I worked on this chapter at the courthouse where I had been called for jury duty. As part of the original pool of 18 potential jurors, I observed the prosecutor and the defense teams taking notes on the different responses given by the potential jurors in the pool. Watching their behavior convinced me that they had predefined criteria about what they wanted in a juror, and I have no doubt that their notes supported their assessments about every one of us, probably based on some shared as well as different indicators, facts, and inferences. The fact that I couldn't discern the logic behind the ultimate selection of the four jurors from that pool, despite my copious notes on each juror's responses, told me much about the complexity and implicitness of their criteria informing this assessment.

Dismissed, I found myself strangely bothered, wondering what I had said or done to keep myself from having been selected as a juror. The experience made me consider how similar my feelings might be to those of a student trying to discern what a teacher is looking for when those expectations haven't been made public. Are they as perplexed as I was when I didn't make it as a juror, despite having given what I believed were honest, thoughtful, and forthright responses to each of the lawyers' queries? Do they wonder, as I did, what might have been said or done differently to change the ultimate result?

Having clear expectations about students' learning is a necessary condition—though certainly not the only one—for students to produce exemplary work. Articulating such expectations in ways that students can easily understand and readily use is a key step in promoting quality. But what do we mean by "quality"? And how do we convey our expectations for producing that "quality"—both for work whose quality criteria we have experienced and of which we have evidence, and for work whose quality criteria we can only imagine, due to any number of circumstances?

I remember grading my first large batch of over 100 student papers, all responding to the same social studies assignment. Using what I have since discovered to be a fairly typical list of expectations, including criteria like "Used at least five sources; addressed the question; well written; clearly organized," I proceeded to assign letter grades to 67 of the essays. Essay 68 was a far better essay than every one of the essays I had already graded with A and A+. The student who wrote that essay went beyond my list of expectations, not only using a variety of primary and secondary sources, but weaving them skillfully into her own arguments. She developed arguments and counterarguments and was able to make a compelling case for her position, far surpassing my idea of "well written and clearly organized." Revealing criteria that clearly represented what I believed a true A was but that I hadn't included in the list of expectations I shared with students, her work raised many questions for me—not the least of which was whether I should regrade all of the prior 67 essays!

What Informs Our Understanding of Quality and Gets in the Way of Communicating It?

We define and articulate quality based on our own experience, biases, and resources. In thinking about quality as it relates to others, specifically to our students, this definition becomes intertwined with expectations that are informed by what we, and others, believe those students can or should be able to produce. The pitfall here is in allowing our experience, biases, resources, and beliefs to inform definitions and expectations of quality that are unrealistic, too low, or too high.

Clearly understanding and articulating our expectations about quality is not an easy feat. Sometimes our own understanding of quality is clouded by the fact that the work we want students to produce isn't work we ourselves know well. We may lack experience teaching or even familiarity with a particular curriculum, we may be pushing our students and ourselves to think differently, or we may just be trying a new idea. Sometimes we aren't completely clear about what we want students to demonstrate. Other times, we may assume that quality is so transparent that students know what we expect. Regardless of the specific reason that leads to our lack of clarity, what results is student work that can be uneven, if not downright disappointing.

What Can Teachers Do to Clarify Their Expectations?

The most common strategy teachers rely on to communicate their expectations is to tell students what to do. Using this as a primary strategy raises several issues, not the least of which is denying access to our expectations to anyone who isn't an auditory processor. This strategy also can suffer from whatever else is competing for attention at the time. Even with prompts to listen carefully, only part of what teachers say may actually be heard; "Eyes on me" guarantees only the directionality of a stare, not the focus necessary to begin to hear, register, and process what is said. While spoken statements such as "Write a sentence for each of the words I listed on the board" or "Complete each of the problems in your worksheet" work relatively well for simple tasks, they become more cumbersome as the depth, breadth, and complexity of expectations increase. Imagine listening to this version of sentence-writing instructions: "Write a sentence for each of the words I listed on the board. Be sure to use the words correctly in the sentence and in such a way that I can tell that you understand the meaning of the word. Make your sentences interesting by using adjectives and adverbs. Check and correct your sentence structure, grammar, and spelling."

When the tasks are complex or teachers can't reinforce their spoken instructions with other support, students may ignore or miss them, in part or completely. At that point, there is little to be done except return to the relative memories of words spoken. Students who weren't present at all for the original telling are also at a disadvantage and must rely on a retelling, which may or may not be identical to the original or helpful to them.

Lists

To make their expectations clearer and more memorable, teachers can use written lists to supplement their verbal instructions. One teacher who asked students to write a fable provided them with the following list of criteria that the students could use as they composed their work:

Your story must have the characteristics of a fable.

• The main characters are animals.
• The animals act like people.
• The story has a central event that might be based on a trick, a trap, or one character outwitting another.
• The fable teaches a lesson.
• The moral statement fits the story.
• The story is short.

Your fable must contain dialogue punctuated correctly using quotation marks and periods, question marks, or exclamation points.

In this case, both students and the teacher were able to return to the list to ask questions, give or receive feedback, or further develop ideas at any point in the process of writing the fable. This list could be used as a checklist to guide student composition, from brainstorming and drafting through revisions and publication.

One of the advantages of criteria charts, lists, or checklists is that they break the assignment down into individual qualities or procedures that further clarify the task and related expectations, helping students remember what to attend to. This is especially true if teachers generate such lists with students. The following is an example of a list generated by a 6th grade teacher and her students to help recognize and focus on the qualities of good readers:

Qualities of Good Readers

• Backtrack to help understand words
• Use time effectively
• Think about what you read
• Read fast
• Read complicated books
• Like to read
• Read all kinds of books—large amounts of material
• Comprehend what you read
• Take ideas from what you read
• Do not get distracted while reading
• Use prior knowledge
• Form questions to understand parts of book you don't understand
• Set goal to make sure you finish book
• Form opinion about the book
• Listen to suggestions
• Stop and write down things learned from the book
• Read for facts, clues, and information
• Read without help
• Read to get ideas
• Translate information from the book in your own words
• Correct your mistakes on the first draft
• Read both fiction and nonfiction
• Sound out words when you read

Long lists, whether generated with or without student input, can be unwieldy and confusing or difficult to use. To remedy this, especially where the list is functioning as a tool for students and teachers to use during a learning experience or activity, taking time to cluster, categorize, and order the list can be a worthwhile investment. Look at the 6th grade list again and imagine how much more helpful it would be if the attributes were grouped into related or like attributes, and if those groups had titles or names. Then imagine an order that might help students be even more successful at recognizing—or becoming—good readers.

Checklists

Most useful for monitoring whether attributes of quality are present, checklists can be greatly enhanced when their items are organized and ordered. To increase their diagnostic value and usefulness as a feedback tool, sometimes it is helpful to include a rating scale. This was the case for students preparing for a series of debates. The students discovered that an important piece of information was missing from the checklist if they were to use it to improve their performances. They found that it wasn't enough for them to simply check off an attribute as present or not, because often the attributes were present in varying degrees. To improve the use of their criteria checklist as a feedback tool, they added a range of numbers, from 1 to 4, with 4 indicating that the attribute was "definitively" present and 1 indicating that it was "not at all" evident. Students and their teacher used this checklist as they prepared and practiced their presentations (see Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1. Presentation Checklist

	Not at all  1	2	3	Definitively  4
Speaks clearly.
Faces audience when speaking.
Speech is deliberate and evenly paced.
Voice is loud enough for all in room to hear.
Information is accurate.
Presenter is respectful of other's right to disagree.
Beginning argument makes a clear point.
Closing argument sums up main points of presentation.
Satisfactorily answers opponents' attack on position.
Polite and does not interrupt speaker.
Behavior is purposeful and focused.

The use of a checklist as an interactive device, allowing students to highlight, write a check mark, or note yes or no, can help them more accurately self-assess and self-monitor, as well as provide feedback to their peers. The checklist in Figure 5.2 is a good example of an interactive checklist whose criteria are clearly stated, organized, and prioritized. Note that the criteria—in this case, consistently posed as questions—are clear and directly worded. Related criteria have been grouped and titled, and the groups themselves have been listed in an order that supports a successful presentation. Finally, rather than a simple checkbox, students are put in a position of responding yes or no to each criteria question. This format might be further enhanced if there were multiple columns of yes and no on the right side, allowing for self, peer, and teacher feedback to be documented on the same page so that students could monitor their progress even more efficiently.

