

This rubric is used in MSDS 458: Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning for a variety of coding assignments.

Criteria	Ratings					Points
Data preparation, exploration, visualization	20 pts Outstanding The learner shows unusually strong grasp of the problem nature, identifying the problem, describing the data, and identifying any unusual aspects of the problem and data.	15 pts Meets Expectations The learner identifies the problem at hand, and correctly identifies the challenges associated with applying the required methods to the data set.	10 pts Needs Improvement The learner does not clearly demonstrate problem understanding, or does not identify challenges associated with the data.	5 pts Partially Acceptable The learner engages in the prompt but does not meet the needs of needs improvement.	0 pts Unacceptable The student does not communicate engagement with the problem or the data set.	20
Review research design and modeling methods	20 pts Outstanding The learner demonstrates substantial understanding of the how the algorithms work, together with understanding how the code encapsulates these algorithms, or (in the case of ontological tasks) shows in-depth understanding of research principles.	15 pts Meets Expectations The learner demonstrates solid understanding of the how the algorithms and the code encapsulating these algorithms work, or (in the case of ontological tasks) shows solid understanding of research principles.	10 pts Needs Improvement The learner demonstrates weak or incorrect understanding of the how the algorithms and the code encapsulating these algorithms work, or (in the case of ontological tasks) shows minimal understanding of the principles for ontology development.	5 pts Partially Acceptable The learner engages in the prompt but does not meet the needs of needs improvement.	0 pts Unacceptable The learner demonstrates no understanding of the how the algorithms and the code encapsulating these algorithms work, or (in the case of ontological tasks) shows no understanding research principles.	20
Review results, evaluate models	20 pts Outstanding The learner demonstrates in-depth understanding of the algorithms or processes used.	15 pts Meets Expectations The learner demonstrates solid understanding of the fundamentals of the algorithms or processes used.	10 pts Needs Improvement The learner’s grasp of the research processes requires further study and development.	5 pts Partially Acceptable The learner engages in the prompt but does not meet the needs of needs improvement.	0 pts Unacceptable The learner does not show understanding of the algorithms or research processes used.	20
Implementation and programming	20 pts Outstanding The learner demonstrates profound understanding of the how the algorithms produced the results that were obtained, backed up by detailed analysis. Research is carried out using valid, readable code, employing software best practices.	15 pts Meets Expectations The learner demonstrates substantial understanding of the how the algorithms produced the results that were obtained, backed up by detailed analysis. Research is carried out using valid, readable code, employing software best practices.	10 pts Needs Improvement The learner demonstrates some understanding of the how the algorithms produced the results that were obtained, backed up by detailed analysis. To some extent, research is carried out using valid, readable code, employing software best practices.	5 pts Partially Acceptable The learner engages in the prompt but does not meet the needs of needs improvement.	0 pts Unacceptable The learner demonstrates no understanding of the how the algorithms produced the results that were obtained, backed up by detailed analysis. Research is not carried out using valid, readable code, employing software best practices.	20
Exposition, problem description and management recommendations	20 pts Outstanding The learner demonstrates unusual grasp of not only broad principles but also subtleties in the results obtained, and identifies steps which could be taken to address weaknesses in the research methods. Management recommendations make good sense and follow from the research findings. Excellent writing for management.	15 pts Meets Expectations The learner effectively shows how the applied algorithms yielded the results obtained, and shows understanding of both the strengths and weaknesses of the applied approach. In general, management recommendations make sense and follow from the research findings. Good writing for management.	10 pts Needs Improvement The learner shows minimal understanding of how the applied algorithms yielded the results obtained, and shows minimal understanding of both the strengths and weaknesses of the applied approach. To some extent, management recommendations make sense and follow from the research findings. Satisfactory writing for management.	5 pts Partially Acceptable The learner engages in the prompt but does not meet the needs of needs improvement.	0 pts Unacceptable The learner does not show understanding of the results obtained. Management recommendations do not make sense or do not follow from the research findings. Unsatisfactory writing for management.	20
Total						100

Writing Assignment

This memorandum rubric is currently in use as part of MPPA 403: Fundamentals of Public Administration. Students compose four memos throughout the course, in Modules 2, 3, 6, and 7.

Criteria

Ratings

Points

Critical Thinking

This criterion is linked to learning outcome focused on developing keen critical thinking and analytical skills.

18 pts

Exceeds Graduate Expectations

All five elements of the memorandum are addressed and augmented by significant-rigorous graduate level discussion of the salient issues in terms of breadth and depth of analysis which clearly exceeds expectations.

