1

Process: Types of rubrics

Rubrics are generally categorized as generic or task-specific. As is so often the case in assessment,
the line between the two categories may blur so that rating instruments appear more or less generic
or task-specific. Indeed, many task-based rubrics are adaptations of generic scales. It is also possible
to design hybrid rubrics that combine features of both types.

Generic rubrics can be applied to a number of different tasks. In language assessment, one
frequently finds generic rubrics used with assessment tasks within a modality (generally writing and
speaking) or mode (interpersonal and presentational). A truly generic rubric could be applied to any
task within the same modality or mode.
The dimensions in a generic rubric for second-language assessment often emphasize features of
language production, such as comprehensibility, accuracy, and vocabulary, without making reference
to specific content or task details. Generic rubrics are often derived from models of language
proficiency and/or second language acquisition.
Figure 1. Generic Rubric for Oral Presentations - Intermediate Level Learners

Exemplary
4
Accomplished
3
Developing
2
Beginning
1
Comprehen-
sibility
Listeners
accustomed to
the speech of
learners are able
to understand all
of the
presentation.
Listeners
accustomed to
the speech of
learners are able
to understand
most of the
presentation.
Listeners
accustomed to
the speech of
learners are able
to understand the
main ideas and
some details of
the presentation.
Listeners
accustomed to
the speech of
learners are able
to understand
isolated bits of
the presentation.
Text Type
Describes,
narrates, and/or
expresses own
thoughts in
paragraph-level
discourse.
Describes,
narrates, and/or
expresses own
thoughts in
connected strings
of sentences.
Speaks in loosely
connected
sentences.
Speaks in
unconnected
sentences and
phrases.
Language
Control
High degree of
accuracy in
grammar and
word choice in
connected,
rehearsed, and
occasionally
complex
discourse. Little
or no interference
from first
language.
Usually accurate
grammar and
word choice in
connected,
rehearsed
discourse.
Occasional
interference from
first language.
Frequent, but
usually minor,
grammar and
word choice
errors in
rehearsed,
sentence-level
discourse.
Significant
interference from
first language.
Comprehension is
impeded by
frequent
grammar and
word choice
errors in
rehearsed
discourse. High
degree of
interference from
first language.
2


Vocabulary
Use
Uses a broad
range of familiar
and new words,
phrases, and
idioms so that
expression is
highly varied and
non-repetitive.
Uses an adequate
range of familiar
and new words,
phrases, and
idioms so that
expression is
varied and only
occasionally
repetitive.
Uses familiar
words, phrases,
and idioms, and
rarely attempts
to go beyond
basic vocabulary.
Speech is
repetitive and
lacks variety.
Uses very basic
vocabulary and
memorized
phrases. Speech
is limited and
highly repetitive.
Communication
Strategies
Always maintains
communication.
Able to
circumlocute and
self-correct when
needed. Use of
memory aids
enhances
presentation.
Very few breaks
in
communication.
Sometimes able
to circumlocute
and self-correct.
Effective use of
memory aids.
Frequent breaks
in
communication.
Rarely able to
circumlocute or
self-correct. Use
of memory aids
sometimes
detracts from
presentation.
Generally unable
to maintain
communication.
Overreliance on
memory aids
detracts from
presentation.

Figure 1shows a sample generic, analytic rubric for oral presentations (presentational mode) for
Intermediate level learners adapted from the ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners (K-12
Guidelines). This example reflects a focus on features of second-language production, but additional
dimensions might be included in order to measure such aspects of oral presentation as content
coverage, organization, connection with audience, elocution, use of graphics, and so on.
The terminology in Figure 1 is accessible to language-teaching professionals, but it may not provide
meaningful feedback to learners. Large-scale and external assessments for purposes such as
certification, placement, articulation, and program evaluation often use generic scales that contain a
high degree of professional language and require modification for classroom use.
A high school French teacher who commented on the rubric in Figure 1 indicated that, for classroom
use, he prefers a rubric with short descriptors that he can take in at a glance and that serve primarily
to refresh his memory of what performance is like at each step on the scale. Because he has only a
few seconds to evaluate each student, and because he wants to spend as little class time as possible
explaining the terms in the rubric to his students, prefers simple vocabulary that neither he nor his
students must ponder (J.-L. Roche, personal communication, October 22, 2002). Figure 2 presents an
adaptation of the oral presentation generic rubric for classroom use.
Figure 2. "Classroom-Friendly" Generic Rubric for Oral Presentations - Intermediate
Level Learners

