-
What is Authentic Assessment?
A form of assessment in which students are asked to perform real-world tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills -- Jon Mueller
"...Engaging and worthy problems or questions of importance, in which students must use knowledge to fashion performances effectively and creatively. The tasks are either replicas of or analogous to the kinds of problems faced by adult citizens and consumers or professionals in the field." -- Grant Wiggins -- (Wiggins, 1993, p. 229).
"Performance assessments call upon the examinee to demonstrate specific skills and competencies, that is, to apply the skills and knowledge they have mastered." -- Richard J. Stiggins -- (Stiggins, 1987, p. 34).
What does Authentic Assessment look like?
An authentic assessment usually includes a task for students to perform and a rubric by which their performance on the task will be evaluated. Click the following links to see many examples of authentic tasks and rubrics.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
How is Authentic Assessment similar to/different from Traditional Assessment?
The following comparison is somewhat simplistic, but I hope it illuminates the different assumptions of the two approaches to assessment.
Traditional Assessment
By "traditional assessment" (TA) I am referring to the forced-choice measures of multiple-choice tests, fill-in-the-blanks, true-false, matching and the like that have been and remain so common in education. Students typically select an answer or recall information to complete the assessment. These tests may be standardized or teacher-created. They may be administered locally or statewide, or internationally.
Behind traditional and authentic assessments is a belief that the primary mission of schools is to help develop productive citizens. That is the essence of most mission statements I have read. From this common beginning, the two perspectives on assessment diverge. Essentially, TA is grounded in educational philosophy that adopts the following reasoning and practice:
1. A school's mission is to develop productive citizens.
2. To be a productive citizen an individual must possess a certain body of knowledge and skills.
3. Therefore, schools must teach this body of knowledge and skills.
4. To determine if it is successful, the school must then test students to see if they acquired the knowledge and skills.
In the TA model, the curriculum drives assessment. "The" body of knowledge is determined first. That knowledge becomes the curriculum that is delivered. Subsequently, the assessments are developed and administered to determine if acquisition of the curriculum occurred.
Authentic Assessment
In contrast, authentic assessment (AA) springs from the following reasoning and practice:
1. A school's mission is to develop productive citizens.
2. To be a productive citizen, an individual must be capable of performing meaningful tasks in the real world.
3. Therefore, schools must help students become proficient at performing the tasks they will encounter when they graduate.
4. To determine if it is successful, the school must then ask students to perform meaningful tasks that replicate real world challenges to see if students are capable of doing so.
Thus, in AA, assessment drives the curriculum. That is, teachers first determine the tasks that students will perform to demonstrate their mastery, and then a curriculum is developed that will enable students to perform those tasks well, which would include the acquisition of essential knowledge and skills. This has been referred to as planning backwards (e.g., McDonald, 1992).
If I were a golf instructor and I taught the skills required to perform well, I would not assess my students' performance by giving them a multiple choice test. I would put them out on the golf course and ask them to perform. Although this is obvious with athletic skills, it is also true for academic subjects. We can teach students how to do math, do history and do science, not just know them. Then, to assess what our students had learned, we can ask students to perform tasks that "replicate the challenges" faced by those using mathematics, doing history or conducting scientific investigation.
Authentic Assessment Complements Traditional Assessment
But a teacher does not have to choose between AA and TA. It is likely that some mix of the two will best meet your needs. To use a silly example, if I had to choose a chauffeur from between someone who passed the driving portion of the driver's license test but failed the written portion or someone who failed the driving portion and passed the written portion, I would choose the driver who most directly demonstrated the ability to drive, that is, the one who passed the driving portion of the test. However, I would prefer a driver who passed both portions. I would feel more comfortable knowing that my chauffeur had a good knowledge base about driving (which might best be assessed in a traditional manner) and was able to apply that knowledge in a real context (which could be demonstrated through an authentic assessment).
Defining Attributes of Traditional and Authentic Assessment
Another way that AA is commonly distinguished from TA is in terms of its defining attributes. Of course, TA's as well as AA's vary considerably in the forms they take. But, typically, along the continuums of attributes listed below, TA's fall more towards the left end of each continuum and AA's fall more towards the right end.
Traditional --------------------------------------------- Authentic
Selecting a Response ------------------------------------ Performing a Task
Contrived --------------------------------------------------------------- Real-life
Recall/Recognition ------------------------------- Construction/Application
Teacher-structured ------------------------------------- Student-structured
Indirect Evidence -------------------------------------------- Direct Evidence
Let me clarify the attributes by elaborating on each in the context of traditional and authentic assessments:
Selecting a Response to Performing a Task: On traditional assessments, students are typically given several choices (e.g., a,b,c or d; true or false; which of these match with those) and asked to select the right answer. In contrast, authentic assessments ask students to demonstrate understanding by performing a more complex task usually representative of more meaningful application.
Contrived to Real-life: It is not very often in life outside of school that we are asked to select from four alternatives to indicate our proficiency at something. Tests offer these contrived means of assessment to increase the number of times you can be asked to demonstrate proficiency in a short period of time. More commonly in life, as in authentic assessments, we are asked to demonstrate proficiency by doing something.
Recall/Recognition of Knowledge to Construction/Application of Knowledge: Well-designed traditional assessments (i.e., tests and quizzes) can effectively determine whether or not students have acquired a body of knowledge. Thus, as mentioned above, tests can serve as a nice complement to authentic assessments in a teacher's assessment portfolio. Furthermore, we are often asked to recall or recognize facts and ideas and propositions in life, so tests are somewhat authentic in that sense. However, the demonstration of recall and recognition on tests is typically much less revealing about what we really know and can do than when we are asked to construct a product or performance out of facts, ideas and propositions. Authentic assessments often ask students to analyze synthesize and apply what they have learned in a substantial manner, and students create new meaning in the process as well.
Teacher-structured to Student-structured: When completing a traditional assessment, what a student can and will demonstrate has been carefully structured by the person(s) who developed the test. A student's attention will understandably be focused on and limited to what is on the test. In contrast, authentic assessments allow more student choice and construction in determining what is presented as evidence of proficiency. Even when students cannot choose their own topics or formats, there are usually multiple acceptable routes towards constructing a product or performance. Obviously, assessments more carefully controlled by the teachers offer advantages and disadvantages. Similarly, more student-structured tasks have strengths and weaknesses that must be considered when choosing and designing an assessment.
Indirect Evidence to Direct Evidence: Even if a multiple-choice question asks a student to analyze or apply facts to a new situation rather than just recall the facts, and the student selects the correct answer, what do you now know about that student? Did that student get lucky and pick the right answer? What thinking led the student to pick that answer? We really do not know. At best, we can make some inferences about what that student might know and might be able to do with that knowledge. The evidence is very indirect, particularly for claims of meaningful application in complex, real-world situations. Authentic assessments, on the other hand, offer more direct evidence of application and construction of knowledge. As in the golf example above, putting a golf student on the golf course to play provides much more direct evidence of proficiency than giving the student a written test. Can a student effectively critique the arguments someone else has presented (an important skill often required in the real world)? Asking a student to write a critique should provide more direct evidence of that skill than asking the student a series of multiple-choice, analytical questions about a passage, although both assessments may be useful.
Teaching to the Test
These two different approaches to assessment also offer different advice about teaching to the test. Under the TA model, teachers have been discouraged from teaching to the test. That is because a test usually assesses a sample of students' knowledge and understanding and assumes that students' performance on the sample is representative of their knowledge of all the relevant material. If teachers focus primarily on the sample to be tested during instruction, then good performance on that sample does not necessarily reflect knowledge of all the material. So, teachers hide the test so that the sample is not known beforehand, and teachers are admonished not to teach to the test.
With AA, teachers are encouraged to teach to the test. Students need to learn how to perform well on meaningful tasks. To aid students in that process, it is helpful to show them models of good (and not so good) performance. Furthermore, the student benefits from seeing the task rubric ahead of time as well. Is this "cheating"? Will students then just be able to mimic the work of others without truly understanding what they are doing? Authentic assessments typically do not lend themselves to mimicry. There is not one correct answer to copy. So, by knowing what good performance looks like, and by knowing what specific characteristics make up good performance, students can better develop the skills and understanding necessary to perform well on these tasks. (For further discussion of teaching to the test, see Bushweller.)
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Alternative Names for Authentic Assessment
You can also learn something about what AA is by looking at the other common names for this form of assessment. For example, AA is sometimes referred to as
• Performance Assessment (or Performance-based) -- so-called because students are asked to perform meaningful tasks. This is the other most common term for this type of assessment. Some educators distinguish performance assessment from AA by defining performance assessment as performance-based as Stiggins has above but with no reference to the authentic nature of the task (e.g., Meyer, 1992). For these educators, authentic assessments are performance assessments using real-world or authentic tasks or contexts. Since we should not typically ask students to perform work that is not authentic in nature, I choose to treat these two terms synonymously.
• Alternative Assessment -- so-called because AA is an alternative to traditional assessments.
• Direct Assessment -- so-called because AA provides more direct evidence of meaningful application of knowledge and skills. If a student does well on a multiple-choice test we might infer indirectly that the student could apply that knowledge in real-world contexts, but we would be more comfortable making that inference from a direct demonstration of that application such as in the golfing example above.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Why Use Authentic Assessment?
________________________________________
The question "Why use authentic assessment?" is not meant to suggest that you have to choose between traditional assessments such as tests and more authentic or performance assessments. Often, teachers use a mix of traditional and authentic assessments to serve different purposes. This section, then, attempts to explain why teachers might choose authentic assessments for certain types of judgments and why authentic assessments have become more popular in recent years.
Authentic Assessments are Direct Measures
We do not just want students to know the content of the disciplines when they graduate. We, of course, want them to be able to use the acquired knowledge and skills in the real world. So, our assessments have to also tell us if students can apply what they have learned in authentic situations. If a student does well on a test of knowledge we might infer that the student could also apply that knowledge. But that is rather indirect evidence. I could more directly check for the ability to apply by asking the student to use what they have learned in some meaningful way. To return to an example I have used elsewhere, if I taught someone to play golf I would not check what they have learned with just a written test. I would want to see more direct, authentic evidence. I would put my student out on a golf course to play. Similarly, if we want to know if our students can interpret literature, calculate potential savings on sale items, test a hypothesis, develop a fitness plan, converse in a foreign language, or apply other knowledge and skills they have learned, then authentic assessments will provide the most direct evidence.
Can you think of professions which require some direct demonstration of relevant skills before someone can be employed in that field? Doctors, electricians, teachers, actors and others must all provide direct evidence of competence to be hired. Completing a written or oral test or interview is usually not sufficient. Shouldn't we ask the same of our students before we say they are ready to graduate? Or pass a course? Or move on to the next grade?
Authentic Assessments Capture Constructive Nature of Learning
A considerable body of research on learning has found that we cannot simply be fed knowledge. We need to construct our own meaning of the world, using information we have gathered and were taught and our own experiences with the world (e.g., Bransford & Vye, 1989; Forman & Kuschner, 1977; Neisser, 1967; Steffe & Gale, 1995; Wittrock, 1991). Thus, assessments cannot just ask students to repeat back information they have received. Students must also be asked to demonstrate that they have accurately constructed meaning about what they have been taught. Furthermore, students must be given the opportunity to engage in the construction of meaning. Authentic tasks not only serve as assessments but also as vehicles for such learning.
Authentic Assessments Integrate Teaching, Learning and Assessment
Authentic assessment, in contrast to more traditional assessment, encourages the integration of teaching, learning and assessing. In the "traditional assessment" model, teaching and learning are often separated from assessment, i.e., a test is administered after knowledge or skills have (hopefully) been acquired. In the authentic assessment model, the same authentic task used to measure the students' ability to apply the knowledge or skills is used as a vehicle for student learning. For example, when presented with a real-world problem to solve, students are learning in the process of developing a solution, teachers are facilitating the process, and the students' solution to the problem becomes an assessment of how well the students can meaningfully apply the concepts.
Authentic Assessments Provide Multiple Paths to Demonstration
We all have different strengths and weaknesses in how we learn. Similarly, we are different in how we can best demonstrate what we have learned. Regarding the traditional assessment model, answering multiple-choice questions does not allow for much variability in how students demonstrate the knowledge and skills they have acquired. On the one hand, that is a strength of tests because it makes sure everyone is being compared on the same domains in the same manner which increases the consistency and comparability of the measure. On the other hand, testing favors those who are better test-takers and does not give students any choice in how they believe they can best demonstrate what they have learned.
Thus, it is recommended (e.g., Wiggins, 1998) that multiple and varied assessments be used so that 1) a sufficient number of samples are obtained (multiple), and 2) a sufficient variety of measures are used (varied). Variety of measurement can be accomplished by assessing the students through different measures that allows you to see them apply what they have learned in different ways and from different perspectives. Typically, you will be more confident in the students' grasp of the material if they can do so. But some variety of assessment can also be accomplished within a single measure. Authentic tasks tend to give the students more freedom in how they will demonstrate what they have learned. By carefully identifying the criteria of good performance on the authentic task ahead of time, the teacher can still make comparable judgments of student performance even though student performance might be expressed quite differently from student to student. For example, the products students create to demonstrate authentic learning on the same task might take different forms (e.g., posters, oral presentations, videos, websites). Or, even though students might be required to produce the same authentic product, there can be room within the product for different modes of expression. For example, writing a good persuasive essay requires a common set of skills from students, but there is still room for variation in how that essay is constructed.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
How Do You Create Authentic Assessments?
________________________________________
Authentic Assessment: Students are asked to perform real-world tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills
Fortunately, you do not have to develop an authentic assessment from scratch. You may already be using authentic tasks in your classroom. Or, you may already have the standards written, the first and most important step in the process. Perhaps you have a task but need to more clearly articulate the criteria for evaluating student performance on the task. Or, you may just want to develop a rubric for the task. Wherever you are in the process, you can use the information on this page (and the ones that follow it) to help you through the steps of creating authentic assessments. If at any time the terminology is confusing, click a link to that concept or go to the glossary.
I tend to think of authentic assessment development in terms of four questions to be asked. Those questions are captured in the following graphic:
Questions to Ask:
1) What should students know and be able to do?
This list of knowledge and skills becomes your . . .
STANDARDS
2) What indicates students have met these standards?
To determine if students have met these standards, you
will design or select relevant . . .
AUTHENTIC TASKS
3) What does good performance on this task look like?
To determine if students have performed well on the task,
you will identify and look for characteristics of good
performance called . . .
CRITERIA
4) How well did the students perform?
To discriminate among student performance
across criteria, you will create a . . .
RUBRIC
[5) How well should most students perform? 6) What do students need to improve upon?
The minimum level at which you would want Information from the rubric will give
most students to perform is your ... students feedback and allow you to ...
CUT SCORE or BENCHMARK ADJUST INSTRUCTION
Summary of Steps
1. Identify your standards for your students.
2. For a particular standard or set of standards, develop a task your students could perform that would indicate that they have met these standards.
3. Identify the characteristics of good performance on that task, the criteria, that, if present in your students’ work, will indicate that they have performed well on the task, i.e., they have met the standards.
4. For each criterion, identify two or more levels of performance along which students can perform which will sufficiently discriminate among student performance for that criterion. The combination of the criteria and the levels of performance for each criterion will be your rubric for that task (assessment).
Now, I will guide you through each these four steps for creating an authentic assessment in more detail.
Step 1: Identify the Standards
Step 2: Select an Authentic Task
Step 3: Identify the Criteria for the Task
Step 4: Create the Rubric
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Standards
________________________________________
Before I can effectively teach or assess students, I need to determine what they should know and be able to do. In other words, I need a good set of standards. Or do I need goals? Orobjectives? Standards, goals and objectives are all descriptions of what students should know and be able to do. So, how are they different? I distinguish standards from other statements of student performance primarily along two dimensions: 1) breadth of coverage and 2) feasibility of measurement and observation. see attached file......
Breadth of Coverage
Starting at the top of the above diagram, the mission statement of schools or districts or states is typically the broadest statement of what students are intended to know and be able to do when they graduate. In roughly 50 words or less, mission statements attempt to communicate to all constituencies the purposes of education in that institution. An example of a mission statement might be:
"All students at Mueller School will become effective communicators, collaborators and problem-solvers."
Unfortunately, mission statements just make good wall-hangings in many schools or districts. That is a missed opportunity. A clearly written, purposeful statement can serve as an excellent starting point for curriculum development, instruction and assessment. Furthermore, a good mission statement can provide a useful guide against which progress can be compared to determine if it is following a consistent, productive path.
For example, if Mueller School adopted the above statement, it would design all curriculum in a manner to promote effective communication, collaboration and problem-solving. Disciplinary content would not be forgotten. Rather, a clear focus would develop around teaching students to communicate about mathematics, collaborate in the construction of new knowledge and solve problems specific to science, social studies, the fine arts, etc. As a teacher at that school I would always ask myself if the lesson I had planned or the curricular framework we developed would promote such knowledge and skills. Thus, a good mission statement would serve as a focal point to initiate development as well as a check for progress.
As stated above, mission statements are very brief, broad statements. To flesh them out further schools often identify a set of goals which more specifically, yet still broadly, define expectations for students. The goals also communicate the school's or district's focus for its educational plan.
Goals are typically subdivided further to identify standards. Whereas goals are often written broadly enough to cross grade levels and content areas, standards, particularly those that are content-based, tend to be specific to one or a few grade levels and one content area, and may be written at the level of a unit in curricular planning. However, many state and national K-12 standards are written with the graduating senior in mind. To provide guidance for prior grades,benchmark standards are written which describe what progress third or fifth or eighth graders should have made toward a particular standard.
Moving down the pyramid above, the statements of what students should know and be able to do become more narrow and, consequently, more numerous within a curriculum. The most specific and numerous is the objective. Objectives are typically written at the level of the lesson plan, with one or more objectives for each lesson.
Feasibility of Measurement
The four types of statements presented in the pyramid can also be differentiated by whether or not they are amenable to assessment. Goals and mission statements are typically written to share a broad vision, not to serve as benchmarks to be measured. Thus, their language does not usually make them amenable to assessment. On the other hand, standards and objectives are written with measurement in mind. Consequently, those statements need to describe student behavior that is observable.
So, why is there a section of this authentic assessment web site devoted to standards and not one on mission statements, goals or objectives? Although the term standard has been around the field of education for a long time, it has become more prominent in recent years as the authentic assessment movement has taken off. I believe it has become more prominent than the other statements of behavior in the movement for two reasons. First, like objectives, standards are amenable to assessment, a necessary requirement to guide task design. Second, the broader nature of standard versus objective is consistent with authentic assessment's emphasis on complex, integrative authentic tasks that typically span more than one class period, more than one topic and sometimes even more than one discipline.
Thus, good authentic assessment development begins with identifying a set of standards for your students. State and national efforts at standards-writing have typically focused on the content of the disciplines. But what about critical thinking skills, problem solving abilities, collaborative skills and personal development? These highly valued skills are not easily incorporated into content standards and, thus, are often omitted or given insufficient attention. Yet, the standards should capture what we most value and most want our students to learn. So, we should consider including these other skills in our standards. To do so, it may be helpful to distinguish content standards from other types. To see how, look at
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Types of Standards
________________________________________
I distinguish between three types of standards:
• content standards
• process standards
• value standards
Note: As with many of the authentic assessment terms, there is not a consistent set of labels for the different types of standards. These are labels I find useful.
Content Standards
I define content standards as statements that describe what students should know or be able to do within the content of a specific discipline or at the intersection of two or more disciplines. Examples would include
Students will classify objects along two dimensions.
Describe effects of physical activity on the body.
Present employment-related information in the target language.
Process Standards
I define process standards as statements that describe skills students should develop to enhance the process of learning. Process standards are not specific to a particular discipline, but are generic skills that are applicable to any discipline. Examples would include
Students will set realistic goals for their performance.
Seriously consider the ideas of others.
Find and evaluate relevant information.
Value Standards
I define value standards as statements that describe attitudes teachers would like students to develop towards learning. Examples would include
Students will value diversity of opinions or perspectives.
Take responsible risks. (Costa & Kallick)
Persist on challenging tasks.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Is it a Content or a Process Standard?
Given the definitions listed above, the same standard could be either a content or a process standard. For example, the standard students will write a coherent essay would be a process standard in a history course because it is not describing content within the discipline of history. Rather, it describes a useful skill that historians should have along with those working in other disciplines. However, if the same standard were part of an English composition course, I would label it a content standard because students would be learning the content of that discipline. Yes, writing skills are useful in any discipline, but in the composition course it is being taught as content for the course.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Authentic Tasks
________________________________________
Authentic Task:
An assignment given to students designed to assess their ability to apply standard-driven knowledge and skills to real-world challenges
In other words, a task we ask students to perform is considered authentic when 1) students are asked to construct their own responses rather than select from ones presented and 2) the task replicates challenges faced in the real world. (Of course, other definitions abound.)
If I were teaching you how to play golf, I would not determine whether you had met my standards by giving you a multiple-choice test. I would put you out on the golf course to "construct your own responses" in the face of real-world challenges. Similarly, in school we are ultimately less interested in how much information students can acquire than how well they can use it. Thus, our most meaningful assessments ask students to perform authentic tasks.
However, these tasks are not just assessments. Authentic assessment, in contrast to more traditional assessment, encourages the integration of teaching, learning and assessing. In the "traditional assessment" model, teaching and learning are often separated from assessment, i.e., a test is administered after knowledge or skills have (hopefully) been acquired. In the authentic assessment model, the same authentic task used to measure the students' ability to apply the knowledge or skills is used as a vehicle for student learning. For example, when presented with a real-world problem to solve, students are learning in the process of developing a solution, teachers are facilitating the process, and the students' solution to the problem becomes an assessment of how well the students can meaningfully apply the concepts.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Characteristics of Authentic Tasks
Another way that authentic assessment is commonly distinguished from traditional assessment is in terms of their defining attributes. Of course, traditional assessments as well as authentic assessments vary considerably in the forms they take. But, typically, along the continuums of attributes listed below, traditional assessments fall more towards the left end of each continuum and authentic assessments fall more towards the right end.
Traditional ------------------------------------------- Authentic
Selecting a Response ----------------------------------- Performing a Task
Contrived -------------------------------------------------------------- Real-life
Recall/Recognition ------------------------------ Construction/Application
Teacher-structured ------------------------------------ Student-structured
Indirect Evidence ------------------------------------------- Direct Evidence
Let me clarify the attributes by elaborating on each in the context of traditional and authentic assessments:
Selecting a Response to Performing a Task:
On traditional assessments, students are typically given several choices (e.g., a,b,c or d; true or false; which of these match with those) and asked to select the right answer. In contrast, authentic assessments ask students to demonstrate understanding by performing a more complex task usually representative of more meaningful application.
Contrived to Real-life:
It is not very often in life outside of school that we are asked to select from four alternatives to indicate our proficiency at something. Tests offer these contrived means of assessment to increase the number of times you can be asked to demonstrate proficiency in a short period of time. More commonly in life, as in authentic assessments, we are asked to demonstrate proficiency by doing something.
Recall/Recognition of Knowledge to Construction/Application of Knowledge:
Well-designed traditional assessments (i.e., tests and quizzes) can effectively determine whether or not students have acquired a body of knowledge. Thus, as mentioned above, tests can serve as a nice complement to authentic assessments in a teacher's assessment portfolio. Furthermore, we are often asked to recall or recognize facts and ideas and propositions in life, so tests are somewhat authentic in that sense. However, the demonstration of recall and recognition on tests is typically much less revealing about what we really know and can do than when we are asked to construct a product or performance out of facts, ideas and propositions. Authentic assessments often ask students to analyze, synthesize and apply what they have learned in a substantial manner, and students create new meaning in the process as well.
Teacher-structured to Student-structured:
When completing a traditional assessment, what a student can and will demonstrate has been carefully structured by the person(s) who developed the test. A student's attention will understandably be focused on and limited to what is on the test. In contrast, authentic assessments allow more student choice and construction in determining what is presented as evidence of proficiency. Even when students cannot choose their own topics or formats, there are usually multiple acceptable routes towards constructing a product or performance. Obviously, assessments more carefully controlled by the teachers offer advantages and disadvantages. Similarly, more student-structured tasks have strengths and weaknesses that must be considered when choosing and designing an assessment.
Indirect Evidence to Direct Evidence:
Even if a multiple-choice question asks a student to analyze or apply facts to a new situation rather than just recall the facts, and the student selects the correct answer, what do you now know about that student? Did that student get lucky and pick the right answer? What thinking led the student to pick that answer? We really do not know. At best, we can make some inferences about what that student might know and might be able to do with that knowledge. The evidence is very indirect, particularly for claims of meaningful application in complex, real-world situations. Authentic assessments, on the other hand, offer more direct evidence of application and construction of knowledge. As in the golf example above, putting a golf student on the golf course to play provides much more direct evidence of proficiency than giving the student a written test. Can a student effectively critique the arguments someone else has presented (an important skill often required in the real world)? Asking a student to write a critique should provide more direct evidence of that skill than asking the student a series of multiple-choice, analytical questions about a passage, although both assessments may be useful.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Types of Authentic Tasks
I have used the term traditional assessment on this site to refer to the many tests that are commonly administered to assess the acquisition of knowledge and skills. Tests usually consist of selected-response items (see below) and, occasionally, some constructed-response items. In contrast, authentic assessments include tasks such as performances, products and constructed-response items that typically require more direct application of knowledge and skills. These types of tasks are described below along with common examples of each.
Selected-response
In response to a prompt, students select an answer from among those given or from memory or from allowable study aids. Typically, no new knowledge is constructed; students simply recall or recognize information required to select the appropriate response. Examples include
Multiple-choice tests
True-false
Matching
Fill-in-the-blank
Label a diagram
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Constructed Response
In response to a prompt, students construct an answer out of old and new knowledge. Since there is no one exact answer to these prompts, students are constructing new knowledge that likely differs slightly or significantly from that constructed by other students. Typically, constructed response prompts are narrowly conceived, delivered at or near the same time a response is expected and are limited in length. However, the fact that students must construct new knowledge means that at least some of their thinking must be revealed. As opposed to selected response items, the teachers gets to look inside the head a little with constructed response answers. Examples include
(product-like):
Short-answer essay questions
"Show your work"
Ordering decimals
Limericks and rubric
Concept maps; another example / rubric
Writing a topic sentence
Identifying a theme
Making predictions
Brief summaries; another example
Peer editing
Figural representation (e.g., Venn diagram; web / rubric)
Journal response; literary journal reflections
Homework reflections; article reflections / rubric
Evaluating work of others; another example; another example
Self-assessment; another example / rubric
Self and group evaluation
Goal setting; another example / reflection
Question generation; another example
Explain your solution
(performance-like):
Typing test
Complete a step of science lab
Measure objects
Conducting bank transactions
Utilizing library services
Computer catalog search
On demand, construct a short musical, dance or
dramatic response
On demand, exhibit an athletic skill
Reading fluently
Conferences
Participation (and self-assessment)
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Product
In response to a prompt (assignment) or series of prompts, students construct a substantial, tangible product that reveals their understanding of certain concepts and skills and/or their ability to apply, analyze, synthesize or evaluate those concepts and skills. It is similar to a constructed-response item in that students are required to construct new knowledge and not just select a response. However, product assessments typically are more substantial in depth and length, more broadly conceived, and allow more time between the presentation of the prompt and the student response than constructed-response items. Examples include
Essays, stories, or poems
Ballads
Obituaries
Satirical pieces
Metaphors
School rules
Research reports; another example
Annotated bibliographies
Works cited pages
Reading strategies and rubric
Projects / rubric; another example / rubric; another example
Literary analysis; another example; another example
Character analysis; another example
Diction analysis
Advertisement analysis
Biography/Autobiography analysis
Argument analysis / rubric
Analyzing primary sources
Analysis of painting
Film analysis
Geometric analysis
Article reviews
Book reviews / rubric
Case study / rubric
Speech critiques
Extended journal responses
Identification of goals
Reading guides
Feudal contracts / rubric
Art exhibit or portfolio
Models; another example
Constructing objects
Floor plans
Musical compositions
Photo compositions
Design an advertisement
Design an experiment
Lab reports; another example
Surveys
Data recordings
Graphing of data
Data analysis; another example; another example
Anaysis of statistical use in media / rubric
Real-world problem solutions; another example / rubric
Logical sequences
Error analysis
Planning for a task
Preparing for a discussion
Proposals and criteria
Road trip directions
Map construction / rubric
Road trip budget
Scavenger hunt
Newspapers
Newscasts; another example
Editorials; another example
Peer editing / rubric
Posters; another example; another example / rubric
Collages
Pamplets; another example
Brochures; another example / rubric
Magazine covers
Bulletin boards
Videos / rubric
Podcasts
Games; another example; another example
Comic strips
Books; Booklets
Timelines; another example / rubric
Issue awareness campaigns
Letter writing; persuasive letter writing; complaint letter
Advice letter; letter to Congress; letter to Emperor
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Performance
In response to a prompt (assignment) or series of prompts, students construct a performance that reveals their understanding of certain concepts and skills and/or their ability to apply, analyze, synthesize or evaluate those concepts and skills. It is similar to a constructed-response item in that students are required to construct new knowledge and not just select a response. However, performances typically are more substantial in depth and length, more broadly conceived, and allow more time between the presentation of the prompt and the student response than constructed-response items. Examples include
Conducting an experiment
Musical auditions; group auditions
Conducting an ensemble / rubric
Conduct band rehearsal / rubric
Create musical arrangement / rubric
Dance or dramatic performances
Dramatic readings
Skits
Role-plays / handout
Talk show performances; another example
Book talks
Debates; another example / rubric
Panel discussions
Fishbowl discussions
Coffee shop conversation
Athletic competitions
Oral presentations; another example; another example
Teaching/explaining
Speeches
Interviews
Self-introduction
Cooperative group behavior; another example
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Rubrics
________________________________________
Rubric: A scoring scale used to assess student performance along a task-specific set of criteria
Authentic assessments typically are criterion-referenced measures. That is, a student's aptitude on a task is determined by matching the student's performance against a set of criteria to determine the degree to which the student's performance meets the criteria for the task. To measure student performance against a pre-determined set of criteria, a rubric, or scoring scale, is typically created which contains the essential criteria for the task and appropriate levels of performance for each criterion. For example, the following rubric (scoring scale) covers the research portion of a project:
Research Rubric see attached file
As in the above example, a rubric is comprised of two components: criteria and levels of performance. Each rubric has at least two criteria and at least two levels of performance. The criteria, characteristics of good performance on a task, are listed in the left-hand column in the rubric above (number of sources, historical accuracy, organization and bibliography). Actually, as is common in rubrics, the author has used shorthand for each criterion to make it fit easily into the table. The full criteria are statements of performance such as "include a sufficient number of sources" and "project contains few historical inaccuracies."
For each criterion, the evaluator applying the rubric can determine to what degree the student has met the criterion, i.e., the level of performance. In the above rubric, there are three levels of performance for each criterion. For example, the project can contain lots of historical inaccuracies, few inaccuracies or no inaccuracies.
Finally, the rubric above contains a mechanism for assigning a score to each project. (Assessments and their accompanying rubrics can be used for purposes other than evaluation and, thus, do not have to have points or grades attached to them.) In the second-to-left column a weight is assigned each criterion. Students can receive 1, 2 or 3 points for "number of sources." But historical accuracy, more important in this teacher's mind, is weighted three times (x3) as heavily. So, students can receive 3, 6 or 9 points (i.e., 1, 2 or 3 times 3) for the level of accuracy in their projects.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Descriptors
The above rubric includes another common, but not a necessary, component of rubrics --descriptors. Descriptors spell out what is expected of students at each level of performance for each criterion. In the above example, "lots of historical inaccuracies," "can tell with difficulty where information came from" and "all relevant information is included" are descriptors. A descriptor tells students more precisely what performance looks like at each level and how their work may be distinguished from the work of others for each criterion. Similarly, the descriptors help the teacher more precisely and consistently distinguish between student work.
Many rubrics do not contain descriptors, just the criteria and labels for the different levels of performance. For example, imagine we strip the rubric above of its descriptors and put in labels for each level instead. Here is how it would look:
Criteria Poor (1) Good (2) Excellent (3)
Number of Sources x1
Historical Accuracy x3
Organization x1
Bibliography x1
It is not easy to write good descriptors for each level and each criterion. So, when you first construct and use a rubric you might not include descriptors. That is okay. You might just include the criteria and some type of labels for the levels of performance as in the table above. Once you have used the rubric and identified student work that fits into each level it will become easier to articulate what you mean by "good" or "excellent." Thus, you might add or expand upon descriptors the next time you use the rubric.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Why Include Levels of Performance?
Clearer expectations
As mentioned in Step 3, it is very useful for the students and the teacher if the criteria are identified and communicated prior to completion of the task. Students know what is expected of them and teachers know what to look for in student performance. Similarly, students better understand what good (or bad) performance on a task looks like if levels of performance are identified, particularly if descriptors for each level are included.
More consistent and objective assessment
In addition to better communicating teacher expectations, levels of performance permit the teacher to more consistently and objectively distinguish between good and bad performance, or between superior, mediocre and poor performance, when evaluating student work.
Better feedback
Furthermore, identifying specific levels of student performance allows the teacher to provide more detailed feedback to students. The teacher and the students can more clearly recognize areas that need improvement.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Analytic Versus Holistic Rubrics
For a particular task you assign students, do you want to be able to assess how well the students perform on each criterion, or do you want to get a more global picture of the students' performance on the entire task? The answer to that question is likely to determine the type of rubric you choose to create or use: Analytic or holistic.
Analytic rubric
Most rubrics, like the Research rubric above, are analytic rubrics. An analytic rubric articulates levels of performance for each criterion so the teacher can assess student performance on each criterion. Using the Research rubric, a teacher could assess whether a student has done a poor, good or excellent job of "organization" and distinguish that from how well the student did on "historical accuracy."
Holistic rubric
In contrast, a holistic rubric does not list separate levels of performance for each criterion. Instead, a holistic rubric assigns a level of performance by assessing performance across multiple criteria as a whole. For example, the analytic research rubric above can be turned into a holistic rubric:
3 - Excellent Researcher
• included 10-12 sources
• no apparent historical inaccuracies
• can easily tell which sources information was drawn from
• all relevant information is included
2 - Good Researcher
• included 5-9 sources
• few historical inaccuracies
• can tell with difficulty where information came from
• bibliography contains most relevant information
1 - Poor Researcher
• included 1-4 sources
• lots of historical inaccuracies
• cannot tell from which source information came
• bibliography contains very little information
In the analytic version of this rubric, 1, 2 or 3 points is awarded for the number of sources the student included. In contrast, number of sources is considered along with historical accuracy and the other criteria in the use of a holistic rubric to arrive at a more global (or holistic) impression of the student work. Another example of a holistic rubric is the "Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric" (in PDF) developed by Facione & Facione.
When to choose an analytic rubric
Analytic rubrics are more common because teachers typically want to assess each criterion separately, particularly for assignments that involve a larger number of criteria. It becomes more and more difficult to assign a level of performance in a holistic rubric as the number of criteria increases. For example, what level would you assign a student on the holistic research rubric above if the student included 12 sources, had lots of inaccuracies, did not make it clear from which source information came, and whose bibliography contained most relevant information? As student performance increasingly varies across criteria it becomes more difficult to assign an appropriate holistic category to the performance. Additionally, an analytic rubric better handles weighting of criteria. How would you treat "historical accuracy" as more important a criterion in the holistic rubric? It is not easy. But the analytic rubric handles it well by using a simple multiplier for each criterion.
When to choose a holistic rubric
So, when might you use a holistic rubric? Holistic rubrics tend to be used when a quick or gross judgment needs to be made. If the assessment is a minor one, such as a brief homework assignment, it may be sufficient to apply a holistic judgment (e.g., check, check-plus, or no-check) to quickly review student work. But holistic rubrics can also be employed for more substantial assignments. On some tasks it is not easy to evaluate performance on one criterion independently of performance on a different criterion. For example, many writing rubrics (see example) are holistic because it is not always easy to disentangle clarity from organization or content from presentation. So, some educators believe a holistic or global assessment of student performance better captures student ability on certain tasks. (Alternatively, if two criteria are nearly inseparable, the combination of the two can be treated as a single criterion in an analytic rubric.)
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
How Many Levels of Performance Should I Include in my Rubric?
There is no specific number of levels a rubric should or should not possess. It will vary depending on the task and your needs. A rubric can have as few as two levels of performance (e.g., a checklist) or as many as ... well, as many as you decide is appropriate. (Some do not consider a checklist a rubric because it only has two levels -- a criterion was met or it wasn't. But because a checklist does contain criteria and at least two levels of performance, I include it under the category of rubrics.) Also, it is not true that there must be an even number or an odd number of levels. Again, that will depend on the situation.
To further consider how many levels of performance should be included in a rubric, I will separately address analytic and holistic rubrics.
Analytic rubrics
Generally, it is better to start with a smaller number of levels of performance for a criterion and then expand if necessary. Making distinctions in student performance across two or three broad categories is difficult enough. As the number of levels increases, and those judgments become finer and finer, the likelihood of error increases.
Thus, start small. For example, in an oral presentation rubric, amount of eye contact might be an important criterion. Performance on that criterion could be judged along three levels of performance: never, sometimes, always.
makes eye contact with audience never sometimes always
Although these three levels may not capture all the variation in student performance on the criterion, it may be sufficient discrimination for your purposes. Or, at the least, it is a place to start. Upon applying the three levels of performance, you might discover that you can effectively group your students' performance in these three categories. Furthermore, you might discover that the labels of never, sometimes and always sufficiently communicates to your students the degree to which they can improve on making eye contact.
On the other hand, after applying the rubric you might discover that you cannot effectively discriminate among student performance with just three levels of performance. Perhaps, in your view, many students fall in between never and sometimes, or between sometimes and always, and neither label accurately captures their performance. So, at this point, you may decide to expand the number of levels of performance to include never, rarely, sometimes, usually and always.
makes eye contact never rarely sometimes usually always
There is no "right" answer as to how many levels of performance there should be for a criterion in an analytic rubric; that will depend on the nature of the task assigned, the criteria being evaluated, the students involved and your purposes and preferences. For example, another teacher might decide to leave off the "always" level in the above rubric because "usually" is as much as normally can be expected or even wanted in some instances. Thus, the "makes eye contact" portion of the rubric for that teacher might be
makes eye contact never rarely sometimes usually
So, I recommend that you begin with a small number of levels of performance for each criterion, apply the rubric one or more times, and then re-examine the number of levels that best serve your needs. I believe starting small and expanding if necessary is preferable to starting with a larger number of levels and shrinking the number because rubrics with fewer levels of performance are normally
• easier and quicker to administer
• easier to explain to students (and others)
• easier to expand than larger rubrics are to shrink
The fact that rubrics can be modified and can reasonably vary from teacher to teacher again illustrates that rubrics are flexible tools to be shaped to your purposes. To read more about the decisions involved in developing a rubric, see the chapter entitled, "Step 4: Create the Rubric."
Holistic rubrics
Much of the advice offered above for analytic rubrics applies to holistic rubrics as well. Start with a small number of categories, particularly since holistic rubrics often are used for quick judgments on smaller tasks such as homework assignments. For example, you might limit your broad judgments to
• satisfactory
• unsatisfactory
• not attempted
or
• check-plus
• check
• no check
or even just
• satisfactory (check)
• unsatisfactory (no check)
Of course, to aid students in understanding what you mean by "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" you would want to include descriptors explaining what satisfactory performance on the task looks like.
Even with more elaborate holistic rubrics for more complex tasks I recommend that you begin with a small number of levels of performance. Once you have applied the rubric you can better judge if you need to expand the levels to more effectively capture and communicate variation in student performance.
To read more about the decisions involved in developing rubrics, see
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Descriptors
The above rubric includes another common, but not a necessary, component of rubrics --descriptors. Descriptors spell out what is expected of students at each level of performance for each criterion. In the above example, "lots of historical inaccuracies," "can tell with difficulty where information came from" and "all relevant information is included" are descriptors. A descriptor tells students more precisely what performance looks like at each level and how their work may be distinguished from the work of others for each criterion. Similarly, the descriptors help the teacher more precisely and consistently distinguish between student work.
Many rubrics do not contain descriptors, just the criteria and labels for the different levels of performance. For example, imagine we strip the rubric above of its descriptors and put in labels for each level instead. Here is how it would look:
Criteria Poor (1) Good (2) Excellent (3)
Number of Sources x1
Historical Accuracy x3
Organization x1
Bibliography x1
It is not easy to write good descriptors for each level and each criterion. So, when you first construct and use a rubric you might not include descriptors. That is okay. You might just include the criteria and some type of labels for the levels of performance as in the table above. Once you have used the rubric and identified student work that fits into each level it will become easier to articulate what you mean by "good" or "excellent." Thus, you might add or expand upon descriptors the next time you use the rubric.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Why Include Levels of Performance?
Clearer expectations
As mentioned in Step 3, it is very useful for the students and the teacher if the criteria are identified and communicated prior to completion of the task. Students know what is expected of them and teachers know what to look for in student performance. Similarly, students better understand what good (or bad) performance on a task looks like if levels of performance are identified, particularly if descriptors for each level are included.
More consistent and objective assessment
In addition to better communicating teacher expectations, levels of performance permit the teacher to more consistently and objectively distinguish between good and bad performance, or between superior, mediocre and poor performance, when evaluating student work.
Better feedback
Furthermore, identifying specific levels of student performance allows the teacher to provide more detailed feedback to students. The teacher and the students can more clearly recognize areas that need improvement.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Analytic Versus Holistic Rubrics
For a particular task you assign students, do you want to be able to assess how well the students perform on each criterion, or do you want to get a more global picture of the students' performance on the entire task? The answer to that question is likely to determine the type of rubric you choose to create or use: Analytic or holistic.
Analytic rubric
Most rubrics, like the Research rubric above, are analytic rubrics. An analytic rubric articulates levels of performance for each criterion so the teacher can assess student performance on each criterion. Using the Research rubric, a teacher could assess whether a student has done a poor, good or excellent job of "organization" and distinguish that from how well the student did on "historical accuracy."
Holistic rubric
In contrast, a holistic rubric does not list separate levels of performance for each criterion. Instead, a holistic rubric assigns a level of performance by assessing performance across multiple criteria as a whole. For example, the analytic research rubric above can be turned into a holistic rubric:
3 - Excellent Researcher
• included 10-12 sources
• no apparent historical inaccuracies
• can easily tell which sources information was drawn from
• all relevant information is included
2 - Good Researcher
• included 5-9 sources
• few historical inaccuracies
• can tell with difficulty where information came from
• bibliography contains most relevant information
1 - Poor Researcher
• included 1-4 sources
• lots of historical inaccuracies
• cannot tell from which source information came
• bibliography contains very little information
In the analytic version of this rubric, 1, 2 or 3 points is awarded for the number of sources the student included. In contrast, number of sources is considered along with historical accuracy and the other criteria in the use of a holistic rubric to arrive at a more global (or holistic) impression of the student work. Another example of a holistic rubric is the "Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric" (in PDF) developed by Facione & Facione.
When to choose an analytic rubric
Analytic rubrics are more common because teachers typically want to assess each criterion separately, particularly for assignments that involve a larger number of criteria. It becomes more and more difficult to assign a level of performance in a holistic rubric as the number of criteria increases. For example, what level would you assign a student on the holistic research rubric above if the student included 12 sources, had lots of inaccuracies, did not make it clear from which source information came, and whose bibliography contained most relevant information? As student performance increasingly varies across criteria it becomes more difficult to assign an appropriate holistic category to the performance. Additionally, an analytic rubric better handles weighting of criteria. How would you treat "historical accuracy" as more important a criterion in the holistic rubric? It is not easy. But the analytic rubric handles it well by using a simple multiplier for each criterion.