16 pts

Acceptable at Graduate Level

All five memorandum elements are addressed and augmented with by considerable discussion and analysis, which is clearly acceptable at the graduate level.

14 pts

Acceptable but Lacking at Graduate Level

The memorandum addresses all of the required elements, and the discussion is approaching graduate level quality but lacks depth and breadth of analysis.

12 pts

Significant Problems

The memorandum has not effectively addressed all of the required elements and the discussion is marginal at best and not indicative of graduate level work.

0 pts

Poor Quality or Unacceptable at Graduate Level

The memorandum has not addressed each required element, and the discussion is not rigorous or acceptable at the graduate level.

Writing Skills

This criterion is linked to demonstrating graduate and professional level writing skills.

18 pts

Exceeds Graduate Expectations

The memorandum is very well written and has no grammatical or syntactical errors. Additionally, it exhibits clarity of expression including variation in word usage and is presented in the required memo format template.

16 pts

Acceptable at Graduate Level

The memorandum is well written, has no grammatical or syntactical errors, and is presented in the required memo formatting template, and is clearly acceptable at the graduate level.

14 pts

Acceptable but Lacking at Graduate Level

The memorandum has some grammatical errors, lacks attention to detail in terms of template formatting compliance, and has redundant word usage.

12 pts

Significant Problems

The memorandum is replete with grammatical errors, has some semblance of clarity, but lacks graduate level writing standards.

0 pts

Poor Quality or Unacceptable at Graduate Level

The memorandum has excessive grammatical errors and is not compatible to any degree with graduate level writing standards.

This criterion is linked to the specified module learning outcome for understanding policy making and implementation aspects of public administration.

18 pts

Exceeds Graduate Expectations

The memorandum clearly states why the article chosen has a strong public administrative nexus as evidenced by substantial supporting sources and/or thorough rigorous discussion.

16 pts

Acceptable at Graduate Level

The memorandum clearly states why the article chosen has a public administrative nexus with some supporting evidence.

14 pts

Acceptable but Lacking at Graduate Level

The memorandum marginally states why the article chosen has represents a public administration problem or issue. Although some supporting evidence or discussion is provided.

12 pts

Significant Problems

The memorandum has provided little or no substantive evidence of a public administrative issue or problem, as has limited supporting evidence or discussion.

0 pts

Poor Quality or Unacceptable at Graduate Level

The memorandum has not made any substantive connection to a public administrative issue or problem to any notable degree.

Rational Decision-Making

This criterion is linked to understanding rational decision making with respect to element # 3 of the memorandum.

18 pts

Exceeds Graduate Expectations

The memorandum’s assessment of the article’s bias, if any, was rigorously and rationally evaluated in an apolitical manner with significant supportive evidence.

16 pts

Acceptable at Graduate Level

The memorandum’s assessment of the article’s bias, if any, was rationally evaluated in an apolitical manner and is clearly acceptable at the graduate level.

14 pts

Acceptable but Lacking at Graduate Level

The memorandum’s assessment of the article’s bias, if any, was evaluated to some degree, but could have been more rigorous.

12 pts

Significant Problems

The memorandum’s assessment of the article’s bias, if any, was not rationally evaluated in an apolitical manner.

0 pts

Poor Quality or Unacceptable at Graduate Level

The memorandum’s assessment of the article’s bias, if any, was not rationally evaluated in an apolitical manner and generally lacked rigor.

APA Citation

This criterion is linked to ensuring graduate understanding of proper APA citation and its usage.

18 pts

Exceeds Graduate Expectations

APA citation was correct when used and is compatible with at least the 6th Edition.

16 pts

Acceptable at Graduate Level

APA citation was generally correct used but minor errors were detected.

14 pts

Acceptable but Lacking at Graduate Level

APA citation was used but several deficiencies are noted.

12 pts

Significant Problems

APA citation was not used correctly to any significant degree.

0 pts

Poor Quality or Unacceptable at Graduate Level

APA citation was not used.

Total

Final Paper

This final paper rubric is drawn from MPPA 406: Program Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Students design, anticipate the results of, and present an evaluation of a program or policy of their choice for a hypothetical client with a vested interest in the program or policy.

Criteria	Ratings			Points
Paper: Literature Review	30-35 Points Follows all instructions. Includes a solid review of any relevant literature. Includes discussion of at least five (5) peer-reviewed journal articles. Writing is professional, clear, logical, and concise. Writing displays critical thinking and analytical skills expected of graduate-level writing. Content is effectively organized. Citations in proper APA format.	11-29 Points Weaknesses noted in one or more of the following areas: Follows all instructions. Includes a solid review of any relevant literature. Includes discussion of at least five (5) peer-reviewed journal articles. Writing is professional, clear, logical, and concise. Writing displays critical thinking and analytical skills expected of graduate-level writing. Content is effectively organized. Citations in proper APA format.	0-10 Points Section of paper is missing, incomplete or severely lacking in clarity, analysis, logic, and/or critical thinking. Writing is often unclear and/or difficult to follow.	35
Paper: Stakeholders	30-35 Points Stakeholders identified and discussed appropriately. Engagement of stakeholder groups addressed.	11-29 Points Weaknesses noted in the discussion and/or identification of stakeholder groups. Engagement of stakeholder groups not addressed or could be improved.	0-10 Points Section of paper is missing, incomplete or severely lacking in clarity, analysis, logic, and/or critical thinking. Writing is often unclear and/or difficult to follow.	35
Paper: Program Description	30-35 Points Program/policy identified and discussed appropriately. All required questions addressed thoroughly: What are the goals/mission/aims of the policy or program? Why does your program/policy need to be evaluated? Has the program/policy been evaluated before?	11-29 Points Weaknesses noted in the description of the program/policy. Weaknesses noted in how the required questions were addressed: What are the goals/mission/aims of the policy or program? Why does your program/policy need to be evaluated? Has the program/policy been evaluated before?	0-10 Points Section of paper is missing, incomplete or severely lacking in clarity, analysis, logic, and/or critical thinking. Writing is often unclear and/or difficult to follow.	35
Paper: Evaluation Design	30-35 Points Evaluation design identified and discussed appropriately. All required questions addressed thoroughly: What is the design of your evaluation? How will this answer your evaluation research questions?	11-29 Points Weaknesses noted in the description of the program/policy. Weaknesses noted in the description of the evaluation design. Weaknesses noted in how the required questions were addressed: What is the design of your evaluation? How will this answer your evaluation research questions?	0-10 Points Section of paper is missing, incomplete or severely lacking in clarity, analysis, logic, and/or critical thinking. Writing is often unclear and/or difficult to follow.	35
Paper: Findings	30-35 Points Findings identified and discussed appropriately. All required questions addressed thoroughly: What findings would indicate that your program was effective? Explain. What findings would indicate that your program was partially effective? Explain. What findings would indicate that your program was mostly ineffective? Explain. What findings would indicate that your program was ineffective? Explain.	11-29 Points Weaknesses noted in the description of the findings. Weaknesses noted in how the required questions were addressed	0-10 Points Section of paper is missing, incomplete or severely lacking in clarity, analysis, logic, and/or critical thinking. Writing is often unclear and/or difficult to follow.	35
Paper: Justification of Conclusions	30-35 Points Justification of conclusions discussed appropriately. Two (2) findings described in detail.	11-29 Points Weaknesses noted in the justification of conclusions. Weaknesses noted in the description of likely findings.	0-10 Points Section of paper is missing, incomplete or severely lacking in clarity, analysis, logic, and/or critical thinking. Writing is often unclear and/or difficult to follow.	35
Paper: Use & Lessons	30-35 Points Use and lessons were discussed appropriately. Required question addressed thoroughly: How will you or your client disseminate/use the findings of your evaluation?	11-29 Points Weaknesses noted in the description of use and lessons. Weaknesses noted in how the required question was addressed: • How will you or your client disseminate/use the findings of your evaluation?	0-10 Points Section of paper is missing, incomplete or severely lacking in clarity, analysis, logic, and/or critical thinking. Writing is often unclear and/or difficult to follow.	35
Paper: Logic Model	30-35 Points Appropriate logic model included.	11-29 Points Logic model included, but is questionable or could be improved.	0-10 Points Section of paper is missing, incomplete or severely lacking in clarity, analysis, logic, and/or critical thinking. Writing is often unclear and/or difficult to follow.	35
Survey Instrument	11-15 Points Survey included as appendix. Survey is well-written, thoughtful and thorough.	5-10 Points Survey included as appendix. Survey is mostly well-written, thoughtful and thorough, though some weaknesses were noted.	0-4 Points Survey not included as appendix or has major weaknesses noted throughout.	15
Writing Quality, Mechanics, Reference List and APA	20-25 Points None or very few APA errors. All paraphrased sentences and direct quotes are cited properly. Reference list includes all and only the sources used in the paper. Follows APA formatting requirements. Writing is generally clear. Headings and subheadings used. Paragraphs use the “one idea per” approach. Written information flows in a logical and organized manner. Repetition is not a problematic issue. Written for an intelligent, yet uninformed reader. Writing reflects a revision and editing process. Sections are woven together in a cohesive way. Few or no grammatical, word choice, or spelling errors. Few or no punctuation errors. Assignment organized as required.	10-19 Points Moderate APA errors. Most paraphrased sentences and direct quotes are cited properly. Reference list generally follows APA formatting requirements. A number of the criteria are missing or lacking: Writing is generally clear. Headings and subheadings used. Paragraphs use the “one idea per” approach. Written information flows in a logical and organized manner. Transitions between sections generally present and used effectively. Repetition is not a problematic issue. Written for an intelligent, yet uninformed reader. Writing reflects a revision and editing process. Sections are woven together in a cohesive way. Few or no grammatical, word choice, or spelling errors. Few or no punctuation errors. Assignment organized as required.	0-9 Points Significant APA errors. Reference list generally does not follow APA formatting requirements. Significant errors in mechanics, usage, grammar or spelling. Writing does not meet the standards of graduate-level writing. Disorderliness of writing makes it difficult to read. Required sections do not meet required length criteria.	25
Total				320