Exemplary
4
Accomplished
3
Developing
2
Beginning
1
Comprehen-
sibility
Listeners can
understand all of
the presentation.
Listeners can
understand almost all
of the presentation.
Listeners can
understand the
main ideas and
some details.
Listeners can
understand some
phrases or
sentences.
Connected
Language
Speaks in
paragraphs to
describe, tell
about a sequence
of events, or
express thoughts.
Speaks in sentences
to describe, tell
about a sequence of
events, or express
thoughts.
Sentences are
loosely
connected.
Phrases and
sentences are
unconnected.
Language
Control
Makes rare
grammar or
vocabulary errors
in prepared
speech.
Makes some
grammar or
vocabulary errors in
prepared speech.
Makes frequent
grammar or
vocabulary
errors in
prepared
speech.
Makes so many
errors that it
appears speech
was not
prepared.
Vocabulary
Use
Uses many
familiar and new
words, phrases,
and expressions.
Not repetitive.
Uses an adequate
range of familiar and
new words, phrases,
and expressions.
Occasionally
repetitive.
Uses familiar
and a few new
words, phrases,
and expressions.
Repetitive.
Uses very basic
vocabulary and
memorized
phrases. Very
repetitive.
3

Communication
Strategies
May glance at
notes. No
noticeable pauses
or hesitations.
May rely on notes
several times. A few
noticeable pauses or
hesitations.
Relies on notes
often. Frequent
noticeable
pauses or
hesitations.
Unable to speak
without reading
notes.
It is certainly most efficient to design or identify rubrics that can be used for multiple purposes, but
when weighing the use of generic versus task-based rubrics, efficiency is not the only important
criterion. Tedick (2002) writes: "While some rubrics are created in such a way as to be generic in
scope for use with any number of writing or speaking tasks, it is best to consider the task first and
make sure that the rubric represents a good fit with the task and your instructional objectives. Just as
a variety of task-types should be used in language classrooms, so should a variety of rubrics and
checklists be used for assessing performance on those tasks. (p. 37)" For learners who are new to
performance assessment and evaluation, Tedick recommends making students comfortable with the
process by first using generic rubrics and gradually introducing task-specific rubrics.
Task-specific rubrics are used with particular tasks, and their criteria and descriptors reflect specific
features of the elicited performance. Rubrics developed for a defined group of tasks within a modality
or mode, such as writing narratives, performing role-plays, or exchanging e-mail messages may
combine elements of language production with dimensions related to the content and language
function(s) of the lesson/task. For example, if an assessment task requires learners to use a series of
pictures to tell a story in the past about a visit to monuments in Paris, the scoring criteria would focus
on language competencies related to narration in past tense along with one or more dimensions
measuring content and cultural knowledge. A possible rubric for this task is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Task-specific rubric for "A visit of Paris monuments"

4 3 2 1
Narration
Story is well
organized and
connected;
includes many
details or
elaboration about
all pictures in the
task.
Story is mostly
organized and
connected;
includes some
details or
elaboration about
most pictures in
the task.
Story is sequence
of loosely
connected events;
includes few
details or
elaboration about
pictures in the
task.
Story is
unconnected list
of events;
includes no details
or elaboration
about pictures in
the task.
Use of
past tense
Uses past tense at
all appropriate
times; use is
accurate.
Uses past tense
frequently; use is
mostly accurate.
Uses other tenses
sometimes where
past is
appropriate; use is
accurate some of
the time.
Makes few
attempts to use
past tense; use is
frequently
inaccurate.
Cultural
knowledge
Demonstrates
extensive and
correct knowledge
of current and
historical
significance of all
monuments.
Demonstrates
adequate and
correct knowledge
of current and
historical
significance of
most monuments.
Demonstrates
partial and usually
correct knowledge
of current and
historical
significance of
some monuments.
Demonstrates
minimal or no
knowledge of
current and
historical
significance of
monuments.