When to choose a holistic rubric
So, when might you use a holistic rubric? Holistic rubrics tend to be used when a quick or gross judgment needs to be made. If the assessment is a minor one, such as a brief homework assignment, it may be sufficient to apply a holistic judgment (e.g., check, check-plus, or no-check) to quickly review student work. But holistic rubrics can also be employed for more substantial assignments. On some tasks it is not easy to evaluate performance on one criterion independently of performance on a different criterion. For example, many writing rubrics (see example) are holistic because it is not always easy to disentangle clarity from organization or content from presentation. So, some educators believe a holistic or global assessment of student performance better captures student ability on certain tasks. (Alternatively, if two criteria are nearly inseparable, the combination of the two can be treated as a single criterion in an analytic rubric.)
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
How Many Levels of Performance Should I Include in my Rubric?
There is no specific number of levels a rubric should or should not possess. It will vary depending on the task and your needs. A rubric can have as few as two levels of performance (e.g., a checklist) or as many as ... well, as many as you decide is appropriate. (Some do not consider a checklist a rubric because it only has two levels -- a criterion was met or it wasn't. But because a checklist does contain criteria and at least two levels of performance, I include it under the category of rubrics.) Also, it is not true that there must be an even number or an odd number of levels. Again, that will depend on the situation.
To further consider how many levels of performance should be included in a rubric, I will separately address analytic and holistic rubrics.
Analytic rubrics
Generally, it is better to start with a smaller number of levels of performance for a criterion and then expand if necessary. Making distinctions in student performance across two or three broad categories is difficult enough. As the number of levels increases, and those judgments become finer and finer, the likelihood of error increases.
Thus, start small. For example, in an oral presentation rubric, amount of eye contact might be an important criterion. Performance on that criterion could be judged along three levels of performance: never, sometimes, always.
makes eye contact with audience never sometimes always
Although these three levels may not capture all the variation in student performance on the criterion, it may be sufficient discrimination for your purposes. Or, at the least, it is a place to start. Upon applying the three levels of performance, you might discover that you can effectively group your students' performance in these three categories. Furthermore, you might discover that the labels of never, sometimes and always sufficiently communicates to your students the degree to which they can improve on making eye contact.
On the other hand, after applying the rubric you might discover that you cannot effectively discriminate among student performance with just three levels of performance. Perhaps, in your view, many students fall in between never and sometimes, or between sometimes and always, and neither label accurately captures their performance. So, at this point, you may decide to expand the number of levels of performance to include never, rarely, sometimes, usually and always.
makes eye contact never rarely sometimes usually always
There is no "right" answer as to how many levels of performance there should be for a criterion in an analytic rubric; that will depend on the nature of the task assigned, the criteria being evaluated, the students involved and your purposes and preferences. For example, another teacher might decide to leave off the "always" level in the above rubric because "usually" is as much as normally can be expected or even wanted in some instances. Thus, the "makes eye contact" portion of the rubric for that teacher might be
makes eye contact never rarely sometimes usually
So, I recommend that you begin with a small number of levels of performance for each criterion, apply the rubric one or more times, and then re-examine the number of levels that best serve your needs. I believe starting small and expanding if necessary is preferable to starting with a larger number of levels and shrinking the number because rubrics with fewer levels of performance are normally
• easier and quicker to administer
• easier to explain to students (and others)
• easier to expand than larger rubrics are to shrink
The fact that rubrics can be modified and can reasonably vary from teacher to teacher again illustrates that rubrics are flexible tools to be shaped to your purposes. To read more about the decisions involved in developing a rubric, see the chapter entitled, "Step 4: Create the Rubric."
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Holistic rubrics
Much of the advice offered above for analytic rubrics applies to holistic rubrics as well. Start with a small number of categories, particularly since holistic rubrics often are used for quick judgments on smaller tasks such as homework assignments. For example, you might limit your broad judgments to
• satisfactory
• unsatisfactory
• not attempted
or
• check-plus
• check
• no check
or even just
• satisfactory (check)
• unsatisfactory (no check)
Of course, to aid students in understanding what you mean by "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" you would want to include descriptors explaining what satisfactory performance on the task looks like.
Even with more elaborate holistic rubrics for more complex tasks I recommend that you begin with a small number of levels of performance. Once you have applied the rubric you can better judge if you need to expand the levels to more effectively capture and communicate variation in student performance.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Step 4: Create the Rubric
________________________________________
Creating an Analytic Rubric
Creating a Holistic Rubric
Final Step: Checking Your Rubric
Workshop: Writing a Good Rubric
Note: Before you begin this section I would recommend that you read the section on Rubrics to learn about the characteristics of a good rubric.
In Step 1 of creating an authentic assessment, you identified what you wanted your students to know and be able to do -- your standards.
In Step 2, you asked how students could demonstrate that they had met your standards. As a result, you developed authentic tasks they could perform.
In Step 3, you identified the characteristics of good performance on the authentic task -- the criteria.
Now, in Step 4, you will finish creating the authentic assessment by constructing a rubric to measure student performance on the task. To build the rubric, you will begin with the set of criteria you identified in Step 3. As mentioned before, keep the number of criteria manageable. You do not have to look for everything on every assessment.
Once you have identified the criteria you want to look for as indicators of good performance, you next decide whether to consider the criteria analytically or holistically. (See Rubrics for a description of these two types of rubrics.)
Creating an Analytic Rubric
In an analytic rubric performance is judged separately for each criterion. Teachers assess how well students meet a criterion on a task, distinguishing between work that effectively meets the criterion and work that does not meet it. The next step in creating a rubric, then, is deciding how fine such a distinction should be made for each criterion. For example, if you are judging the amount of eye contact a presenter made with his/her audience that judgment could be as simple as did or did not make eye contact (two levels of performance), never, sometimes or always made eye contact (three levels), or never, rarely, sometimes, usually, or always made eye contact (five levels).
Generally, it is better to start small with fewer levels because it is usually harder to make more fine distinctions. For eye contact, I might begin with three levels such as never, sometimes and usually. Then if, in applying the rubric, I found that some students seemed to fall in between never and sometimes, and never or sometimes did not adequately describe the students' performance, I could add a fourth (e.g., rarely) and, possibly, a fifth level to the rubric.
In other words, there is some trial and error that must go on to arrive at the most appropriate number of levels for a criterion. (See the Rubric Workshop below to see more detailed decision-making involved in selecting levels of performance for a sample rubric.)
Do I need to have the same number of levels of performance for each criterion within a rubric?
No. You could have five levels of performance for three criteria in a rubric, three levels for two other criteria, and four levels for another criterion, all within the same rubric. Rubrics are very flexible Alaskan Moose. There is no need to force an unnatural judgment of performance just to maintain standardization within the rubric. If one criterion is a simple either/or judgment and another criterion requires finer distinctions, then the rubric can reflect that variation.
Here are some examples of rubrics with varying levels of performance......
Do I need to add descriptors to each level of performance?
No. Descriptors are recommended but not required in a rubric. As described in Rubrics, descriptors are the characteristics of behavior associated with specific levels of performance for specific criteria. For example, in the following portion of an elementary science rubric, the criteria are 1) observations are thorough, 2) predictions are reasonable, and 3) conclusions are based on observations. Labels (limited, acceptable, proficient) for the different levels of performance are also included. Under each label, for each criterion, a descriptor (in brown) is included to further explain what performance at that level looks like.
See the attached file
As you can imagine, students will be more certain what is expected to reach each level of performance on the rubric if descriptors are provided. Furthermore, the more detail a teacher provides about what good performance looks like on a task the better a student can approach the task. Teachers benefit as well when descriptors are included. A teacher is likely to be more objective and consistent when applying a descriptor such as "most observations are clear and detailed" than when applying a simple label such as "acceptable." Similarly, if more than one teacher is using the same rubric, the specificity of the descriptors increases the chances that multiple teachers will apply the rubric in a similar manner. When a rubric is applied more consistently and objectively it will lead to greater reliability and validity in the results.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Assigning point values to performance on each criterion
As mentioned above, rubrics are very flexible tools. Just as the number of levels of performance can vary from criterion to criterion in an analytic rubric, points or value can be assigned to the rubric in a myriad of ways. For example, a teacher who creates a rubric might decide that certain criteria are more important to the overall performance on the task than other criteria. So, one or more criteria can be weighted more heavily when scoring the performance. For example, in a rubric for solo auditions, a teacher might consider five criteria: (how well students demonstrate) vocal tone, vocal technique, rhythm, diction and musicality. For this teacher, musicality might be the most important quality that she has stressed and is looking for in the audition. She might consider vocal technique to be less important than musicality but more important than the other criteria.So, she might give musicality and vocal technique more weight in her rubric. She can assign weights in different ways. Here is one common format:
Rubric 1: Solo Audition
0 1 2 3 4 5 weight
vocal tone
vocal technique x2
rhythm
diction
musicality x3
In this case, placement in the 4-point level for vocal tone would earn the student four points for that criterion. But placement in the 4-point box for vocal technique would earn the student 8 points, and placement in the 4-point box for musicality would earn the student 12 points. The same weighting could also be displayed as follows:
Rubric 2: Solo Audition
NA Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent
vocal tone 0 1 2 3 4 5
vocal technique 0 2 4 6 8 10
rhythm 0 1 2 3 4 5
diction 0 1 2 3 4 5
musicality 0 3 6 9 12 15
In both examples, musicality is worth three times as many points as vocal tone, rhythm and diction, and vocal technique is worth twice as much as each of those criteria. Pick a format that works for you and/or your students. There is no "correct" format in the layout of rubrics. So, choose one or design one that meets your needs.
Yes, but do I need equal intervals between the point values in a rubric?
No. Say it with me one more time -- rubrics are flexible tools. Shape them to fit your needs, not the other way around. In other words, points should be distributed across the levels of a rubric to best capture the value you assign to each level of performance. For example, points might be awarded on an oral presentation as follows:
Rubric 3: Oral Presentation
Criteria never sometimes always
makes eye contact 0 3 4
volume is appropriate 0 2 4
enthusiasm is evident 0 2 4
summary is accurate 0 4 8
In other words, you might decide that at this point in the year you would be pleased if a presenter makes eye contact "sometimes," so you award that level of performance most of the points available. However, "sometimes" would not be as acceptable for level of volume or enthusiasm.
Here are some more examples of rubrics illustrating the flexibility of number of levels and value you assign each level.
Rubric 4: Oral Presentation
Criteria never sometimes usually
makes eye contact 0 2 4
volume is appropriate 0 4
enthusiasm is evident 0 4
summary is accurate 0 4 8
In the above rubric, you have decided to measure volume and enthusiasm at two levels -- never or usually -- whereas, you are considering eye contact and accuracy of summary across three levels. That is acceptable if that fits the type of judgments you want to make. Even though there are only two levels for volume and three levels for eye contact, you are awarding the same number of points for a judgment of "usually" for both criteria. However, you could vary that as well:
Rubric 5: Oral Presentation
Criteria never sometimes usually
makes eye contact 0 2 4
volume is appropriate 0 2
enthusiasm is evident 0 2
summary is accurate 0 4 8
In this case, you have decided to give less weight to volume and enthusiasm as well as to judge those criteria across fewer levels.
