# data[].attributes.headline
Point-Less An English Teacher's Guide to More Meaningful Grading (Ch4 Excerpt)

# data[].attributes.subject
Point-Less An English Teacher's Guide to More Meaningful Grading (Ch4 Excerpt)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ask any English teacher in any district across the county and you'll hear the answer immediately: ESSAY! If The New York Times knows that grading writing is an unmanageable task, why haven't we solved that puzzle?

The problem of grading essays can't be fixed by productivity apps or time-management techniques. It's not about computer adapted technology or creating more interesting assignments. In fact, many teachers already know the research stating that feedback, when focused and timely, is a crucial driver of student learning (Wiggins, 2012; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). However, when it comes to giving feedback, where is the time? Reading, grading, and planning how students revise can be a lengthy process. From a student perspective, the typical delay between writing an essay and receiving feedback can often be weeks or even longer. A teenager's attention span is minimal-we're lucky if they can remember what they read last week!

What we need is a systems approach to addressing not only the time needed to read and offer feedback, but also the routines and structures that guide student writers and help them improve. We need a system that is efficient for teachers, makes lessons more effective for learning, and allows students to take ownership of their writing.

Understanding Feedback Systems

A feedback system is a predictable cycle built on the principles of deliberate practice (Ericsson, 2016), designed to give students regular, structured opportunities to write and revise using feedback from their teacher. This kind of system comprises the following key student steps: (1) writing, (2) receiving feedback, (3) revising the writing based on feedback, and then (4) reflecting and setting a goal for the next week's writing.

To maximize both the effectiveness and efficiency of their feedback, teachers can create a set of feedback codes. A code is a symbol, indicating an area for growth within a piece of writing for the student to improve upon during revision time. For example, a student might look through a recently graded essay and see R1 and C2 written in the margins. A quick check of the codes list reminds her that R1 means "Reasoning needs more explanation" and C2 means "Claim/thesis is missing." The student then knows to focus her in-class revision time on addressing those trouble areas in her work.

Here's what a feedback system could look like:

1. On a regular basis (every week or every other week), students compose a short, on-demand writing piece, possibly part of a more comprehensive quiz.

2. The teacher grades the quiz and gives individualized, specific feedback using her set of feedback codes.

3. Within one to two days of the quiz, students receive their graded work back and spend time in class revising their writing.

4. Students reflect on their feedback and revisions and set a goal for the following week.

5. The following week, students get their quiz back with a final grade, review their goals for this week's writing, and take the new quiz.

This routine gives students a predictable structure for using feedback to revise the previous day's work, reflect on the changes they have made, and set a goal for the future (see fig. 1). Over time, the system also allows students to see how the skills they are practicing transfer to their writing in general.

Figure 1: Writing and Revision Cycle

Why a Feedback System Is Effective for Students

Teachers know the agony of spending hours giving feedback, only to have students glance at the grade and then stick the assignment in their backpack, never to be seen or heard from again. How can a systems approach change students' relationship with feedback?

The system builds in timely opportunities for students to process their feedback.

A feedback systembuilds in regular time for students to consider their feedback and respond to it. Rather than merely giving students comments and then hoping they will internalize the advice, teachers know that students are taking the time to process and reflect upon their feedback. This process works best if the feedback is provided relatively quickly.

We have learned that it's not good enough to hope students reflect and remember; instead, we must give students time in class to absorb their feedback and apply it to their writing, while their original thought processes are still fresh.

Predictable feedback routines focus students' cognitive energy on the learning itself.

When students understand the routines of feedback and revision, they can focus more of their attention on revising their writing and less time wondering what the feedback means. Keeping some structures constant-the format of the task, quick turnaround, the codes themselves, even the day of the week-helps decrease the cognitive load of the writing process and allows students to focus on improving the writing itself.

The language of codes forces students to "puzzle" independently through their feedback.

The feedback codes lead students to tackle a complex and worthwhile set of mental questions:

When repeated regularly, the system provides opportunities for deliberate practice.

Framing instruction around the principles of deliberate practice (Ericsson, 2016) requires teachers to engineer cycles of writing and revision that:

Focus on transferable, clearly defined writing skills and goals.