Rubrics that combine features of generic and task-specific rubrics are very useful in classroom
assessment because they provide feedback to learners on broad dimensions of language production
along with their performance on the particular competencies and knowledge targeted by course
content and aligned assessments. When adapting the rubrics for other tasks, teachers may keep the
generic language production elements as they are and change one or two categories to focus on task
expectations. For example, one might add level-appropriate, generic dimensions such as pronunciation
or fluency to the task-specific categories of narration, use of past tense, and knowledge about
monuments of Paris to the rubric in Figure 3.
4

Holistic, analytic, primary trait and multiple trait rubrics may be seen as different ways of
selecting and organizing rating criteria. These rubric types come from different contexts, and although
their particular uses and characteristics have converged in current practice, there are some general
guidelines for choosing among them. In addition, each type has advantages and disadvantages.
In practice, you will probably find considerable variability in how rubric types are identified. Holistic
and analytic scales may be identified as generic or task-specific, or they may include rating criteria of
both types. Primary and multiple trait rubrics are essentially task-specific, but general language
production categories may be added to multiple trait rubrics.
Evaluation
Process
Types of rubrics: Holistic scales
In holistic evaluation, raters make judgments by forming an overall impression of a performance and
matching it to the best fit from among the descriptions on the scale. Each band on the scale describes
performance on several criteria (e.g., range of vocabulary + grammatical accuracy + fluency). Four or
six levels of performance are commonly found in holistic rubrics. Holistic scales may be either generic
or task-specific. Large-scale assessments are often evaluated holistically, but teachers find holistic
rubrics easy and efficient to use for classroom assessment as well.
Fig. 1a Holistic rubric for speaking tasks (generic)
Exceeds
expectations
No errors in expression; near-native pronunciation; use of structures beyond
expected proficiency; near-native use of appropriate cultural practices;
exceeded task requirements.
Meets
expectations
Almost all expression is correct; easily understood with infrequent errors in
pronunciation, structures, and vocabulary usage; almost all cultural practices
demonstrated and appropriate; met task requirements.
Developing
Some errors in expression; comprehensible with noticeable errors in
pronunciation, structures, and/or vocabulary usage; some cultural practices
demonstrated and appropriate; met most task requirements.
Not there
yet
Little or no expression is correct; nearly or completely incomprehensible;
cultural practices were inappropriate or not demonstrated at all; little success
in meeting task requirements.
Adapted from sample rubric in the New Jersey World Languages Curriculum Framework, Appendix B (PDF document).
Figures 1a-d present two holistic rubrics for speaking tasks (both generic) and two holistic rubrics for
writing tasks (one generic, one task-specific). Click the icon at left to open a new window displaying
Figures 1a-d.
Advantages:
They are often written generically and can be used with many tasks.
They emphasize what learners can do, rather than what they cannot do.
They save time by minimizing the number of decisions raters must make.
Trained raters tend to apply them consistently, resulting in more reliable measurement.
They are usually less detailed than analytic rubrics and may be more easily understood by
younger learners.
Disadvantages:
They do not provide specific feedback to test takers about the strengths and weaknesses of
their performance.
Performances may meet criteria in two or more categories, making it difficult to select the one
best description. (If this occurs frequently, the rubric may be poorly written.)
Criteria cannot be differentially weighted.
5

Evaluation
Process
Types of rubrics: Analytic scales
Analytic scales are usually associated with generic rubrics and tend to focus on broad dimensions of
writing or speaking performance. These dimensions may be the same as those found in a generic,
holistic scale, but they are presented in separate categories and rated individually. Points may be
assigned for performance on each of the dimensions and a total score calculated.
Traditionally, analytic rubrics are associated with large-scale assessment of general dimensions of
language performance. However, analytic rubrics certainly can be created or adapted for use in
classroom settings and with particular tasks (e.g., Taggart et al., 1998). These rubrics often combine
performance categories from a generic rubric with categories directly related to a task, such as
demonstrating understanding of specific lesson content (Moskal, 2000). In practice, the names
"analytic rubric" and "multiple trait rubric" may be used interchangeably.
Performance dimensions commonly found in analytic rubrics include:
Speaking & Writing
Content
Vocabulary
Accuracy/Grammar/
Language Use
Task fulfillment
Appropriate use of
language
Creativity
Sentence
structure/Text type
Comprehensibility
Writing
Organization
Style
Mechanics
Coherence and
Cohesion
Speaking
Fluency
Pronunciation
Intonation

From Tedick, p. 35:
"One of the best known analytic rubrics used for writing assessment in the field of English as a
second language (ESL) was developed by Hughey et al. (1983, p. 140). This rubric has five
categoriescontent, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. Drawing heavily
upon characteristics of the Hughey et al. scale, Tedick and Klee developed an analytic rubric for
use in scoring essays written for an immersion quarter for undergraduates studying Spanish
(Klee, Tedick, & Cohen 1995)."
Fig. Fx. Analytic Writing Scale for the Spanish Foreign Language Immersion Program
University of Minnesota, Revised July, 1996
CONTENT 30 POINTS POSSIBLE
Score Range Criteria Comments

