Complete Rubrics: Chapter Two

Quinlan, Audrey M. A Complete Guide to Rubrics: Assessment Made Easy for Teachers, K-College. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2006. Print.



Chapter Two: Checklists, Performance Lists, or Rubrics


 In this chapter Quinlan talks about how rubrics aren’t right for every assignment or for all parts of all assignments at least. She starts the chapter talking about the three kinds of learning objectives: “cognitive (information and knowledge), psychomotor (physical actions), or affective (attitudes)” (17).  She discusses Bloom’s taxonomy and its relation to cognitive objectives. She gives a nice chart on pages 18-19 that breaks down Bloom’s categories and gives instructional objectives and verbs for each category: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. I did a quick search and found another page from Clemson University that includes similar information:


Psychomotor learning objective include anything that students must physically complete, from handwriting to archery to lab experiments to building robots. Quinlan cites Heinich, Molenda, and Russell to describe “four levels of the psychomotor objectives: imitation, manipulation, precision, and articulation” (17). 


Affective learning objectives include attitudes and feelings about learning, which have to be evaluated by self -disclosure or through observation, so they are often “the most difficult to measure and evaluate” (17).


Quinlan next discusses using simple checklists to measure any of these kinds of learning objectives whether it’s completing a map or learning to spike a volleyball or even enjoying an activity (uses terms like “volunteers, joins in, cooperates, enjoys” (20). I can imagine using a checklist for group projects in my Comp I class or for the parts of the research paper in Comp II (instead of a multi-part rubric).


Here is an example of how I might use a checklist:


Checklist for College Composition II research paper


____ Brainstorming idea with class group


____Summary One


____Summary Two


____Topic selected and approved


____Outline and planning completed


____ Initial research completed


____Draft of paper completed


____Peer review of group drafts completed


____Grading conference with instructor completed


____Revision of paper into final draft completed


____Evaluative paper completed




This kind of checklist would be useful for the student and the instructor, to keep the student on task and for the instructor to have one clear sheet with the student’s progress.


Next Quinlan talks about using an expanded checklist to do simple evaluation of parts of a tasks, using perhaps a check, minus, plus sign system to show students how well they completed the parts of the checklist. Again, I can see this being useful in a large individual or group project where not every part is graded individually.


The next type of tool discussed is a performance list, which uses a checklist format but assigns points to each task.


I could use a performance list for my group grammar presentations. One might look like this:


Group Grammar Presentations

100 points


Group Participation (25 points—5 points each)


___ Took a clear role in the group


___Completed a fair share of the work


___Got along with members (avoided or dealt with conflict)


___Communicated with members effectively


___Attended regular group meetings



Grammar Knowledge (50 points—10 points each)


____ summarized grammar concepts


____identified important terms accurately


____produced several original examples of each error


____corrected example errors accurately

____ answered any questions accurately and thoroughly


Presentation Skills (25 points—5 points each)


____ involved audience in presentation


___ Created an organized and visually appealing display


___Spoke clearly and loud enough


___Made eye contact with audience


___Displayed use of professionalism and standard English usage



Finally, Quinlan moves on to using rubrics. First, she explains the advantages to rubrics: they provide clear expectations, they let students know the benchmarks of the assignments, they let student see themselves in relation to clear objectives, they create more fairness and consistency in grading, and they “provide teachers with data to support grades” (26).


Quinlan talks about both 4 point or 6 point and holistic or analytic rubrics.   


 In a four point rubric, #4 would be “exemplary performance;” #3 would be “proficient…[s]olid performance or understanding;” #2 would be “partial understanding…emerging or developing; makes errors;” #1 would be “minimal understanding…has serious errors or misconceptions;” and 0 would be “[n]o attempt made” (27). In a 4 point rubric, a 3 is the “standard” (27).


In a 6 point rubric, the levels are: 6= “Exemplary achievement ;” 5= “Commendable achievement;” 4= “Adequate achievement;” 3= “Some evidence of achievement;” 2= “Limited evidence of achievement;” 1= “Minimal evidence of achievement;” and 0= “No response” (27). In a 4 point rubric, a 5 is the “standard” (27).


In a holistic rubric, the instructor includes all components or dimensions of an assignment in one category and assesses them together.


For example, for a general writing assignment that any instructor might assign, a simple 4 point rubric could be done holistically as follows:


4 points (exemplary)


Focus: has a clear focused thesis that is specific, original, and appropriate

Organization: has clear and developed paragraphs with specific topic sentences that relate to thesis

Content: uses specific examples or support for thesis and ideas

Style: uses appropriate and professional words and varies sentences

Grammar: adheres to Standard English conventions and has few or no errors


3 points (competent)


Focus: has a clear focus for the paper

Organization: has clear paragraphs that relate to thesis

Content: supports thesis

Style: uses clear appropriate language

Grammar: adheres to Standard English conventions with only slight errors that do not hinder communication


2 points (developing)


Focus: focus for the paper may be unclear or change

Organization: paragraphs may not relate to thesis or be clearly focused

Content: has some support but needs more to develop the thesis

Style: may use some inappropriate or inconsistent words or sentences

Grammar: has some errors in Standard English usage that may interfere with communication


1 point (unsatisfactory)


Focus: no clear focus for the paper

Organization: no clear paragraphs or no connection between paragraphs and thesis

Content: thesis is unsupported

Style: inappropriate or inconsistent words or sentences primarily used

Grammar: many errors in Standard English that interfere with communication


0 points

Did not complete


Although I can see the usefulness of this kind of rubric, the problem is that it doesn’t tell a student why he or she specifically received a 4 or a 2. Often a student may do well in organization, for example, but poorly in support and grammar.


The analytic rubric lets the instructor break down the points more specifically. For example, the rubric would be broken down into its dimension, like this:




4. has a clear focused thesis that is specific, original, and appropriate

3. has a clear focus for the paper

2. focus for the paper may be unclear or change

1. no clear focus for the paper

0. no attempt



This is much more like the rubrics displayed in the Introduction to Rubrics book-which I think are most useful.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *