Look Below For Rubric Analysis Using Two Different Sources

Look Below For Linkrubric Analysisusing Two Different Sources Respond

Look below for link Rubric Analysis Using two different sources, respond in writing (APA format) using the prompts below to guide your written analysis. Part 1: Explore the Exemplars website, specifically the Resources tab for Rubrics. Review the Exemplars Math Rubric and Exemplars Reading Rubric. Questions to discuss: How does the Exemplars criteria for both math and reading rubrics follow a top-down or bottom-up approach? How do you know? To what degree are performance level descriptions addressed? Do these live up to what Brookhart proposes, that “. . .the most important aspect of the levels is that performance be described, with language that depicts what one would observe in the work rather than the quality conclusions one would draw” (p.26)? In your opinion, what are the values placed on using the terminology for mastery (Novice, Apprentice, Practitioner, and Expert)? In other words, how effective do you believe this terminology is and why? Part 2: Explain the position Brookhart argues in Chapter 2 against rubrics that merely summarize the requirements of the task, as opposed to rubrics that describe evidence of learning. Explain what Brookhart means when saying; “Rubrics should not confuse the learning outcome to be assessed with the task used to assess it” (p.15). What is the relationship between this and what you learned about aligning formative assessments with the learning standards and objectives? Link

Paper For Above instruction

The utilization of rubrics in educational assessment is fundamental in articulating clear standards for student performance and guiding instructional practices. The analysis of Exemplars' math and reading rubrics within the context of Brookhart’s principles reveals significant insights into how these tools function to promote meaningful assessment aligned with learning outcomes. Additionally, understanding Brookhart’s critique of rubrics that merely summarize task requirements versus those that depict evidence of learning underscores essential best practices in assessment design.

Part 1: Analysis of Exemplars Rubrics and Approaches

The Exemplars Math and Reading Rubrics demonstrate a predominantly top-down approach in their design. A top-down framework entails starting from broad performance standards or overarching learning goals, then delineating specific levels of achievement that progressively reflect higher mastery. This is evident in the rubrics' hierarchical structure, where general criteria such as understanding, application, and reasoning are broken down into distinct performance levels. For instance, a "Proficient" level would encompass demonstrated understanding and application that meet grade-level standards, while "Basic" might indicate partial understanding. This hierarchical organization aligns with a top-down perspective because it begins with defining clear, overarching criteria and refining them into specific observable behaviors.

Performance level descriptions in the Exemplars rubrics generally adhere to Brookhart’s emphasis on observable behaviors. These descriptions articulate what students’ work looks like at each level, aligning with Brookhart’s assertion that quality levels should focus on observable evidence rather than subjective judgments. For example, a level describing "Emerging" understanding might specify that the student “partially completes tasks,” whereas a "Mastery" level would specify that the student “consistently applies concepts accurately.” This focus on observable evidence ensures that assessments are transparent and anchored in actual student work, fulfilling Brookhart’s criteria for effective rubrics.

The terminology used—Novice, Apprentice, Practitioner, and Expert—reflects a mastery vocabulary that emphasizes developmental progress. In my view, this terminology effectively communicates growth stages, making it clear that mastery is a continuum. “Novice” indicates limited understanding, whereas “Expert” suggests a high level of proficiency and independence. The value of such terminology lies in its capacity to motivate students by framing learning as a developmental journey rather than a simple dichotomy of right or wrong (Guskey, 2014). Moreover, it invites students to view assessment as formative rather than purely summative, promoting a growth mindset that encourages continuous improvement.

Part 2: Brookhart’s Critique of Rubrics that Summarize Requirements

In Chapter 2, Brookhart critiques rubrics that merely summarize what students are supposed to do—focusing on task completion rather than evidencing learning. Her position emphasizes that effective rubrics should describe what students demonstrate to show they have achieved the learning goals, not just list the task steps. This distinction is critical because a task-focused rubric might assess whether a student followed instructions, but a learning-focused rubric assesses the quality of understanding, reasoning, and skills evidenced through the work.

Brookhart explains that “Rubrics should not confuse the learning outcome to be assessed with the task used to assess it” (p.15). This means that rubrics should focus on what students know and can do as a result of their learning, rather than on the nature of the assessment task itself. For example, if the learning outcome is critical thinking, the rubric should describe observable evidence of critical thinking—such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation—regardless of the specific task used to elicit that evidence. This relationship aligns with the broader principles of formative assessment, which involve designing tasks and assessments that directly measure progress toward learning standards and objectives. Formative assessments should be purposeful and aligned with what students need to learn, ensuring that each task provides valid evidence of their mastery.

Ultimately, this approach encourages alignment between formative assessments and learning outcomes. When assessments are designed to elicit evidence of specific skills or knowledge, educators can make more accurate judgments about student progress and adjust instruction accordingly. This alignment also supports differentiated instruction, as teachers can identify precisely where students are in their learning journey and provide targeted feedback. In summary, Brookhart advocates for rubrics that serve as windows into the student’s understanding rather than mere checklists of task components, fostering meaningful assessment practices that promote learning.

References

• Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. ASCD.
• Guskey, T. R. (2014). Developing standards-based report cards. Corwin Press.
• Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment FOR learning: A path to better student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324-328.
• Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
• Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria-referenced self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 159-173.
• Nkosi, M., & Mkhize, N. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of rubrics in improving student learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(6), 1244-1256.
• Alfassi, M. (2004). If we want students to learn, should we grade their writing? Language Arts, 81(4), 276-285.
• Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435-448.
• McMillan, J. H. (2007). Formative student assessment: Sustaining and improving learning. Assessment for Effective Learning, 109, 41-55.