30 - 27
Excellent to Very Good .addresses all
aspects of the prompt .provides good support
for and development of all ideas with range of
detail .substantive


26 - 22
Good to Average .prompt adequately
addressed .ideas not fully developed or
supported with detail, though main ideas are
clear .less substance


21 - 17
Fair .prompt may not be fully addressed
(writer may appear to skirt aspects of prompt)
.ideas not supported well, main ideas lack
detailed development .little substance


16 - 13
Poor .doesnt adequately address prompt
.little to no support or development of ideas
.non-substantive



6

ORGANIZATION 20 POINTS POSSIBLE
Score Range Criteria Comments

20 - 18
Excellent to Very Good .well-framed and
organized (with clear introduction, conclusion)
.coherent .succinct .cohesive (excellent use
of connective words)


17 - 14
Good to Average adequate, but loose
organization with introduction and conclusion
(though they may be limited or one of the two
may be missing) .somewhat coherent .more
wordy rather than succinct .somewhat
cohesive (good use of connective words)


13 - 10
Fair .lacks good organization (no evidence
of introduction, conclusion) .ideas may be
disconnected, confused .lacks coherence
.wordy and repetitive .lacks consistent use
of cohesive elements


9 - 7
Poor .confusing, disconnected
organization .lacks coherence, so much so
that writing is difficult to follow .lacks
cohesion

LANGUAGE USE/GRAMMAR/MORPHOLOGY 25 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE
Score Range Criteria Comments

25 - 22
Excellent to Very Good .great variety of
grammatical forms (e.g., range of indicative
verb forms; use of subjunctive) .complex
sentence structure (e.g., compound
sentences, embedded clauses) .evidence of
"Spanish-like" construction .mastery of
agreement (subj/verb; number/gender) .very
few errors (if any) overall with none that
obscure meaning


21 - 18
Good to Average .some variety of
grammatical forms (e.g., attempts, though not
always accurate, of range of verb forms, use
of subjunctive) .attempts, though not always
accurate, at complex sentence structure (e.g.,
compound sentences, embedded clauses)
.little evidence of "Spanish-like" construction,
though without clear translations from English
.occasional errors with agreement .some
errors (minor) that dont obscure meaning


17 - 11
Fair .less variety of grammatical forms
(e.g., little range of verb forms; inaccurate, if
any, attempts at subjunctive) .simplistic
sentence structure .evidence of "English-like"
construction (e.g., some direct translation of
phrases) .consistent errors (e.g., with
agreement), but few of which may obscure
meaning


10 - 5
Poor .very little variety of grammatical
forms .simplistic sentence structure that
contains consistent errors, especially with
basic aspects such as agreement .evidence of
translation from English .frequent and
consistent errors that may obscure meaning

VOCABULARY/WORD USAGE 20 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE
Score Range Criteria Comments

20 - 18
Excellent to Very Good .sophisticated,
academic range .extensive variety of words
.effective and appropriate word/idiom choice
and usage .appropriate register


17 - 14
Good to Average .good, but not
extensive (less academic), range or variety
.occasional errors of word/idiom choice or
usage (some evidence of invention of "false"
cognates), but very few or none that obscure
meaning .appropriate register


13 - 10
Fair .limited and "non-academic" range
(frequent repetition of words) .more
consistent errors with word/idiom choice or

7

usage (frequent evidence of translation;
invention of "false" cognates) that may
(though seldom) obscure meaning .some
evidence of inappropriate register

9 - 7
Poor .very limited range of words
.consistent and frequent errors with
word/idiom choice or usage (ample evidence
of translation) .meaning frequently obscured
.evidence of inappropriate register

MECHANICS 5 TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE
Score Range Criteria Comments

5
Excellent to Very Good .demonstrates
mastery of conventions .few errors in
spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and use
of accents


4
Good to Average .occasional errors in
spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and use
of accents, but meaning is not obscured


3
Fair .frequent errors in spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, and use of
accents that at times confuses or obscures
meaning


2
Poor .no mastery of conventions
.dominated by errors in spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, and use of
accents

Total Score_____ COMMENTS:
Figure F presents an adaptation of a well-known analytic scale for evaluating ESL writing performance.
Describing this rubric, Tedick (2002) writes: "Note that the scale assigns different weights to different
features. This allows a teacher to give more emphasis to content than to grammar or mechanics, for
example. The option to weigh characteristics on the scale represents an advantage to analytic
scoring." (p. 35).
Figure F2 shows an analytic scale for role plays and interviews used with students in first-year French
courses at the University of Minnesota. This rubric can be used with other languages. In this example,
all criteria are weighted equally.
Analytic rubric for role plays and interviews
Post-secondary, Year 1
Communicative Success (Would a listener accustomed to the speech of learners
understand?)
A 6 / 5.5 Understand all of the message.
A- 5 Understand the general message and most of the details.
B 4.5 Understand general message, but only some of the details.
C 4
Have some idea of the general message, but would not be sure to have
understood.
D-F 3.5 - 0 Do not understand what the speaker is trying to say.
Pronunciation & Fluency
A 6 / 5.5
Speech is smooth; speaker is comfortable and confident in use of the language. No
mispronunciation that would interfere with comprehension by a sympathetic native
speaker.
A- 5
Speech is occasionally hesitant; some rephrasing. Mispronunciation causing
misunderstanding occurs only rarely.
B 4.5
Speech is hesitant (e.g. frequent rephrasing, sentences left unfinished, long
pauses). Several misunderstandings arise from mispronunciation of words or
errors in intonation.
C 4
Speech hesitant and choppy; conversation is almost impossible. Mispronunciation
and inaccurate stress make understanding difficult. Has to repeat a lot to be
understood; OR not enough speech to evaluate.
D-F 3.5 - 0
Speech limited to isolated words, or mispronunciation makes comprehension
impossible.
8

Vocabulary
A 6 / 5.5
Shows control of a wide range of the vocabulary taught in class and always uses
this vocabulary appropriately.
A- 5
Shows control of an adequate range of the vocabulary taught in class and most
often uses this vocabulary appropriately.
B 4.5
Some control of new vocabulary, but relies on fixed expressions/basic vocabulary
or uses vocabulary inappropriately.
C 4
Shows very limited control of the vocabulary taught, making discussion of related
topics extremely difficult; OR not enough speech to evaluate.
D-F 3.5 - 0 Shows no command of the vocabulary taught, making communication impossible.
Grammar
A 6 / 5.5
Shows consistent control of the structures taught in class and communication is
never impeded.
A- 5 Usually controls structures taught in class.
B 4.5 Shows partial control of structures taught in class.
C 4
Speech is very difficult to understand due to lack of control of structures taught;
OR not enough speech to evaluate.
D-F 3.5 - 0 Extreme lack of control of structures taught in class.
Role Plays/Interviews (Does it sound like a real conversation?)
A 6 / 5.5
Exchange is well-connected and appropriate to the topic and situation. Amount of
time spent conversing is appropriate for the task assigned and the topic is
adequately covered.
A- 5 Exchange is usually well-connected and appropriate to the topic and situation.
B 4.5
Some misunderstandings occur because discourse is not sufficiently connected or
conversation is not always appropriate to the topic and situation; or speaker(s)
does not maintain conversation for assigned length of time and needs to be told to
continue.
C 4
Misunderstandings frequently occur between participants because discourse is not
connected; or conversation is often inappropriate to topic or situation.
D-F 3.5 - 0
Exchange is not connected (many non-sequiturs; speaker unable to hold up
his/her end of the conversation); or conversation is entirely inappropriate to topic
or situation.
Department of French and Italian, College of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota

There are more sample analytic rubrics in the Evaluation > Examples section.
Advantages:
They provide useful feedback to learners on areas of strength and weakness.
Their dimensions can be weighted to reflect relative importance.
They can show learners that they have made progress over time in some or all dimensions
when the same rubric categories are used repeatedly (Moskal, 2000).
Disadvantages:
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Tedick (2002) notes: "Separate scores for
different aspects of a students writing or speaking performance may be considered artificial in
that it does not give the teacher (or student) a good assessment of the "whole" of a
performance." (p. 36).
They take more time to create and use.
There are more possibilities for raters to disagree. It is more difficult to achieve intra- and
inter-rater reliability on all of the dimensions in an analytic rubric than on a single score
yielded by a holistic rubric.
There is some evidence that raters tend to evaluate grammar-related categories more harshly
than they do other categories (McNamara, 1996), thereby overemphasizing the role of
accuracy in providing a profile of learners' proficiency.
9