Figure 5.2. Interactive Presentation Checklist

	Yes	No
Time management
1. Did I use my time at an even pace, completing all sections of the presentation?
2. Did I set up and begin promptly?
Organization
3. Was the flow of my presentation and material logical and smooth?
4. Were all the presented materials well organized and easily accessible?
Resource use
5. Did I use different media to present my information?
6. Did I use the most important media for the kind of information I presented?
Audience awareness
7. Did I make frequent eye contact with my audience?
8. Did I vary my voice to suit my presentation?
9. Did I present my material in a way that suited my audience?
Aesthetics
10. Did I present myself in a professional way in my dress and grooming?
11. Did I hand out and use materials that were aesthetically pleasing?

Point Systems

The use of single or cumulative point systems to indicate the value of different work or task components is another way for teachers to define and clarify their expectations. Figure 5.3 illustrates the use of a cumulative point system to clarify expectations and the importance of attributes of a research project. Note once again that the quality criteria statements are clustered into components and that the components have been named. In this case, students know that they are focusing on four major areas when completing their assignment: content, use of sources, organization, and presentation. Both the order of the components and the number of points they are allocated help students attend to issues of priority and importance.

Figure 5.3. Cumulative Point System

Component	Definition	Points
Content	Originality and quality of the ideas in the thesis, analysis, or conclusion of research; understanding of the topic; use of questions for future inquiry; research limitations	30
Use of sources	Use of information from varied sources; use of references and paraphrasing of citations; use of quotes, footnotes, and bibliographies	30
Organization	Clear and relevant focus of paper; logical organizational structure	20
Presentation	Articulation of writer's opinion; clarity of presentation; use of language for intended audience; use of graphs/tables/pictures to clarify presentation	20

Oral instructions and reminders, criteria charts, attribute lists, checklists, and point scales all belong to the array of ways of communicating quality criteria and expectations. Rubrics represent yet another way for teachers to clarify expectations.

Rubrics

Rubrics can be holistic, capturing the whole of a product in a single score for descriptors at a particular level. When each of the dimensions in a rubric gets a unique score, a rubric is considered an analytic rubric. Analytic rubrics tend to be better diagnostic devices than holistic rubrics in that students can easily determine the strengths and weaknesses of their work.

Although rubrics exist inside the same realm as checklists and scales, what they communicate about quality is slightly different. Whereas checklists focus the user on the presence or absence of attributes, and scales attend to the degree of presence or the weight of an attribute, rubrics are instructional and assessment tools that define, describe, and differentiate levels of performance. They include dimensions or categories, similar to the titled categories of an organized checklist, and levels that range from unacceptable or minimum quality to exemplary quality, similar to the levels in the checklist in Figure 5.1 that the students used to help them with their debate presentations. Rubrics also include descriptors, which articulate the quality criteria for each dimension at each of the different levels, minimum to exemplary. It is through descriptors that rubrics differentiate themselves from other tools like checklists and point scales, focusing on explaining degrees and gradations of quality as apparent in student work. Figure 5.4 illustrates the different rubric components.

Figure 5.4. Minilesson on Rubric Language

In some cases, rubrics are supported by samples of responses or performances related to the assigned task that can be used as examples of quality at levels of the rubric that are below the highest level. These samples are called anchors. Anchors often come from student work created for the task, but they can also be teacher-made samples produced for the task to specifically illustrate the achievement of criteria at rubric levels below the highest level. Anchors are most useful in drafting, sharing, and revising rubrics. They can help students and teachers unpack and describe quality-related issues and differences between one level and another.

The samples of quality responses or performances for the assigned task that illustrate the highest end of the rubric are called exemplars. Exemplars can come from several places:

• student work created for the task, exemplifying the achievement of criteria at the highest level of the rubric;
• professionally produced, real-world samples of work that matches the task, modeling the qualities measured by the criteria and meeting the standards set by the highest level of the rubric; or
• teacher-created samples produced for the task, exemplifying the achievement of criteria at the very highest level of the rubric.

Exemplars are most useful in the initial drafting and sharing of rubrics. In general, I recommend using three exemplars to provide a range of possibilities for students. With only one or two, the tendency is to think that what's shown represents the only way to succeed, and more than three becomes overwhelming. A group of three exemplars, shared in conjunction with the criteria that they exemplify, provides a range of possibilities and minimizes the likelihood that students will copy any one of them.