So, do not feel bound by any format constraints when constructing a rubric. The rubric should best capture what you value in performance on the authentic task. The more accurately your rubric captures what you want your students to know and be able to do the more valid the scores will be.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Creating a Holistic Rubric
In a holistic rubric, a judgment of how well someone has performed on a task considers all the criteria together, or holistically, instead of separately as in an analytic rubric. Thus, each level of performance in a holistic rubric reflects behavior across all the criteria. For example, here is a holistic version of the oral presentation rubric above.
Rubric 6: Oral Presentation (Holistic)
Oral Presentation Rubric
Mastery
• usually makes eye contact
• volume is always appropriate
• enthusiasm present throughout presentation
• summary is completely accurate
Proficiency
• usually makes eye contact
• volume is usually appropriate
• enthusiasm is present in most of presentation
• only one or two errors in summary
Developing
• sometimes makes eye contact
• volume is sometimes appropriate
• occasional enthusiasm in presentation
• some errors in summary
Inadequate
• never or rarely makes eye contact
• volume is inappropriate
• rarely shows enthusiasm in presentation
• many errors in summary
An obvious, potential problem with applying the above rubric is that performance often does not fall neatly into categories such as mastery or proficiency. A student might always make eye contact, use appropriate volume regularly, occasionally show enthusiasm and include many errors in the summary. Where you put that student in the holistic rubric? Thus, it is recommended that the use of holistic rubrics be limited to situations when the teacher wants to:
• make a quick, holistic judgment that carries little weight in evaluation, or
• evaluate performance in which the criteria cannot be easily separated.
Quick, holistic judgments are often made for homework problems or journal assignments. To allow the judgment to be quick and to reduce the problem illustrated in the above rubric of fitting the best category to the performance, the number of criteria should be limited. For example, here is a possible holistic rubric for grading homework problems.
Rubric 7: Homework Problems
Homework Problem Rubric
++ (3 pts.)
• most or all answers correct, AND
• most or all work shown
+ (1 pt.)
• at least some answers correct, AND
• at least some but not most work shown
- (0 pts.)
• few answers correct, OR
• little or no work shown
Although this homework problem rubric only has two criteria and three levels of performance, it is not easy to write such a holistic rubric to accurately capture what an evaluator values and to cover all the possible combinations of student performance. For example, what if a student got all the answers correct on a problem assignment but did not show any work? The rubric covers that: the student would receive a (-) because "little or no work was shown." What if a student showed all the work but only got some of the answers correct? That student would receive a (+) according to the rubric. All such combinations are covered. But does giving a (+) for such work reflect what the teacher values? The above rubric is designed to give equal weight to correct answers and work shown. If that is not the teacher's intent then the rubric needs to be changed to fit the goals of the teacher.
All of this complexity with just two criteria -- imagine if a third criterion were added to the rubric. So, with holistic rubrics, limit the number of criteria considered, or consider using an analytic rubric.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Final Step: Checking Your Rubric
As a final check on your rubric, you can do any or all of the following before applying it.
• Let a colleague review it.
• Let your students review it -- is it clear to them?
• Check if it aligns or matches up with your standards.
• Check if it is manageable.
• Consider imaginary student performance on the rubric.
By the last suggestion I mean to imagine that a student had met specific levels of performance on each criterion (for an analytic rubric). Then ask yourself if that performance translates into the score that you think is appropriate. For example, on Rubric 3 above, imagine a student scores
• "sometimes" for eye contact (3 pts.)
• "always" for volume (4 pts.)
• "always" for enthusiasm (4 pts.)
• "sometimes" for summary is accurate (4 pts.)
That student would receive a score of 15 points out of a possible 20 points. Does 75% (15 out of 20) capture that performance for you? Perhaps you think a student should not receive that high of a score with only "sometimes" for the summary. You can adjust for that by increasing the weight you assign that criterion. Or, imagine a student apparently put a lot of work into the homework problems but got few of them correct. Do you think that student should receive some credit? Then you would need to adjust the holistic homework problem rubric above. In other words, it can be very helpful to play out a variety of performance combinations before you actually administer the rubric. It helps you see the forest through the trees.
Of course, you will never know if you really have a good rubric until you apply it. So, do not work to perfect the rubric before you administer it. Get it in good shape and then try it. Find out what needs to be modified and make the appropriate changes.
Okay, does that make sense? Are you ready to create a rubric of your own? Well, then come into my workshop and we will build one together. I just need you to wear these safety goggles. Regulations. Thanks.
(For those who might be "tabularly challenged" (i.e., you have trouble making tables in your word processor) or would just like someone else to make the rubric into a tabular format for you, there are websites where you enter the criteria and levels of performance and the site will produce the rubric for you.)
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Workshop: Writing a Good Rubric
Step 1: Identify the Standards
Step 2: Select an Authentic Task
Step 3: Identify the Criteria for the Task
Step 4: Create the Rubric
Step 1: Identify the Standards
________________________________________
[/b]
For any type of assessment, you first must know where you want to end up. What are your goals for your students? An assessment cannot produce valid inferences unless it measures what it is intended to measure. And it cannot measure what it is intended to measure unless the goal(s) has been clearly identified. So, completing the rest of the following steps will be unproductive without clear goals for student learning.
Standards, like goals, are statements of what students should know and be able to do. However, standards are typically more narrow in scope and more amenable to assessment than goals. (Before going further, I would recommend that you read the section on Standards for a fuller description of standards and how they are different from goals and objectives.)
What Do Standards Look Like?
How do you get Started Writing Standards?
What are Some Guidelines to Follow in Developing Standards?
Workshop: Writing a Good Standard
What Do Standards Look Like?
Standards are typically one-sentence statements of what students should know and be able to do at a certain point. Often a standard will begin with a phrase such as "Students will be able to ..." (SWBAT). For example,
Students will be able to add two-digit numbers.
Or, it might be phrased
Students will add two-digit numbers.
A student will add two-digit numbers.
Or just
Identify the causes and consequences of the Revolutionary War.
Explain the process of photosynthesis.
More examples:
Extensive set of links to standards organized by subject and state
Standards examples (this site)
Also, read the section on types of standards to see how standards can address course content, or process skills or attitudes towards learning.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
How Do You Get Started?
I recommend a three-step process for writing standards:
1. REFLECT
2. REVIEW
3. WRITE
1. REFLECT
As I will discuss below, there are many sources you can turn to to find examples of goals and standards that might be appropriate for your students. There are national and state standards as well as numerous websites such as those above with many good choices. It is unnecessary to start from scratch. However, before you look at the work of others, which can confine your thinking, I would highly recommend that you, as a teacher or school or district, take some time to examine (or REFLECT upon) what you value. What do you really want your students to know and be able to do when they leave your grade or school?
Here is a sample of questions you might ask yourself:
• What do you want students to come away with from an education at _______?
• What should citizens know and be able to do?
• If you are writing standards for a particular discipline, what should citizens know and be able to do related to your discipline?
• What goals and standards do you share with other disciplines?
• What college preparation should you provide?
• Think of a graduate or current student that particularly exemplifies the set of knowledge and skills that will make/has made that student successful in the real world. What knowledge and skills (related and unrelated to your discipline) does that person possess?
• Ask yourself, "above all else, we want to graduate students who can/will ........?
• When you find yourself complaining about what students can't or don't do, what do you most often identify?
As a result of this reflection, you might reach consensus on a few things you most value and agree should be included in the standards. You might actually write a few standards. Or, you might produce a long list of possible candidates for standards. I do not believe there is a particular product you need to generate as a result of the reflection phase. Rather, you should move on to Step 2 (Review) when you are clear about what is most important for your students to learn. For example, reflection and conversation with many of the stakeholders for education led the Maryland State Department of Education to identify the Skills for Success it believes are essential for today's citizens. Along with content standards, the high school assessment program in Maryland will evaluate how well students have acquired the ability to learn, think, communicate, use technology and work with others.
2. REVIEW
Did you wake up this morning thinking, "Hey, I'm going to reinvent the wheel today"? No need. There are many, many good models of learning goals and standards available to you. So, before you start putting yours down on paper, REVIEW what others have developed. For example, you can Look at
• your state goals and standards
• relevant national goals and standards
• other state and local standards already created
o check out the site mentioned above - Putnam Valley
• your existing goals and standards if you have any
• other sources that may be relevant (e.g., what employers want, what colleges want)
Look for
• descriptions and language that capture what you said you value in Step 1 (REFLECT)
• knowledge and skills not captured in the first step -- should they be included?
• ways to organize and connect the important knowledge and skills
Look to
• develop a good sense of the whole picture of what you want your students to know and to do
• identify for which checkpoints (grades) you want to write standards
3. WRITE
The biggest problem I have observed in standards writing among the schools and districts I have worked with is the missing of the forest for the trees. As with many tasks, too often we get bogged down in the details and lose track of the big picture. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to periodically step back and reflect upon the process. As you write your standards, ask yourself and your colleagues guiding questions such as
• So, tell me again, why do we think this is important?
• Realistically, are they ever going to have to know this/do this/use this?
• How does this knowledge/skill relate to this standard over here?
• We don't have a standard about X; is this really more important than X?
• Can we really assess this? Should we assess it?
• Is this knowledge or skill essential for becoming a productive citizen? How? Why?
• Is this knowledge or skill essential for college preparation?
Yes, you may annoy your colleagues with these questions (particularly if you ask them repeatedly as I would advocate), but you will end up with a better set of standards that will last longer and provide a stronger foundation for the steps that follow in the creation of performance assessments.
Having said that, let's get down to the details. I will offer suggestions for writing specific standards by a) listing some common guidelines for good standards and b) modeling the development of a couple standards much as I would if I were working one-on-one with an educator.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Guidelines for Writing Standards
GUIDELINE #1: For a standard to be amenable to assessment, it must be observable and measurable. For example, a standard such as
"Students will correctly add two-digit numbers"
is observable and measurable. However, a standard such as
"Students will understand how to add two-digit numbers"
is not observable and measurable. You cannot observe understanding directly, but you can observe performance. Thus, standards should include a verb phrase that captures the direct demonstration of what students know and are able to do.
Some bad examples:
Students will develop their persuasive writing skills.
Students will gain an understanding of pinhole cameras.
Rewritten as good examples:
Students will write an effective persuasive essay.
Students will use pinhole cameras to create paper positives and negatives.
GUIDELINE #2: A standard is typically more narrow than a goal and broader than an objective. (See the section on Standards for a fuller discussion of this distinction.)
Too Broad
Of course, the line between goals and standards and objectives will be fuzzy. There is no easy wasy to tell where one begins and another one ends. Similarly, some standards will be broader than others. But, generally, a standard is written too broadly if
• it cannot be reasonably assessed with just one or two assessments
• (for content standards) it covers at least half the subject matter of a course or a semester
For example, the Illinois Learning Standards for social science lists "Understand political systems, with an emphasis on the United States" as a goal. That is a goal addressed throughout an entire course, semester or multiple courses. The goal is broken down into six standards including "Understand election processes and responsibilities of citizens." That standard describes what might typically be taught in one section of a course or one unit. Furthermore, I feel I could adequately capture a student's understanding and application of that standard in one or two assessments. However, I do not believe I could get a full and rich sense of a student's grasp of the entire goal without a greater number and variety of classroom measures. On the other hand, the standard, "understand election processes and responsibilities of citizens," would not typically be taught in just one or two lessons, so it is broader than an objective. Hence, it best fits the category of a standard as that term is commonly used.