There is some evidence that "when raters are asked to make multiple judgments, they really
make one..." (Fulcher, 2009). Care must be taken to avoid a "halo effect" and focus on the
individual criteria to assure that diverse information about the learner's performance is not
lost.
Process
Types of rubrics: Primary Trait and Multiple Trait
Primary trait scoring, as developed by Lloyd-Jones and Carl Klaus (Lloyd-Jones, 1977) was designed
to evaluate the primary language function or rhetorical trait elicited by a given writing task or prompt.
"Primary trait assessment in its initial formulations focused on the specific approach that a writer
might take to be successful on a specific writing task; every task required its own unique scoring
guide" (Applebee, 2000, p. 4). In its original form, primary trait scoring would be strictly classified as
task-specific, and performance would be evaluated on only one trait, such as the "Persuading an
audience" example from Tedick (2002, p. 36) for a task requiring learners to write a persuasive letter
to the editor of the school newspaper:
Fig. Fx. Primary Trait: Persuading an audience
0 Fails to persuade the audience.
1 Attempts to persuade but does not provide sufficient support.
2
Presents a somewhat persuasive argument but without consistent development
and support
3 Develops a persuasive argument that is well developed and supported.
Today, you may find that primary trait rubrics vary markedly from their original design and intended
use. Applebee notes: "Over the years as primary trait approaches were used more widely, they
evolved into a more generic approach which recognized the similarities in approach within broad uses
or purposes. The basic question addressed in scoring, however, remained, 'Did the writer successfully
accomplish the purpose of this task?' To insure that raters maintained this focus, scoring guidelines
usually instructed raters to ignore errors in conventions of written language, and to focus on overall
rhetorical effectiveness" (p. 4). Primary trait scoring can be used with speaking tasks as well as with
assessments of the interpersonal and presentational modes.
If you search the Web for primary trait rubrics, you will occasionally find examples that include several
traits rather than the one main criterion for successful communication within a specified rhetorical or
functional domain (e.g., SUNY Oswego, Which type of rubric is best? Fig. 3). In the Virtual Assessment
Center, we adopt the distinctions outlined by Tedick (2002) and refer to task-specific scoring grids
with more than one dimension as multiple trait, or multitrait, rubrics.
When would you use primary trait rubrics in the classroom? They provide minimal feedback to
learners, and it probably would not be fair to base important decisions like grades on whether or not
learners perform well on just one criterion. One scenario might be to use primary trait rubrics in
formative assessments designed to determine how well learners perform a particular language
function they have been working on in class. For example, if several lessons have been devoted to
working on descriptive language, a culminating writing task might be scored solely on its effectiveness
as a description.
Multiple trait rubrics. Hamp-Lyons (1991) coined the term multiple trait scoring for rubrics that she
designed, based on the concepts of primary trait scoring, to provide diagnostic feedback to learners
and other stakeholders about performance on "context-appropriate and task-appropriate criteria" for a
specified topic/text type. She designed her multiple trait rubrics to be applicable across a range of
similar tasks. Currently, multiple trait (or multitrait) rubrics are commonly considered to be task-
specific, although one or more of their dimensions might also be found in generic, analytic rubrics.
Many examples of rubrics of this type that you may find on the Web or in other resources often
accompany a given task, and may not be readily applicable to other tasks without adaptation. Figure
Fy illustrates a task and multitrait scoring rubric from a resource for language teachers (Petersen,
1999).
10

Figure Fy. Task and multiple trait mini-rubric*
Activity Description:
If language teachers were paid every time they had to remind students to speak the target
language (TL), they could probably retire.
With this in mind, you will be a part of a group that will meet at the beginning of each class
(groups will change from time to time). Your teacher will have an activity prepared for the
groups to complete each day (this gives your teacher the opportunity to take attendance and
finish all those other time-consuming tasks).
Each group should elect a leader to take charge and keep the group on task, making sure that
everyone participates. Always speak as much TL as possible during your warm-up. Help and
learn from each other. Use the TL to greet and say your farewells to your group members at the
end of the activity.
Primary Activity Standard: Communication Standard 1.1 (Interpersonal
Communication)
Students engage in conversations, provide and obtain information, express feelings and
emotions, and exchange opinions.
Excellent Average Needs Work
Time on Task
The group forms
immediately to work on
activity until the teacher
indicates otherwise; if
group finishes early,
members discuss topics
related to TL.
10 9
The group forms fairly
soon to work mostly on
activity until the teacher
indicates otherwise; if
group finishes early,
members are either silent
or discuss topics not
related to TL.
8 7 6
The group takes a long
time to form; they do not
work on activity (unless
the teacher walks by); if
group finishes early,
members discuss topics
not related to TL.
5 4 3 2 1 0
Participation
All group members
participate equally
throughout the entire
activity.
5
All group members but
one participate equally
throughout the activity.
4 3
More than one group
member does not
participate equally
throughout the activity.
2 1 0
Group
Cooperation
All members cooperate
to help each other learn;
if anyone has been
absent, the group helps
him/her; no one acts
"superior."
10 9
Most members cooperate
to help each other learn; if
anyone has been absent,
the group sometimes helps
him/her; no one acts
"superior."
8 7 6
Members do not
cooperate to help each
other learn; if anyone
has been absent, the
group does not help;
some members act
"superior."
5 4 3 2 1 0
Use of TL
Members use as much TL
as possible (also to greet
and say farewells).
5
Members use some TL
during activity (also to
greet and say farewells).
4 3
Members rarely use TL
during activity (neither
do they greet nor say
farewells).
2 1 0
1999 Wade Petersen
Multiple trait rubrics look like analytic rubrics in that performance is evaluated in several categories,
and, in practice, you may find the terms used interchangeably. However, analytic rubrics usually
evaluate the more traditional and generic dimensions of language production, while the criteria in
multiple trait rubrics focus on specific features of performance necessary for successful fulfillment of a
given task or tasks.



11

Advantages
The rubrics are aligned with the task and curriculum.
Aligned and well-written primary and multiple trait rubrics can ensure construct and content
validity of criterion-referenced assessments.
Feedback is focused on one or more dimensions that are important in the current learning
context.
With a multiple trait rubric, learners receive information about their strengths and
weaknesses.
Primary and multiple trait rubrics are generally written in language that students understand.
Teachers are able to rate performances quickly.
Many rubrics of this type have been developed by teachers who are willing to share them
online, at conferences, and in materials available for purchase.
Disadvantages
Information provided by primary trait rubrics is limited and may not easily translate into
grades.
Task-specific rubrics cannot be applied to other tasks without adaptation of at least one or
more dimensions.
Process: Creating rubrics

There are many rubric resources available to teachersonline and in published materialsso the
first piece of advice we have to offer is: Find and adapt existing rubrics! It is rare to find a rubric
that is exactly right for your situation and your students, but by using rubrics that have worked
well for others as a starting point, you can save a great deal of time.
There are many rubric formats. In the grid format shown here, which is one of the possible ways
to lay out a rubric, we illustrate a few common, frequently recommended, features of multiple
trait rubrics:
An even number (4 or 6) of levels of performance on the scale. When there is an odd
number of levels, the middle level tends to become a catch-all category. With an even
number of levels, raters have to make a more precise judgment about a performance
when its quality is not at the top or bottom of the scale.
High to low scale. In the graphic, the highest level of performance is described at the
left. Students read first the description of an exemplary performance in each criterion. A
few labels for a four-point scale include:
4 3 2 1
Exemplary Excellent Acceptable Unacceptable
Exceeds expectations Meets expectations Progressing Not there yet
Superior Good Fair Needs work
Limited number of dimensions or criteria. The criteria are those components that are
most important to evaluate in the given task and instructional context. A rubric with too
many dimensions may be unworkable in classroom assessment.
Equal steps along the scale. The difference between 4 and 3 should be equivalent to the
difference between 3 - 2 and 2 - 1. "Yes, and more", "Yes", "Yes, but", and "No" are
ways for the rubric developer to think about how to describe performance at each scale
point. Some common descriptive terms are listed in the chart below.


12

4 3 2 1
Task
requirements
All Most Some Very few or
none
Frequency Always Usually Some of the
time
Rarely or not
at all
Accuracy No errors Few errors Some errors Frequent errors
Comprehensibility Always
comprehensible
Almost always
comprehensible
Gist and main
ideas are
comprehensible
Isolated bits
are
comprehensible
Content coverage Fully
developed,
fully supported
Adequately
developed,
adequately
supported
Partially
developed,
partially
supported
Minimally
developed,
minimally
supported
Vocabulary
Range
Variety

Broad
Highly varied;
non-repetitive

Adequate
Varied;
occasionally
repetitive

Limited
Lacks variety;
repetitive

Very limited
Basic,
memorized;
highly
repetitive

Considerations for Task-Based Rubric Development*
Getting Started: Determining the criteria that will be valued for a particular task.
1. Brainstorm all the possible elements or criteria that could be assessed in the
performance task.
2. Determine which elements are "non-negotiable." Which criteria could be part of the task
description as baseline requirements or provided as a checklist?
3. Prioritize the elements that are left:
o What are the content and language goals of the unit?
o What do you really want the students to emphasize in their performance?
o How important is the overall "look" of the project (interest, appeal, creativity, neatness)?
o Is culture represented in the rubric, if applicable?
o Are the standards you targeted represented in the rubric?
4. Determine 3 to 5 elements or criteria that will be incorporated in the rubric to define a
quality performance. In trying to be thorough, an unwieldy rubric may be constructed,
with so many elements being assessed that the rubric is time-consuming to fill out or
oral performances will have to be taped (audio or video) in order to repeat them several
times for the purposes of assessment.
Considering the Levels of the Rubric: Determining the number of levels and defining
them.
1. How many levels of performance do you wish to include in the rubric? How should they
be defined? For example, "does not meet expectations," "meets expectations," "exceeds
expectations." Or you may choose to use simply a 3, 4, or 5-point scale, noting,
however, that a 3-point scale does not account for the fluctuation that exists within the
average range. Some suggest that a 4-point scale is ideal, and that more than 4 points
makes a scale cumbersome and difficult to use.
13

2. Consider the elements or criteria you have chosen one at a time. Begin with the highest
level of the scale to define top quality performance. This is the level that you want all
students to achieve and it should be challenging. How would you describe a
representation that exceeds expectations? Meets expectations? Does not meet
expectations?
3. Are the levels you have created parallel? That is, are the criteria present in all levels?
4. Is there continuity in the difference between the criteria for exceeds vs. meets, and
meets vs. does not meet expectations? The difference between a 2 and a 3 performance
should not be more than the difference between a 3 and a 4 performance.
5. Do the levels reflect variants in quality and not a shift in importance of the criteria?
6. Is there an expectation of quality at the average (meets expectations) level of the scale?
Other issues to consider for rubric creation:
Are the characteristics of each performance level described clearly? Will students be able
to self-assess with the descriptors given? Will the descriptors give students enough
information to know what they need to improve?
Does the rubric adequately reflect the range of levels at which students may actually
perform given tasks?
Are the criteria at each level defined clearly enough to ensure that scoring is accurate,
unbiased and consistent? Could several teachers use the rubric and score a students
performance within the same range?
Does the rubric attend to process as well as product?
Are all criteria equally important, or does it make sense to weight an element more than
the others?
Are you attending carefully to the language used in the rubric? Use demonstrative verbs.
Keep to observable behaviors. Avoid negatives ("begins without preparation" vs. "does
not prepare"). Be specific. Instead of "many errors" you may want to specify "six or
more errors". At the same time, be sure the rubric is generally qualitative in nature
rather than quantitative.
Other issues to consider when using rubrics:
Rubrics need to be piloted or field tested.
Rubrics need to be discussed with students to create an understanding of expectations;
you cannot write a paragraph defining each word in the rubric.
Are the criteria at each level defined clearly enough to ensure that scoring is accurate,
unbiased and consistent? Could several teachers use the rubric and score a students
performance within the same range?
There is a fine balance between modeling excellent work and creating a "template" that
is replicated by the students ad nauseam to the detriment of creativity.
"If a student can achieve a high score on all the criteria and still not perform well at the
task, you have the wrong criteria" (Wiggins, cited in Clementi, 1999).
Consider whether a rubric needs revision for a specific task. Do some of the criteria on
the rubric go beyond this particular performance (that is, if youve created a rubric that
is more "generic" and can be used for many tasks over time)?
Make sure that the expectations in the rubric are directly aligned with the instruction of
the lesson/unit. Students shouldnt be expected to do what they havent been previously
taught or shown.
Some suggest that generic rubrics are more useful because creating rubrics is time-
consuming and the more often they can be applied, the better. It is also more
informative for students if the same rubric is used again and again, because they can
see themselves making progress over time. On the other hand, generic rubrics are much
less tied to the task and are not able to provide criteria for specific language use
expectations or content knowledge.



14

Process: Grades

While we use rubrics to judge how well how well learners have met appropriate and clear
expectations set for them and to give them feedback about their performance along a quality
continuum, we also know that generally we are expected to issue grades as a descriptor of
student performance.
Teachers often construct their own scales for converting rubrics to grades. As with rubrics,
students need to be clearly informed of what the lowest "acceptable" score would be. The
Fairfax County (VA) Public Schools World Language web site provides one model of a formula
for converting scores from a point-based analytical rubric to a grade. Choose Performance
Assessments for Language Students (PALS). Under each level, you will see a conversion
chart for each rubric and task type listed.
The assessment section of the Nebraska Foreign Language Frameworks, available in PDF
format, also features an assessment score conversion chart for converting a series of raw
scores to percentage scores. The chart is found on the last page of the pdf document.