The Link Between Clear Expectations and Quality Work

As teachers become clearer about their expectations for quality work, they get better at describing them and illustrating and supporting them. Though it may be difficult to imagine, it is not such a big leap to students getting better at producing quality work. When that happens, new exemplars will be produced, as students beat expectations and raise their own bar.

When I taught 6th grade, I had the opportunity to spend an extended period of time with my students in an intense study of various forms of literature, including children's literature. Our year culminated in the students' authoring, illustrating, and publishing their own books. The project was quite complex, requiring them to tap everything that they had learned about quality reading and writing all year long and to use it to write a quality children's book. These books were shared at public readings and ultimately catalogued and entered onto the school library shelves, available in the children's section with the likes of Bill Peet and Tomie dePaola titles.

When it was time to discuss the quality attributes of these books, we designed our rubric together. To give students the opportunity to see how the rubric related to this particular project's end product, I shared the previous class's rubrics along with three exemplary samples of books they produced. Though the projects were never the same, the students could at least make connections between the criteria in the rubric and the qualities of the exemplar, and then we could discuss the processes and expectations that supported the work as well as some of the strategies that they might want to consider.

In my third revision of this experience, when I proudly shared the exemplars from my previous two years, the conversation suddenly took a very different turn. Far from being awed by the quality of the work I had selected to share, students that year critiqued both the exemplars and the rubrics that guided them, letting me know in no uncertain terms that they were far more capable and could be held to far higher standards than the students who had produced the work I was so quick to extol. This class was determined that its rubric would be informed by world-class standards, elicited by examining a variety of high-quality published books. That was the criteria that they wanted to guide them.

In this case, the rubrics and exemplars inspired students' own expectations and moved them to reach for heights that they might never have imagined had they not been able to visualize the possibilities through the criteria and work of others. Needless to say, I was also inspired and awed—and moved to find new exemplars.

Is Creating a Rubric or Checklist Really Worth the Time?

Teachers often wonder whether being explicit and public about criteria and expectations means investing a lot of time to create something that they will use only when grading or documenting student achievement. This concern surfaces most directly in discussions about the design and use of rubrics, but it's expressed in other conversations, too. When I begin sessions about explicit criteria by inviting participants to voice their questions, some version of "Where will we find the time to develop rubrics and checklists for everything?" is always in the top five responses. Once we get into the program, it becomes quickly apparent that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to sharing criteria. The way criteria and expectations are shared, whether orally or in a checklist, rubric, or some other way, is in large part determined by what is being measured and why.

A year after being in my class, one of my students was questioned rather sharply by an upper-grade-level teacher who challenged him on the design and use of rubrics. The teacher said, "Sure, you had rubrics last year, so you always knew what to expect and what you had to do to pass. But what good does it do you now? No one is telling you what you have to do to do well. None of your teachers uses rubrics. Now that you don't have someone telling you what to do and what's necessary to pass, how do you know what to do? Don't you feel lost?" The young man replied, "No, I don't feel lost. Do I wish that Mr. S. would write rubrics? Sure I do, and I'd even help him. But it doesn't really matter. After last year, I know what good writing is. I carry the rubric around in my head." When a rubric helps establish a student's understanding of quality, and when that student internalizes it to develop optimal quality, creating rubrics is truly a worthwhile venture.

How Do We Know When to Use Rubrics Versus Checklists or Point Systems?

Use of Rubrics

In general, I recommend that teachers use rubrics for complete processes, performances, and products that are common outside school. These include scientific experiments, design briefs, stories, debates, oral presentations, and posters. The reason for this recommendation is two-fold. First, because a rubric needs to define and describe qualities at different levels, it is better to develop it based on real exemplars and samples of work that convey the nuances of quality. Such samples are common when the assessment task is based on a product, performance, or process that exists in the real work. Given that rubrics convey very clearly what the teacher's values are, when these values are based on real-world work, it is much easier to defend the resulting grading criteria. When rubrics are created for work that is idiosyncratic, they become more difficult to defend.

As a classroom teacher, my rule of thumb was if whatever it was that students had to produce was going to require copious notes or detailed explanations to support its quality production, feedback, or responses, I considered using a rubric. For me, rubrics were far more useful as instructional tools than as evaluation devices. My decision to design a rubric had far less to do with how it would help me grade a piece than with how it would help students produce a piece that was worthy of evaluation. In fact, when it did come time to grade, I never used a "clean" rubric. By the time the rubric made it to me, it was dog-eared, marked, and remarked, having already been used at least twice, possibly three or more times, as students self-assessed, received peer feedback, and used the criteria to set and monitor goals and to reflect on their own decisions and uses of strategies. Because the rubric was at the heart of all of this, it informed the language of students' discourse—with themselves, one another, and me—and was evident in their own reflections, goal setting, and the feedback they provided one another. Rubrics were a huge part of the ongoing process of student learning and creation of products.