Supply repeated opportunities for working "outside one's comfort zone."

Train students to evaluate feedback quickly and then tailor their revision efforts to the current goal.

Push students to construct mental representations of effective writing through examples and models.

Build in regular time to reflect on their feedback and update future goals.

Making Feedback Efficient and Manageable for Teachers

To make feedback systems feasible and efficient for teachers, we identified three "time chunks" to incorporate into a teacher's routine:

Time to grade: The time dedicated for teachers to do the work of reading student writing and giving feedback.

Time to stop grading: A natural deadline for teachers to finish feedback.

Time to revise: Routine time in class for teachers to return the work and allow students to think about the feedback they receive before revising.

For many teachers, designating a specific afternoon or evening for giving feedback every week helps to counter the build-up of papers over time-and the guilt that comes with it. The system requires concentrating grading on, for example, a Thursday night, and some teachers have found it useful to block off the preceding afternoon as a regular grading session. As one teacher noted, "the big benefit is that I take very little other grading home. I don't have the big build-up of papers hanging over my head- I have a natural deadline to get the work back to students and out of my bag."

As the routine begins, teachers start to see the shift in their own grading mindsets occur as they realize they don't need to give perfect feedback that will "fix" the writing, but rather to give students the next steps they need to improve. Since, within this system, the goal of student revision is not creating a flawless, polished piece but rather problem-solving a particular authentic dilemma within a piece of writing, teachers can focus their feedback on targeted areas of growth for each specific student. The revision routine supports teachers' goal for students: to think about the feedback and puzzle through how to incorporate it.

Using a standard set of feedback codes and devoting class time for revision and reflection is not only effective for learning, but also efficient for the teacher's grading and class planning. Rather than repeatedly writing out the same phrases ("Explain more here" or "How does this connect to your main point?" or "Unclear") teachers can trust that a feedback code will communicate clearly to students what they need to address and think about as they revise. In essence, we can reframe grading as looking for opportunities for next-step learning. This kind of thinking frees teachers to make only a few, well-chosen comments and then move on to the next student's writing.

And crucially, if teachers allot a weekly class period for students to process the feedback and use it to revise, they don't need to plan an additional lesson for that day: giving feedback is class planning. From our experience, following an intensive session of writing (for students), and grading (for teachers), the predictability of the "revision day" itself creates an atmosphere that is productive and relaxed.

Why Feedback Routines Matter

If we step back from the week-to-week grind of feedback and revisions, we can see that feedback routines have far-reaching implications for both students and teachers.

Routines shape mindset.

Having a regular, predictable writing and revising routine builds the idea that becoming a writer is not about inborn skill; it's about practice. People become better through writing and revising regularly. The codes, structures, and routine stay the same from week to week because becoming a writer is the work of building and maintaining a habit.

Codes create common language.

Codes set common high expectations.

The codes provide a framework that depersonalizes the writing feedback students get from teachers. As one 10th grade ELA and special education teacher from Julie Sloan's school reflected in a coaching cycle, "The idea that we are pulling from the same list for all kids, is clear and visible to students, and to us!" The consistency in the feedback codes illustrates, in concrete ways, trust. It is one thing to say a teacher has high expectations; it's another to put them into action. The same teacher continued, " For our team, codes are not just a tool of differentiation but a tool of equity. This is the set of expectations for everyone who writes in our class, and, while I might vary and differentiate how I deploy or prioritize codes for different students, those expectations won't change."

No matter how earnest or how thorough our feedback for students is, it only matters if students see it, internalize it, and use it to improve their work. By constructing systems that build common feedback language between teachers and students, devote sufficient time for revisions, and encourage students to work through feedback themselves, we can reimagine the writing process and get the stacks of essays off our desks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In The New York Times crossword from August 15, 2021, the clue for 61 Down reads: Time-consuming assignment to grade. Five letters. Ask any English teacher in any district across the county and you'll hear the answer immediately: ESSAY!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Instructional feedback may not strike most people as a perennially "trending" topic, but it is among educators. We at ASCD know this from our web data, particularly with respect to one article. Grant Wiggins's " Seven Keys to Effective Feedback ," published in Educational Leadership in September 2012, is easily one of our most-viewed articles of all time. Even today, nearly a decade later, it gets thousands of page views every month. It received nearly 5,000 this past January (an otherwise down month for us). That's a mighty long tail, to use the web-analytics lingo.

Given these stats, we suspect many educators encounter Wiggins's article in education school courses and professional development materials. Many have likely turned to it as a source of guidance and, finding it helpful, passed it on to colleagues.

So what accounts for this article's appeal? One big factor is its practicality-or more precisely, its ability to link research and practice on a critical but often slippery topic. "Multiple researchers ... have confirmed that providing students with actionable feedback is one of the most impactful actions for enhancing student performance," says Jay McTighe, who coauthored the Understanding by Design series with Wiggins. "In his article, Grant lays out the conditions for acting on this research to optimize the use of feedback in the classroom."

It also helps that Wiggins's authorial voice conveys a certain authenticity or casual wisdom: You get the immediate feeling from his examples and explanations that this guy (1) knows what he's talking about and (2) is no stranger to classrooms. As McTighe puts it, Wiggins-who died in 2015-"combined a scholar's attention to research with a practitioner's focus on practical application. Plus, he wrote with great clarity based on personal experience."

Fittingly, Wiggins begins the piece by setting out a simple but uniquely apt definition: "Basically, feedback is information about how we are doing in our efforts to reach a goal." In this respect, feedback, he emphasizes, is not the same thing as giving advice or making a blanket value judgment, although it's often mistaken for one or the other-or both-in education and other areas (hello, fellow parents). True feedback simply conveys information about "the effects of [one's] actions as related to a goal."

Stripped-down and elemental as it may seem, this definition is central to the now-famed "seven keys" Wiggins proceeds to lay out. The most constructive feedback for teachers and students, he writes, is:

Actionable: It provides concrete, specific, useful information the recipient can act upon. (" 'Good job!' and 'You did that wrong' and B+ are not feedback at all.")

Of course, Wiggins doesn't just list these qualities. He discusses each in depth and offers helpful examples and pointed observations, including on using video to accurately appraise performance, avoiding "opaque" comments on student work, and "counting" in classroom observations. Along the way, he makes relatable references to baseball, tennis, his daughter's track performance, and Guitar Hero and Angry Birds. (Remember, this was 2012.)

A key subtheme of the article, meanwhile, is the need for educators to create more time for feedback, and Wiggins offers several ideas for doing this. For Wiggins, this was not an abstract or trivial concern. As his article illustrates, he believed strongly in the wisdom of "less teaching, more feedback."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Step by Step / Resource Highlight: Seven Keys to Effective Feedback - ASCD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instructional feedback may not strike most people as a perennially "trending" topic, but it is among educators. We at ASCD know this from our web data, particularly with respect to one article. Grant Wiggins's "Seven Keys to Effective Feedback," published in Educational Leadership in September 2012,

# data[].attributes.headline
The Assessment Grading System That Made Me Laugh Again

# data[].attributes.subject
The Assessment Grading System That Made Me Laugh Again

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Assessment System That Made Me Love Grading Again (Yes, Really!)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A revision-based assessment system, driven by clear rubrics, can mean less stress, more effective feedback, and greater student learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Make Your Rubric More than a Wall of Words

# data[].attributes.subject
Make Your Rubric More than a Wall of Words

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

The Problem with Rubrics

Why So Many Negative Descriptors?

Creating a Rubric with Positive Language

Using Rubrics Before and During the Learning Process

By streamlining organization and using positive descriptors, we can turn rubrics into tools that students really use.

Credit: GOODSTUDIO / SHUTTERSTOCK

Abstract

The Problem with Rubrics

Why So Many Negative Descriptors?

Creating a Rubric with Positive Language

Using Rubrics Before and During the Learning Process

Teachers all use rubrics. Of course we do.

And those rubrics are probably OK-serviceable and likely supportive of learning. However, many are also likely flawed.

The practice of using rubrics is well-established. In a 2000 article, Heidi Andrade notes that "[a]t their very best, rubrics are ... teaching tools that support student learning." As educators, we've seen myriad examples of rubrics. We've written them, borrowed them, modified them, and added to them. In theory, rubrics are useful because they inform students of their level of achievement, providing detailed descriptions of a range of evaluation criteria. We know it's best practice to continually update and tweak our rubrics in response to student performance and feedback. But the question remains: do students actually use these detailed rubrics? My suspicion is that they don't, due to some basic flaws in how traditional rubrics are designed and used.

The Problem with Rubrics

Traditional rubrics are too often a patchwork quilt of teacher-talk-a wall of words. By "traditional," I'm referring to analytic rubrics where performance or product criteria are listed in one column, and levels of achievement (often numbered 0-4) are laid out in a row across the top. This creates the familiar grid filled with cells describing various levels of student achievement. In my experience, students read these grids about as often and in as much detail as you or I read the user agreement for our latest phone app-not very well, if at all. Andadre (2000) describes good rubrics as "concise and digestible," but I've witnessed lab-report rubrics with 40 different cells. Yes, a small subsection of students may conscientiously look at the rubric when given a new assignment, but the majority of students give traditional rubrics only a cursory glance. And there is no joy in creating a protracted, repetitive document that your students are not going to use.

By "use," I'm referring to the act of students interacting with a rubric before and during the learning process. A student briefly looking at their grade and perhaps noting some of the descriptors that have been circled doesn't qualify as using a rubric. If we want to place the student experience at the center of the learning process, we need rubrics that are written for students, rather than for teachers.

In my experience, students read rubrics about as often and in as much detail as you or I read the user agreement for a smartphone app.

Rubric language is also often oddly imprecise. Although most guidance on how to craft a traditional rubric recommends making teachers' expectations very clear, example rubrics include phrases such as "essay marches along, but doesn't dance," "there is ... no hint of a real person in it," and "I'm trying too hard to impress'' (Andrade, 2000). These types of negative or unclear descriptors are demotivating and confusing for our students.

Why So Many Negative Descriptors?

Creating a Rubric with Positive Language

The first step to creating a rubric students will use as a tool in the learning process is: simplify. Start with three boxes labeled, Basic, Competent, and Excellent, as shown in Figure 1. That's it-just three boxes, not 12 or 16 or 40. I also strongly recommend turning your rubric vertical and stacking the three boxes, but a horizontal arrangement would also work (see Leisen 2019a, 2019b). Other words can be used for the main descriptors; however, for this example I'll use Basic, Competent, and Excellent.

If you employ a 4-point grading scale, each box will also have a corresponding number-for example, 2 (Basic), 3 (Competent), and 4 (Excellent). The question "What about the 1 box?" often arises. I recommend having only three boxes because on a 4-point scale, a 1 does not meet basic requirements. A 2 is the first passing grade. If a student does not meet one of the descriptors in the 2-Basic box, then they will score a "1-Limited or Incomplete"-but filling a fourth box with negative descriptors isn't necessary or helpful. As long as the Basic box is very clear about what students need to do or show, if something is missing, a teacher can assign a grade of 1, "Not Yet," or "Work in Progress."

First, focus on the 2-Basic box and create a list of tasks or assessment descriptors that will demonstrate a basic level of achievement for which you could comfortably assign a passing score. It's imperative that students aren't assessed on whether or not they understand an overly complicated rubric, so teachers must write clear, positive indicators of success, as shown in Figure 2. Tell students exactly what they need to do, create, or show, not what we don't want them to do. If you want your students' lab reports to include an introduction that clearly states the topic they are investigating, then don't waste time and space with descriptors that say, "Missing introduction" or "Introduction does not clearly identify the topic." Instead, state that to meet the "Basic" requirements, their report needs to "Include an introduction that clearly states the topic of the lab." The clear message to students is, Do this.

Interestingly, I adapted the "basic" descriptors in the rubric shown in Figure 2 from a traditional rubric, where they had been listed in columns 3 and 4. This is another effect of filling our rubrics with negative words like partial, incomplete, and unclear. Because we start with such a low standard and need to differentiate between the columns, we end up listing basic, sometimes minimal expectations to score a 3 or a 4. Previously, I might have awarded a 3 for correctly including a conclusion on a report, but that's really a basic requirement. Now, that requirement is where it belongs, in 2-Basic. In other words, eliminating negative descriptors enables us to increase rigor and expectations.

Once you've listed requirements in the Basic box, start populating the 3-Competent box. These descriptors usually mirror what's in the Basic box but have a higher level of complexity. For example, students might be required to write an introduction to earn a 2, but for a 3, that introduction needs to establish a broad topic before narrowing and identifying a specific topic.

Following completion of the 3-Competent box, list descriptors for the 4-Excellent box. These should be the most complex and rigorous tasks, again stated in positive terms. Figure 3 shows what these boxes for this rubric for a lab report might look like.

An equal number of descriptors in each box isn't necessary; the "4-Excellent" box should usually have fewer descriptors than the 2-Basic or 3-Competent boxes, to avoid cluttering our rubric with inauthentic, unnecessary, or redundant expectations. If a "basic" requirement is to have "a properly formatted APA heading," then no "competent" or "excellent" equivalent of that element is needed. Also, keep in mind that even if a teacher writes seemingly crystal-clear descriptors, students will always benefit from examples to aid the learning process. Seeing exactly what is meant by "data is presented in a specific, logical order" will help students see what meeting these indicators and demonstrating excellence looks like in practice. Ideally, an educator would take these exemplars from past student work, but as a teacher, I sometimes created these myself to provide clarity of expectations to my students.

Using Rubrics Before and During the Learning Process

A rubric filled with clear, positive descriptors is ready to be put into action before and during the learning process. As part of this, it's crucial to accept that your rubric will evolve. As students are working with your rubric, you may identify descriptors that should be reworded, redistributed into a different box, or deleted altogether. Give yourself permission to start with an imperfect rubric, knowing that adjusting, modifying, and improving is one of the things great teachers do. (We often ask our students to take something "good" and make it "great"-and we must do the same at times.)

One question I often hear about this approach is, "What if a student accomplishes everything in the 4-Excellent box and everything in the 3-Competent box, but they're missing something in the Basic box? That learner has demonstrated excellence, but what grade should they receive if they haven't met one of the basic requirements?" In most cases, with a well-constructed rubric, this shouldn't actually happen. The Basic requirements will closely align with the Competent and Excellent descriptors, with the higher-level requirements building on the foundation laid by the Basic level. A situation where a learner has met requirements at higher levels but not fulfilled something at a lower level is unlikely to arise, but it is possible.

That said, if a student has demonstrated excellence but missed a basic descriptor that is easily corrected, teachers could justifiably award the 4. Sometimes, however, one of the "2-Basic" requirements is absolutely required (e.g., I will include transitional phrases to introduce new topics), although a student might have done all the other work needed to attain Competent or Excellent except for that one task or action. When this happens, I will assign the student a "W" (Work in Progress), meaning "You aren't done yet, and you need to fix this"-with the expectation that the student will make the required revisions within a reasonable grace period. This could also be indicated by "NY" (Not Yet), "NG" (No Grade), or a similar abbreviation.

The end result is a living rubric that provides feedback during the learning process-a process now centered around students.

References

Alonso, J. (2017, March 16). Rubric - Grading the oral presentation. Geohist.

Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 13-18.

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action.

ASCD empowers educators to achieve excellence in learning, teaching, and leading so that every child is healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Make Your Rubric More than a Wall of Words - ASCD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teachers all use rubrics. Of course we do. And those rubrics are probably OK-serviceable and likely supportive of learning. However, many are also likely flawed. The practice of using rubrics is well-established. In a 2000 article, Heidi Andrade notes that "[a]t their very best, rubrics are ... teachi

# data[].attributes.headline
How to Provide Better Feedback with Rubrics

# data[].attributes.subject
How to Provide Better Feedback with Rubrics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A rubric is an evaluation tool consisting of a set of criteria, a fixed scale (e.g., 4-point, 7-point), and descriptors that distinguish the differences in the levels of the scale (Arter & McTighe, 2001). The term has its origins in the Latin word rubrica meaning "red earth" or colored soil used to mark things of importance. The term also references the large, red opening word in biblical manuscripts, indicating the text that follows deserves attention. Today, these meanings persist, since a well-crafted rubric signals to students the qualities that are most important in their work.

