Unified Rubric

Unified rubric illustration

There are a number of ways to set out rubrics. There are analytic rubrics, single point rubrics, developmental rubrics and more. Each of these kinds of rubrics has strengths and weaknesses. This article explains a rubric structure that we believe provides the best aspects of each kind of rubric into a single form. We call this, the unified rubric.

At first glance, the unified rubric looks like a combination of an analytc rubric and a holistic rubric.

The rows of the unified rubric correspond to the main areas of the problem space. For example, if the rubric relates to a car buying guide, then the areas (and rows) may be:

The names of the areas appear in the left most column of the rubric.

The right column lists a series of considerations for each area. An area (or row) may have multiple considerations. Extending the car buying guide example, the considerations for the safety area may be:

Each consideration also has scoring guidance. The scoring guidance may utilise different schemes or terminology, but needs to be consistent accross considerations. Example scoring schemes may be 'poor', 'weak' and good' or alternatively a number from 1 to 10. The scoring guidance provides example characteristics and behaviours for each score or a subset of scores of the range. For a scoring scheme of 'poor', 'weak' and 'good', characteristics would be expected for each score. Alternatively, for a scoring scheme of 1 to 10, characteristics would only be expected for a subset of values spread across the range sucg as 1, 4, 7 and 10. Here is an example scoring guidance for the 'Air bag locations' consideration:

The scoring guidance ensures rubric assessments are conducted consistently.

Here's an example of the car buying guide in unified rubric form:

Area Consideration
Features
Seats
Poor
  • Seats are not adjustable.
Weak
  • Seats can be adjusted manually.
Good
  • Seats have electronic, memory based adjustments.
Locking
Poor
  • The car requires the use of a physical key to unlock it.
Weak
  • The car has keyless entry.
Good
  • The car has keyless entry and keyless ignition.
Safety
Air bag locations
Poor
  • No air bags are provided.
Weak
  • Two air bags are provided - one each for the front two occupantnts.
Good
  • More than two air bags are provided.
Sensors
Poor
  • No sensors are provided.
Weak
  • Reversing sensors are provided.
Good
  • Reversing sensors are provided
  • Forward looking sensors provide automatic breaking.
Reliability
Break downs
Poor
  • The car often breaks down.
Weak
  • There are anecdotal reports of the car breaking down.
Good
  • Independent reviews indicate the car never breks down.
Service costs
Poor
  • The average service costs in excess of $1000.
Weak
  • The average service costs between $500 and $1000.
Good
  • The average service costs less than $500.

This example shows shows a significant amount of information is communicated even in rather simple simple rubrics. Whilst this leads to increased robustness, it also makes them cumbersome to read. To solve this, the guidance can be presented within containers that are initially collapsed, but can be expanded by the reader when necessary. There's no down side to this because the guidance generally only needs to be read whilst making and reviewing assessments against the rubric.

Here's the same example unified rubric, but this time with the guidance in collapsable containers to reduce the initial verbosity:

Area Consideration
Features
Seats show guidance
Locking show guidance
Safety
Air bag locations show guidance
Sensors show guidance
Reliability
Break downs show guidance
Service costs show guidance

With the guidance sections collapsed, the rubric is much more compact and easier to read. However, the rubric still contains all the information necessary to interpret it unambiguously and ensure assessments are made consistently.

To see a unified rubric presented in an interactive manner, visit App Platform Development Experience.

 

 


You may also like some of our other posts...