Another tendency to avoid that can inflate the breadth of a standard and make it more difficult to assess is the coupling of two or more standards in a single statement. This most commonly occurs with the simple use of the conjunction "and." For example, a statement might read
Students will compare and contrast world political systems and analyze the relationships and tensions between different countries.
Although these two competencies are related, each one stands alone as a distinct standard. Additionally, a standard should be assessable by one or two measures. Do I always want to assess these abilities together? I could, but it restricts my options and may not always be appropriate. It would be better to create two standards.
Students will compare and contrast world political systems.
Students will analyze the relationships and tensions between different countries.
In contrast, the use of "and" might be more appropriate in the following standard:
Students will find and evaluate information relevant to the topic.
In this case, the two skills are closely related, often intertwined and often assessed together.
Too Narrow
A possible objective falling under the social science standard mentioned above that a lesson or two might be built around would be "students will be able to describe the evolution of the voter registration process in this country." This statement would typically be too narrow for a standard because, again, it addresses a relatively small portion of the content of election processes and citizen responsibilities, and because it could be meaningfully assessed in one essay question on a test. Of course, you might give the topic more attention in your government course, so what becomes an objective versus a standard can vary. Also, it is important to note that standards written for larger entities such as states or districts tend to be broader in nature than standards written by individual teachers for their classrooms. A U.S. government teacher might identify 5-15 essential ideas and skills for his/her course and voter registration might be one of them.
As you can see, each of these distinctions and labels are judgment calls. It is more important that you apply the labels consistently than that you use a specific label.
Note: You may have noticed that the Illinois Learning Standard that I have been using as an example violates Guideline #1 above -- it uses the verb understand instead of something observable. The Illinois Standards avoids this "problem" in most cases. However, the State addresses it more directly by writing its "benchmark standards" in more observable language. For example, under the general standard "understand election processes and responsibilities of citizens" it states that by early high school (a benchmark) students will be able to "describe the meaning of participatory citizenship (e.g., volunteerism, voting) at all levels of government and society in the United States."
GUIDELINE #3: A standard should not include mention of the specific task by which students will demonstrate what they know or are able to do.
For example, in a foreign language course students might be asked to
Identify cultural differences and similarities between the student's own culture and the target culture using a Venn diagram.
The statement should have left off the last phrase "using a Venn diagram." Completing a Venn diagram is the task the teacher will use to identify if students meet the standard. How the student demonstrates understanding or application should not be included with what is to be understood or applied. By including the task description in the standard, the educator is restricted to only using that task to measure the standard because that is what the standard requires. But there are obviously other means of assessing the student's ability to compare and contrast cultural features. So, separate the description of the task from the statement of what the student should know or be able to do; do not include a task in a standard.
GUIDELINE #4: Standards should be written clearly.
GUIDELINE #5: Standards should be written in language that students and parents can understand.
Share your expectations with all constituencies. Students, parents and the community will feel more involved in the process of education. Standards are not typically written in language that early elementary students can always understand, but the standards (your expectations) can be explained to them.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Workshop: Writing a Good Standard
In the "workshops" sprinkled throughout this website I will attempt to capture (and model) the process I follow when assisting someone or some group in developing standards or authentic tasks or rubrics. For this workshop, I will begin with an initial draft of a standard and work with an imaginary educator towards a final product. You can "play along at home" by imagining how you would respond to the educator or to me.
Somewhere in the Smoky Mountains .... (hey, it's my workshop; I'll host it where I like!)
Educator: How is this for a standard:
I will teach my students what the main themes of Romeo and Juliet are.
Me: First, standards describe what students should know and do, not what the teacher will do. So, standards typically begin, "Students will ...."
Educator: So, I could change it to Students will know the main themes of Romeo and Juliet.
Me: Yes, that would be a more appropriate way to begin your standard. Standards also should describe observable and measurable behavior on the student's part so that we can assess it. "Knowing" is not something you can directly observe. So, ask yourself "how could they show me they know?"
Educator: Well, I could have them write a paper explaining the main themes. Maybe I could write a standard saying
Students will write a paper explaining the main themes of Romeo and Juliet.
Me: Can you observe "explaining"?
Educator: Yes, I think so.
Me: Yes, so that verb is a good one for a standard. Are there other ways a student could explain the themes to you besides in a paper?
Educator: Sure. They could do it in a speech, or a poster or on an exam.
Me: Good. You don't want to limit yourself in how you might assess this understanding. So, you usually want to avoid including an assignment or task in your standard. Otherwise, you always have to assign a paper to meet that standard.
Educator: I could say
Students will explain the themes of Romeo and Juliet.
Me: Yes, that is observable and clear. It effectively describes the student learning you said you wanted at the beginning. But let's go back to the main question. You always want to ask yourself "why would I want my students to meet this standard?" Why do you want them to be able to explain the themes of Romeo and Juliet?
Educator: Well, I want my students to be able to pick up a piece of literature and be able to tell what the author's main ideas are, and to find some meaning in it for them.
Me: So, you would like them to do that for literature other than Romeo and Juliet as well?
Educator: Yes, we just always teach Romeo and Juliet.
Me: So, you want to identify what really matters to you, what you really want the students to come away with. Typically, that will go beyond one piece of literature or one author. So, you want to write a standard more generically so that you can choose from a variety of literature and still develop the same knowledge and skills in your students.
Educator: I see. That makes sense. I could say
Students will be able to identify themes across a variety of literature.
Me: Very good. But now I am going to be tough on you. I imagine there are some fourth grade teachers who would tell me they have that same standard for their readers. Is the skill of "identifying a theme" really something your ninth and tenth grade students are learning in your classes or do they come to you with that ability?
Educator: Well, they should have it when they get to me, but many of them still can't identify a theme very well. And, now I am asking them to do it with a more sophisticated piece of literature than fourth graders read.
Me: So, it is certainly appropriate that your students continue to review and develop that skill. But would you hope that your students understanding of theme goes beyond simply being able to identify it in a piece?
Educator: Sure. I would like my students to understand the relationship now between theme and character development and plot and setting and how all of those work to shape the piece.
Me: And why does any of that matter? Why should they learn that?
Educator: Well, like I said before, I want them to be able to pick up a play or story and make sense of what the author is trying to communicate so they can make some personal connections to it and hopefully make some more sense of their lives. Also, I hope they realize that literature is another way they can communicate with others. So, by learning the techniques of Shakespeare and others they can learn how to express themselves effectively and creatively. Maybe those should be my standards, making sense of the world and communicating effectively, or are those too broad?
Me: Those are too broad for standards. Those sound like your overall goals for your course. But you could not easily assess such goals in one or two measures. You want to break them down into several standards that capture the key components of your goals and that are amenable to assessment. So, let's go back to your statement about the relationship of theme to the other elements of literature. It's not that being able to identify a theme is a useless skill. But you want your students to go beyond that. How can we frame what you said as a standard?
Educator: How about Students will explain the relationships between theme, character, setting ...
Do I need to list all the literary elements I cover?
Me: You could. Or, if that might change from one year to another you could say something like
Students will explain the relationships between several literary elements (e.g., theme, character, setting, plot) ....
Educator: You can do that in a standard?
Me: Yes, you can do anything you want in writing a standard as long as it captures significant learning you value and is written in a manner that can be assessed.
Educator: But there are some elements, like theme, that I would always want them to understand.
Me: Then you can say "several literary elements including theme, character, setting, and plot ...."
Educator: That's better. So, how about this?
Students will explain relationships between and among literary elements including character, plot, setting, theme, conflict and resolution and their influence on the effectiveness of the literary piece.
Me: Very nice! Is it realistic?
Educator: Yes, I think so.
Me: Is it something worth learning?
Educator: Definitely.
Me: Can you assess it?
Educator: Oh yes, there would be a lot of ways. So.... are we done?
Me: Yes. You have developed an excellent standard.
Educator: That was a lot of work.
Me: Yes. It is not easy to write good standards. But, after you have done a few the rest will come more easily.
Educator: (with a touch of sarcasm) Oh, sure.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
S
tep 2: Select an Authentic Task
________________________________________
[/b]
Note: Before you begin this section I would recommend you read the section onAuthentic Tasks to learn about characteristics and types of authentic tasks.
Starting from Scratch: Look at Your Standards
Starting from Scratch: Look at the Real World
Workshop: Creating an Authentic Task
If you completed Step 1 (identify your standards) successfully, then the remaining three steps, particularly this one, will be much easier. With each step it is helpful to return to your goals and standards for direction. For example, imagine that one of your standards is
Students will describe the geographic, economic, social and political consequences of the Revolutionary War.
In Step 2, you want to find a way students can demonstrate that they are fully capable of meeting the standard. The language of a well-written standard can spell out what a task should ask students to do to demonstrate their mastery of it. For the above standard it is as simple as saying the task should ask students to describe the geographic, economic, social and political consequences of the Revolutionary War. That might take the form of an analytic paper you assign, a multimedia presentation students develop (individually or collaboratively), a debate they participate in or even an essay question on a test.
"Are those all authentic tasks?"
Yes, because each one a) asks students to construct their own responses and b) replicates meaningful tasks found in the real world.
"Even an essay question on a test? I thought the idea of Authentic Assessment was to get away from tests."
First, authentic assessment does not compete with traditional assessments like tests. Rather, they complement each other. Each typically serves different assessment needs, so a combination of the two is often appropriate. Second, if you read the section on Authentic TasksI mentioned above (and I am beginning to doubt you did :-), then you will recall that essay questions fall near the border between traditional and authentic assessments. Specifically, essay questions are constructed-response items. That is, in response to a prompt, students construct an answer out of old and new knowledge. Since there is no one exact answer to these prompts, students are constructing new knowledge that likely differs slightly or significantly from that constructed by other students. Typically, constructed response prompts are narrowly conceived, delivered at or near the same time a response is expected and are limited in length. However, the fact that students must construct new knowledge means that at least some of their thinking must be revealed. As opposed to selected response items, the teachers gets to look inside the head a little with constructed response answers. Furthermore, explaining or analyzing as one might do in an essay answer replicates a real-world skill one frequently uses. On the other hand, answering a question such as
Which of the following is a geographical consequence of the Revolutionary War?
a.
b.
c.
d.
requires students to select a response, not construct one. And, circling a correct answer is not a significant challenge that workers or citizens commonly face in the real world.
So, yes, it can be that easy to construct an authentic assessment. In fact, you probably recognize that some of your current assessments are authentic or performance-based ones. Moreover, I am guessing that you feel you get a better sense of your students' ability to apply what they have learned through your authentic assessments than from your traditional assessments.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Starting from Scratch?: Look at your Standards
What if you do not currently have an authentic assessment for a particular standard? How do you create one from scratch? Again, start with your standard. What does it ask your students to do? A good authentic task would ask them to demonstrate what the standard expects of students. For example, the standard might state that students will solve problems involving fractions using addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.
Teachers commonly ask students to do just that -- solve problems involving fractions. That is an authentic task.
Starting from Scratch?: Look at the Real World
But what if you want a more engaging task for your students? A second method of developing an authentic task from scratch is by asking yourself "where would they use these skills in the real world?" For computing with fractions teachers have asked students to follow recipes, order or prepare pizzas, measure and plan the painting or carpeting of a room, etc. Each of these tasks is not just an instructional activity; each can also be an authentic assessment.
See more examples of authentic tasks.
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Step 3: Identify the Criteria for the Task
_______________________________
Examples of Criteria
Characteristics of a Good Criterion
How Many Criteria do you Need for a Task?
Time for a Quiz!
Criteria: Indicators of good performance on a task
In Step 1, you identified what you want your students to know and be able to do. In Step 2, you selected a task (or tasks) students would perform or produce to demonstrate that they have met the standard from Step 1. For Step 3, you want to ask "What does good performance on this task look like?" or "How will I know they have done a good job on this task?" In answering those questions you will be identifying the criteria for good performance on that task. You will use those criteria to evaluate how well students completed the task and, thus, how well they have met the standard or standards.
Examples
Example 1: Here is a standard from the Special Education collection of examples:
The student will conduct banking transactions.
The authentic task this teacher assigned to students to assess the standard was to
make deposits, withdrawals or cash checks at a bank.
To identify the criteria for good performance on this task, the teacher asked herself "what would good performance on this task look like?" She came up with seven essential characteristics for successful completion of the task:
• Selects needed form (deposit, withdrawal)
• Fills in form with necessary information
• Endorses check
• Locates open teller
• States type of transaction
• Counts money to be deposited to teller
• Puts money received in wallet
If students meet these criteria then they have performed well on the task and, thus, have met the standard or, at least, provided some evidence of meeting the standard.
Example 2: This comes from the Mathematics collection. There were six standards addressed to some degree by this authentic task. The standards are: Students will be able to
• measure quantities using appropriate units, instruments, and methods;
• setup and solve proportions;
• develop scale models;
• estimate amounts and determine levels of accuracy needed;
• organize materials;
• explain their thought process.
Rearrange the Room
You want to rearrange the furniture in some room in your house, but your parents do not think it would be a good idea. To help persuade your parents to rearrange the furniture you are going to make a two dimensional scale model of what the room would ultimately look like.
Procedure:
1) You first need to measure the dimensions of the floor space in the room you want to rearrange, including the location and dimensions of all doors and windows. You also need to measure the amount of floor space occupied by each item of furniture in the room. These dimensions should all be explicitly listed.
2) Then use the given proportion to find the scale dimensions of the room and all the items.
3) Next you will make a scale blueprint of the room labeling where all windows and doors are on poster paper.
4) You will also make scale drawings of each piece of furniture on a cardboard sheet of paper, and these models need to be cut out.
5) Then you will arrange the model furniture where you want it on your blueprint, and tape them down.
6) You will finally write a brief explanation of why you believe the furniture should be arranged the way it is in your model.
Your models and explanations will be posted in the room and the class will vote on which setup is the best.
Finally, the criteria which the teacher identified as indicators of good performance on the Rearrange the Room task were:
• accuracy of calculations;
• accuracy of measurements on the scale model;
• labels on the scale model;
• organization of calculations;
• neatness of drawings;
• clear explanations.
(But how well does a student have to perform on each of these criteria to do well on the task? We will address that question in Step 4: Create the Rubric.)
You may have noticed in the second example that some of the standards and some of the criteria sounded quite similar. For example, one standard said students will be able to develop scale models, and two of the criteria were accurary of measurements on the scale model andlabels on the scale model. Is this redundant? No, it means that your criteria are aligned with your standards. You are actually measuring on the task what you said you valued in your standards.
The authentic task used to assess these standards in a geometry class was the following:
Characteristics of a Good Criterion
So, what does a good criterion (singular of criteria) look like? It should be
• a clearly stated;
• brief;
• observable;
• statement of behavior;
• written in language students understand.
Additionally, make sure each criterion is distinct. Although the criteria for a single task will understandably be related to one another, there should not be too much overlap between them. Are you really looking for different aspects of performance on the task with the different criteria, or does one criterion simply rephrase another one? For example, the following criteria might be describing the same behavior depending on what you are looking for:
• interpret the data
• draw a conclusion from the data
Another overlap occurs when one criterion is actually a subset of another criterion. For example, the first criterion below probably subsumes the second:
• presenter keeps the audience's attention
• presenter makes eye contact with the audience
Like standards, criteria should be shared with students before they begin a task so they know the teacher's expectations and have a clearer sense of what good performance should look like. Some teachers go further and involve the students in identifying appropriate criteria for a task. The teacher might ask the students "What characteristics does a good paper have?" or "What should I see in a good scale model?" or "How will I (or anyone) know you have done a good job on this task?"
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
How Many Criteria do you Need for a Task?
Of course, I am not going to give you an easy answer to that question because there is not one. But, I can recommend some guidelines.
• Limit the number of criteria; keep it to the essential elements of the task. This is a guideline, not a rule. On a major, complex task you might choose to have 50 different attributes you are looking for in a good performance. That's fine. But, generally, assessment will be more feasible and meaningful if you focus on the important characteristics of the task. Typically, you will have fewer than 10 criteria for a task, and many times it might be as few as three or four.
• You do not have to assess everything on every task. For example, you might value correct grammar and spelling in all writing assignments, but you do not have to look for those criteria in every assignment. You have made it clear to your students that you expect good grammar and spelling in every piece of writing, but you only check for it in some of them. That way, you are assessing those characteristics in the students' writing and you are sending the message that you value those elements, but you do not take the time of grading them on every assignment.
• Smaller, less significant tasks typically require fewer criteria. For short homework or in-class assignments you might only need a quick check on the students' work. Two or three criteria might be sufficient to judge the understanding or application you were after in that task. Less significant tasks require less precision in your assessment than larger, more comprehensive tasks that are designed to assess significant progress toward multiple standards.
Ask. Ask yourself; you have to apply the criteria. Do they make sense to you? Can you distinguish one from another? Can you envision examples of each? Are they all worth assessing?
Ask your students. Do they make sense to them? Do they understand their relationship to the task?
Do they know how they would use the criteria to begin their work? To check their work?
Ask your colleagues. Ask those who give similar assignments. Ask others who are unfamiliar with the subject matter to get a different perspective if you like.
If you have assigned a certain task before, review previous student work. Do these criteria capture the elements of what you considered good work? Are you missing anything essential?
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Time for a Quiz!
Do you think you could write a good criterion now? Do you think you would know a good one when you saw one? Let's give you a couple small tasks:
Task 1: Write three criteria for a good employee at a fast-food restaurant. (There would likely be more than three, but as a simple check I do not need to ask for more than three. Assessments should be meaningful and manageable!)
Task 2: I have written three criteria for a good employee below. I intentionally wrote two clear criteria (I hope) and one vague one. Can you find the vague one among the three? Are the other two good criteria? (Yes, I wrote them so of course I think they are good criteria. But I will let you challenge my authority just this once :-)
• the employee is courteous
• the employee arrives on time
• the employee follows the sanitary guidelines
What do you think? In my opinion, the first criterion is vague and the latter two are good criteria. Of course, evaluating criteria is a subjective process, particularly for those you wrote yourself. So, before I explain my rationale I would reiterate the advice above of checking your criteria with others to get another opinion.
To me, the statement "the employee is courteous" is too vague. Courteous could mean a lot of different things and could mean very different things to different people. I would think the employer would want to define the behavior more specifically and with more clearly observable language. For example, an employer might prefer:
• the employee greets customers in a friendly manner
That is a more observable statement, but is that all there is to being courteous? It depends on what you want. If that is what the employer means by courteous then that is sufficient. Or, the employer might prefer:
• the employee greets customers in a friendly manner and promptly and pleasantly responds to their requests
"Is that one or two criteria?" It depends on how detailed you want to be. If the employer wants a more detailed set of criteria he/she can spell out each behavior as a separate criterion. Or, he/she might want to keep "courteous" as a single characteristic to look for but define it as two behaviors in the criterion. There is a great deal of flexibility in the number and specificity of criteria. There are few hard and fast rules in any aspect of assessment development. You need to make sure the assessment fits your needs. An employer who wants a quick and dirty check on behavior will create a much different set of criteria than one who wants a detailed record.
The second criterion above, the employee arrives on time, is sufficiently clear. It cannot obviously name a specific time for arriving because that will change. But if the employer has identified the specific time that an employee should arrive then "arrive on time" is very clear. Similarly, if the employer has made clear the sanitary guidelines, then it should be clear to the employees what it means to "follow the guidelines."
"Could I include some of that additional detail in my criteria or would it be too wordy?" That is up to you. However, criteria are more communicable and manageable if they are brief. The employer could include some of the definition of courteous in the criterion statement such as
• the employee is courteous (i.e., the employee greets customers in a friendly manner andpromptly and pleasantly responds to their requests)
However, it is easier to state the criterion as "the employee is courteous" while explaining to the employees exactly what behaviors that entails. Whenever the employer wants to talk about this criterion with his/her employees he can do it more simply with this brief statement. We will also see how rubrics are more manageable (coming up in Step 4) if the criteria are brief.
"Can I have sub-criteria in which I break a criterion into several parts and assess each part separately?" Yes, although that might be a matter of semantics. Each "sub-criterion" could be called a separate criterion. But I will talk about how to handle that in the next section "Step 4: Create the Rubric."
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Step 4: Create the Rubric
________________________________________
Creating an Analytic Rubric
Creating a Holistic Rubric
Final Step: Checking Your Rubric
Workshop: Writing a Good Rubric
Note: Before you begin this section I would recommend that you read the section on Rubrics to learn about the characteristics of a good rubric.
In Step 1 of creating an authentic assessment, you identified what you wanted your students to know and be able to do -- your standards.
In Step 2, you asked how students could demonstrate that they had met your standards. As a result, you developed authentic tasks they could perform.
In Step 3, you identified the characteristics of good performance on the authentic task -- the criteria.
Now, in Step 4, you will finish creating the authentic assessment by constructing a rubric to measure student performance on the task. To build the rubric, you will begin with the set of criteria you identified in Step 3. As mentioned before, keep the number of criteria manageable. You do not have to look for everything on every assessment.
Once you have identified the criteria you want to look for as indicators of good performance, you next decide whether to consider the criteria analytically or holistically. (See Rubrics for a description of these two types of rubrics.)
Dr. Mueller
Enduring ..........
-
Dear Sir:
Thanks for introducing such a practical assessment system.The examples you mentioned-I found it very much helpful to use in my classes.
Regards
Shamsi
-
Dear sir,
It's really helpful for every teacher to assess their students.
Regards,
-
Thanks for reply and study. I hope it will work more in the class room assessment
-
Some of these are really helpful to know. Thanks, sir.
-
Well done Boss. Is that talking about Rubric? Or the Rubric is located in another page.
-
This is indeed an area getting expanded more... I am currently working on Performance Based Learning which is very close to authentic assessment. Can you please mention the specific link/source? I just found 'Dr Mueller'...
-
Thank you Sir for discussing about Rubric.
-
Sir,I believe in terms authentic assessment developing materials accordingly is important.By designing appropriate authentic materials we need to ensure our students participation with motivation first to have the real exposure of the target language.
Afroza Akhter Tina