Use of Checklists

Checklists are most appropriate for components of complex products, skills, and knowledge items that are used primarily in classrooms, such as paragraphs, sentences, answers to short essay questions, and book reports. They are also indicated when the teacher is most interested in determining if the students did something, as opposed to determining how well that something was done. The following items would be appropriate on a checklist:

• Selects book
• Identifies favorite character
• Gives reasons for character selection
• Identifies feelings associated with favorite character
• Compares favorite character to another character

Checklists can be used in conjunction with rubrics by helping students "check" the different rubric requirements as they complete them. Many teachers we work with use the third level of a four-point rubric to create a checklist, which the students use when giving feedback or setting work goals for the following day. Checklists are also useful in helping students understand the basic components of complex tasks, enabling them to see, in short and precise quality statements, what will later be far more explicitly described in the rubric. Some teachers we've worked with create a checklist that is a precursor to a rubric, believing that until students can determine whether all of the important components are actually present, it is pointless to discuss quality. Students use the checklist until they're certain that all of the necessary components are present; after a brief conference with the teacher or a peer to confirm that this is indeed the case, they shift their focus to developing the quality of what is now present and to using a rubric.

Use of Point Systems

In general, it is best to use single- or multiple-point systems for items that can only be right or wrong, such as computation problems.

How Can We Use Explicit Criteria to Help Students Understand and Achieve Quality?

By now, you probably realize that this isn't a chapter simply about how to design rubrics and checklists. A detailed explanation of the process of checklist and rubric design is outlined in Becoming a Better Teacher: Eight Innovations That Work (Martin-Kniep, 2000).

Although the tools of criteria are indisputably important, how they are developed and used determines the degree to which they actually influence student learning. Designing a rubric, checklist, or other descriptive device simply for use as a scoring tool diminishes it significantly, limiting its worth to that of a reflective opportunity for teachers to examine and document their beliefs and expectations related to quality, maintaining that understanding as owned by educators. Sharing the design process, weaving the access to and use of quality criteria throughout learning, and keeping expectations and criteria present and public propel the concept of "explicit criteria" into the practice of powerful teaching and learning. That is worth attending to. So how do we accomplish this?

Undoubtedly, it is important for teachers to explore and probe their own ideas about quality and their expectations for student learning and work. Once teachers have a clear sense of the criteria that define their expectations, it is best to involve students in developing the tools that will be used. Such involvement may include having the teacher use a variety of exemplary and contrasting work to help students elicit criteria for the top level of the rubric and to discover the range of performance or quality found in a rubric. They can also create a "what to do" list and a "what not to do" list.

Teachers could also involve students in some of the following design-related activities:

• Clustering different quality indicators and identifying headings for them
• Defining the headings (dimensions) of a rubric
• Assessing work with the rubric draft as a large- or small-group activity
• Using a range of work to help students develop the language and criteria for a checklist or scoring sheet
• Using a checklist to create a two-, three-, or four-level rubric
• Guiding students in reconciling the language for the rubric with specific applicable standards and performance indicators
• Adapting and/or incorporating language from a generic rubric (from state or national standards, International Baccalaureate, developmental rubrics, etc.) with students to create a task-specific one
• Supporting relative or quantitative language with quality and specific descriptors of work
• Guiding students in connecting the language they have generated for the rubric with the work they do in class

With my own students, I started small, at first asking them to help me refine the language of a rubric that I had designed myself. Sometimes we used student work to help us; sometimes we used real-world examples; often we used a combination of the two. I found it interesting that one of the earliest challenges with my students was to accept that the top level of the rubric described work that was above expectation. I now see this notion mirrored in almost every criteria-focused professional development program that I facilitate. Though initially uncomfortable, in the end, this shift is one of the keys in viewing a rubric as more than a scoring device. There is no point to creating a scoring tool with a level generally perceived as a stretch for most students, since inspiration and motivation have little to do with ultimate evaluation and grades, but there is every reason to include that very level in a tool whose function is to support and promote quality learning.

