Rubrics have the right to be categorized into 3 broad groups. The initially team distinguishes generic from task-specific rubrics. The second team distinguishes analytic from holistic descriptors of performance. The 3rd team distinguishes primary trait from multiple trait rubrics.

You are watching: How are general and specific rubrics similar?

Generic and Task-Specific Rubrics

Rubrics have the right to be categorized as generic or task-specific. As is so often the situation in assessment, the line between the 2 categories might overlap producing a mix or hybrid version. Many kind of task-based rubrics are adaptations of generic scales, and also many are combinations of generic facets and facets particular to a specific performance job.

Generic rubrics

Generic rubrics can be used to a variety of various tasks within a solitary mode of communication (Interpersonal, Interpretive, Presentational). ACTFL recommends the following domains be taken into consideration when creating rubrics for the three settings of communication: Functions, Contexts/Content, Text Type, Language Control, Vocabulary, Communication Strategies, Cultural Awareness (ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners). The rubric in Figure 1 is a generic Interindividual rubric designed to be learner-friendly. Learners have the right to ask themselves the inquiries that will certainly be used to judge their performance in a conversation at the novice level. The questions reflect every one of the domain names except Contexts/Content which is stood for in the choice of topic for the learners to talk about. This generic rubric serves as a guide for novice learners to recommendation any kind of time they are involved in an Interpersonal job. They understand the characteristics of a solid performance, and know that they need to demonstrate a “strong performance” continuously over multiple novice-level topics in order to be considered a strong novice interindividual communicator.

Task-certain rubrics

Task-particular rubrics are offered through particular tasks, and also their criteria and descriptors reflect certain functions of the elicited performance. Tedick (2002) writes: "While some rubrics are created in such a method regarding be generic in scope for use via any kind of variety of creating or speaking work, it is finest to think about the task first and also make certain that the rubric represents a good fit with the job and also your instructional goals. Just as a range of task-kinds should be offered in language classrooms, so should a variety of rubrics and also checklists be supplied for assessing performance on those tasks" (p. 37). For instance, this Presentational Writing job needs learners to refer to a series of pictures to tell a story in the past about a visit to the monuments in Paris, France. The rubric (Figure 2) focuses on control of past tenses, use of story form, and also factual information around the monuments.

Hybrid rubrics that integrate features of generic and also task-particular rubrics are exceptionally helpful in classroom assessment bereason they carry out feedearlier to learners on wide dimensions of language manufacturing along with their performance on the certain competencies and understanding targeted by a details job within a certain unit of instruction. Teachers might save the generic language manufacturing facets as they are and also change one or two categories to focus on demands for a particular job. For instance, the rubric in Figure 3 for a Presentational Writing job includes categories that are generic (provided for all writing tasks) and categories that are task-particular. The job is to create a 5-paragraph essay comparing the prestige of biodiversity in France to the USA. In this case, the categories of Organization, Vocabulary, Accuracy, and also Culture are facets that are evaluated in all Presentational Writing work. In enhancement to these four categories, a fifth category about the usage of a selection of authentic resources is added for this job. It is necessary to remember that presentational tasks advantage from feedback and also subsequent revisions to attain a poliburned product.

Holistic and Analytic Rubrics

Rubrics might additionally be categorized as holistic or analytic. Holistic rubrics explain the characteristics of a performance to provide an in its entirety judgment of the quality of the performance. An analytic rubric looks at the individual features of a performance and also judges each characteristic independently.

Holistic rubrics:

In holistic testimonial, raters make judgments by developing an overall impression of a performance and matching it to the ideal fit from among the descriptions on the scale. Each band also on the range defines performance on several criteria (e.g. message type + vocabulary + language control). Three or four levels of performance are generally discovered in holistic rubrics. Holistic scales may be either generic or task-particular. Figure 4 is a sample of a holistic rubric for a Presentational Writing task. Advantperiods of holistic rubrics:

They are often written generically and also have the right to be used through many type of jobs. They save time by minimizing the variety of decisions raters must make. Trained raters tfinish to use them repetitively, bring about even more trustworthy measurement. They are great for summative assessments as they provide an overall judgment of performance.

Disadvantages of holistic rubrics:

They carry out not carry out specific feedback to learners around the toughness and also exactly how to improve performance. Due to the fact that they lack certain details, they are not beneficial for developmental assessments.

(Tedick (2002), Mueller (2002), and also (2000-2002).)

Analytic rubrics

Analytic rubrics regularly integrate performance categories from a generic rubric via categories directly regarded a job, such as demonstrating expertise of certain leskid content (Moskal, 2000). In practice, the names "analytic rubric" and also "multiple trait rubric" may be provided interchangeably.

Performance dimensions commonly uncovered in analytic rubrics incorporate the domain names in the ACTFL Perfomance Descriptors:

Functions Contexts/Content Text form Language control Vocabulary Communication techniques Cultural Awareness

These rubrics may also include job particular items such as:

Pronunciation and Intonation Creativity Effective use of modern technology Successful collaboration Evidence of integration of multiple resources of factual information

Figure 5 presents an adaptation of a popular analytic range for evaluating ESL composing performance. Describing this rubric, Tedick (2002) writes: "Note that the range assigns various weights to different functions. This allows a teacher to give even more emphasis to content than to grammar or mechanics, for instance. The option to weigh qualities on the range represents an benefit to analytic scoring." (p. 35).

Figure 6 reflects an analytic scale for duty plays and also interviews used via students in first-year French courses at the University of Minnesota. This rubric can be offered with other languages. In this instance, all criteria are weighted equally.

See more: "The Dukes Of Hazzard State Of The County, The Dukes Of Hazzard

Advanteras of analytic rubrics:

They carry out useful feedago to learners on areas of strength and also weakness. Their dimensions deserve to be weighted to reflect loved one prestige of individual criteria.

Disadvantages of analytic rubrics:

They take more time to create and use. There are more possibilities for raters to disagree. It is even more hard to attain intra- and also inter-rater reliability on every one of the dimensions in an analytic rubric than on a single score gave in by a holistic rubric.

Primary and Multiple Trait Rubrics

Rubrics have the right to also be categorized as primary trait or multiple trait rubrics. A primary trait rubric is task-particular and evaluates performance based on only one characteristic. A multiple trait rubric evaluates performance based upon a number of qualities of a certain task.

Main trait rubrics

Key trait scoring, as arisen by Lloyd-Jones and Carl Klaus (Lloyd-Jones, 1977) was designed to evaluate the major language feature or rhetorical trait elicited by a offered creating job or prompt. "Key trait assessment in its initial formulations concentrated on the certain technique that a writer could require to be successful on a specific writing task; eincredibly job compelled its own unique scoring guide" (Applebee, 2000, p. 4). In its original form, main trait scoring would certainly be strictly classified as task-specific, and also performance would be evaluated on just one trait, such as the "Persuading an audience" instance from Tedick (2002, p. 36) for a job requiring learners to compose a persuasive letter to the editor of the institution newspaper: