an opportunity to uncover the degree of consensus on ideas that emerge during the discussion.
Focus groups can be an effective mechanism to valid survey results.
Developing and Applying Rubrics
Scoring rubrics are explicit schemes for classifying products or behaviors into categories that vary along a continuum. They can be used to classify virtually any product or behavior, such as essays, research reports, portfolios, works of art, recitals, oral presentations, performances, and group activities. Judgments can be self-assessments by students; or judgments can be made by others, such as faculty, other students, fieldwork supervisors, and external reviewers. Rubrics can be used to provide formative feedback to students, to grade students, and/or to assess programs.
There are two major types of scoring rubrics:
Holistic scoring — one global, holistic score for a product or behavior
Analytic rubrics — separate, holistic scoring of specified characteristics of a product or behavior. The rubric for scoring the COMET essay is an example of an analytic rubric.
Holistic Rubric for Assessing Student Essays
The essay has at least one serious weakness. It may be unfocused, underdeveloped, or rambling. Problems with the use of language seriously interfere with the reader’s ability to understand what is being communicated.
The essay may be somewhat unfocused, underdeveloped, or rambling, but it does have some coherence. Problems with the use of language occasionally interfere with the reader’s ability to understand what is being communicated.
The essay is generally focused and contains some development of ideas, but the discussion may be simplistic or repetitive. The language lacks syntactic complexity and may contain occasional grammatical errors, but the reader is able to understand what is being communicated.
The essay is focused and clearly organized, and it shows depth of development. The language is precise and shows syntactic variety, and ideas are clearly communicated to the reader.
Analytic Rubric for Peer Assessment of Team Project Members
Made few substantive contributions to the team’s final product
Contributed a “fair share” of substance to the team’s final product
Contributed considerable substance to the team’s final product
Rarely or never exercised leadership
Accepted a “fair share” of leadership responsibilities
Routinely provided excellent leadership