Conclusion

One could argue that clarifying our quality expectations to ourselves and to our students is not only pedagogically sound and critical to good assessment, it is actually a moral imperative. After all, how can we expect students to accomplish what we hope they can accomplish and to be the best they can be if we do not help them understand, in no uncertain terms, what we mean by "not good enough to pass," "good," and "great"? Figure 5.5 offers application activities in the form of checklists for teacher self-assessment of explicit criteria and quality rubrics. These activities set you on the course for helping nurture quality work from your students.

Figure 5.5. Application Activities for Chapter 5

Application Activity 1: Teacher Self-Assessment of Explicit Criteria
Use this checklist to assess your content practices related to rubric/checklist development and use and to identify ways to refine your practice.
Practices Related to Rubric/ChecklistDevelopment	Check what you currently do	Check the ones you plan to use
1. I identify important criteria prior to developing a rubric or a checklist.
2. I use a variety of exemplary work to help students elicit criteria for the top level of the rubric.
3. I use contrasting work (anchors) to help students discover the range of performance or quality found in a rubric.
4. I involve students in clustering different indicators and identifying headings for them.
5. I involve students in defining the dimensions (categories) of a rubric or a checklist.
6. I show and assess models with the rubric as a large- or small-group activity.
7. I use exemplars and contrasts to help students create a "what to do" list and a "what not to do" list.
8. I use a range of work to help students develop the language and criteria for a checklist or rubric.
9. I use a checklist to create a two-, three-, or four-level rubric.
10. I guide students in reconciling the language for the rubric with specific, applicable standards and performance indicators.
11. I adapt and/or incorporate language from generic rubric criteria (from state or national standards, International Baccalaureate, developmental rubrics, etc.) with students.
12. I help students support relative or quantitative language with qualitative and specific descriptors of work.
13. I guide students in connecting the language they have generated for the rubric with the work they do in class.
Practices Related to Rubric/ChecklistUse	Check what you currently do	Check the ones you plan to use
1. I introduce a rubric in stages, one dimension at a time.
2. My rubrics are accompanied by a variety of models/exemplars and anchors.
3. I model the use of the rubric/checklist for self-assessment.
4. I model the use of the rubric/checklist for peer assessment.
5. I expect students to use the rubric/checklist as they begin to plan their work.
6. I expect students to use the rubric/checklist to self-assess while working.
7. I create time for students to give each other feedback using the rubric/checklist (when developmentally appropriate).
8. My students use the rubric/checklist to set and evaluate learning goals.
9. I provide students with multiple, formal opportunities to use the rubric/checklist to revise work.
10. I use the rubric/checklist to give targeted feedback during and after the students' work.
11. My students and I regularly refer to rubrics during work sessions.
12. I tie rubrics to performances and processes and support different dimensions or sections with minilessons and/or individualized support for students.
13. Rubrics are shared with parents.
14. Rubric levels are anchored with samples of student work that illustrate the different levels of performance.
15. My students and I revise the rubric over the course of the year as students' work improves.
16. I support the use of the rubric with specific reflection prompts that help students monitor and evaluate their learning.
17. I use the rubric and accompanying anchors to share my expectations for student learning with colleagues within and across grades (vertical and horizontal articulation).
Source: Copyright 2006 by Learner-Centered Initiatives. Used with permission.
Application Activity 2: Checklist for Quality Rubrics
□ 1. The rubric is titled.  □ 2. The rubric dimensions are defined so students can understand their meaning and importance.  □ 3. The rubric uses language that students will understand.  □ 4. The rubric describes the quality content as much as format of the task, performance, or process.  □ 5. The rubric is descriptive and specific.  □ 6. When quantitative terms are used, they are supported with quality attributes.  □ 7. When adjectives are used, they are defined with specific descriptors.  □ 8. The dimensions of the rubric are prioritized or placed in a purposeful order.  □ 9. The low levels describe what is present as well as what isn't, enabling students to identify what they have done.  □ 10. The top level of the rubric is above the expected standard.  □ 11. There is consistency across levels of the rubric.  □ 12. There is consistency in the language used across levels, without an over-reliance on the same words.  □ 13. The layout of the rubric is clear and user-friendly.  □ 14.  □ 15.  □ 16.  □ 17.
Source: Copyright 2006 by Learner-Centered Initiatives. Used with permission.