Final Project

This final project rubric is currently in use in MKTG 201: Principles of Marketing. Throughout the course, students develop authentic assignments for a client of their choice; this reflects the summation of their work in the course.

Criteria	Ratings			Points
Executive Summary	10 to >9.0 pts Excellent Response demonstrates a thorough understanding and application of the course material. Gives a thorough, yet concise, overview of the project.	9 to >7.4 pts Meets expectations Response demonstrates a competent understanding and application of the course material. Gives an adequate overview of the project.	7.4 to >0 pts Needs improvement Response does not demonstrate an understanding and application of the course material. Does not give an accurate or sufficient overview of the project.	10
Background and Situation Analysis	5 to >4.5 pts Excellent Response demonstrates a thorough understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response are accurate and based on course reading and media.	4.5 to >3.7 pts Meets expectations Response demonstrates a competent understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response are mostly accurate and based on the course reading and media with few misconceptions.	3.7 to >0 pts Needs improvement Response does not demonstrate an understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response contain inaccuracies and are not based on the course reading and media.	5
Environmental Analysis: Includes discussion of target market and competitive analysis.	20 to >18.0 pts Excellent Response demonstrates a thorough understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response are accurate and based on course reading and media.	18 to >14.8 pts Meets expectations Response demonstrates a competent understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response are mostly accurate and based on the course reading and media with few misconceptions.	14.8 to >0 pts Needs improvement Response does not demonstrate an understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response contain inaccuracies and are not based on the course reading and media.	20
SWOT Analysis	20 to >18.0 pts Excellent Response demonstrates a thorough understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response are accurate and based on course reading and media.	18 to >14.8 pts Meets expectations Response demonstrates a competent understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response are mostly accurate and based on the course reading and media with few misconceptions.	14.8 to >0 pts Needs improvement Response does not demonstrate an understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response contain inaccuracies and are not based on the course reading and media.	20
Marketing Strategy Proposal	20 to >18.0 pts Excellent Response demonstrates a thorough understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response are accurate and based on course reading and media.	18 to >14.8 pts Meets expectations Response demonstrates a competent understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response are mostly accurate and based on the course reading and media with few misconceptions.	14.8 to >0 pts Needs improvement Response does not demonstrate an understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response contain inaccuracies and are not based on the course reading and media.	20
Marketing Mix Proposal	20 to >18.0 pts Excellent Response demonstrates a thorough understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response are accurate and based on course reading and media.	18 to >14.8 pts Meets expectations Response demonstrates a competent understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response are mostly accurate and based on the course reading and media with few misconceptions.	14.8 to >0 pts Needs improvement Response does not demonstrate an understanding and application of the course material. Details of the response contain inaccuracies and are not based on the course reading and media.	20
Conclusion	5 to >4.5 pts Excellent Uses a well-developed rationale to answer the question/s, applying course reading and media.	4.5 to >3.7 pts Meets expectations A competent response, but the rationale and/or application of course reading and media could be improved.	3.7 to >0 pts Needs improvement The response is not clear and not supported by information from the class reading or media.	5
Total				100

SPS Distance Learning Blog

Rubrics: Set Expectations and Save Time

Why Rubrics?

Rubrics in Canvas

Questions to Consider

Start with a Template

Discussion Boards

Coding Assignment

Writing Assignment

Final Paper

Final Project

Leave a Comment Cancel reply