Rubrics are typically used by teachers to judge the degree of students' understanding, proficiency levels of skills, the quality of their products or performances, and their growth from one level to the next. But beyond being evaluation tools, rubrics can be an excellent way to give feedback for improving teaching and learning. Well-crafted rubrics provide a shared language that lets teachers and students work together to navigate the most important attributes of deep learning and effective performance.

Three types of rubrics are commonly used in schools:

A holistic rubric provides an overall impression of a student's performance, yielding a single rating or score. Figure 1 shows a holistic rubric for a project asking students to create a public service message (McTighe, Doubet, & Carbaugh, 2020). Holistic rubrics gauge the overall quality or impact of a student's work; for example, to what extent did the story entertain its readers or to what extent was the argument convincing?

An analytic rubric also contains a performance scale but divides a targeted product or performance into distinct elements or traits and judges each independently. Figure 2 shows an analytic rubric for mathematical problem solving.

A developmental rubric describes growth along a proficiency continuum, ranging from novice to expert. Think of the six different colored belts in karate that designate various proficiency levels. Developmental rubrics are well suited to subjects that emphasize skill development over time, such as physical education or world languages.

What Makes a High-Quality Rubric?

An effective rubric is grounded by clear and appropriate criteria that serve as the basis for judging student responses, products, or performances. In essence, the criteria specify what "success" looks like. In a standards-based system, the criteria should be derived primarily from the targeted standards or outcomes being assessed, rather than from any specific assignment or assessment task. For example, if a teacher is focusing on expository writing, the rubric's criteria for any such writing task would target accuracy (information presented is correct and appropriate descriptive vocabulary is used); completeness (all relevant aspects of the topic are addressed); clarity (precise, well-chosen, academic vocabulary is used to suit audience and purpose; organization (information is logically framed and sequenced); and conventions (proper punctuation, capitalization, spelling; etc. is used).

When a high-quality rubric is used effectively, teachers and learners benefit. For teachers, good rubrics:

Specify the salient qualities of successful performance, based on targeted standards.

Support sound evaluation by describing important distinctions in the degree of understanding, proficiency, or quality from one level to the next.

Serve as teaching targets, since they reflect the qualities embedded in standards.

Provide feedback to teachers on how their instruction might need to be adjusted.

For students, high-quality rubrics:

Serve as learning targets, since they identify the key qualities of successful learning and performance.

Communicate how their work will be judged, presenting important distinctions in the degree of understanding, proficiency, or quality from one level to the next.

Enable them to self-assess their work and performance based on the success criteria.

Provide feedback that affirms areas of strength and informs needed improvements.

Leveraging Rubrics to Provide Effective Feedback

Feedback is descriptive information that's used to affirm areas of strength in learning and performance and point to areas needing improvement (Frontier, 2021). Grant Wiggins (2012) argued that to be most effective, feedback must provide information that is specific, understandable, timely, and actionable. A well-constructed rubric can provide the basis for specific feedback that is understandable to the learner, ensuring the learner knows exactly what they have done well and what they need to do next to improve. Timely and actionable describe how the rubric should be used if we want students to receive feedback in the manner we intend-to guide their next efforts toward deeper learning and improved performance.

Holistic rubrics are appropriate when a rubric's primary purpose is to assign a grade for an assignment or summative assessment task. However, a letter grade or a numerical score, on their own, don't provide feedback. How can students improve their writing skills, for instance, if all they receive is a "3" (or a " B-") on a holistic rubric for their essay? Without more detailed information, learners are left to guess what to do differently on their next essay.

Clarifying Rubrics

To help students understand a rubric's relevant language, teachers should explicitly teach key vocabulary contained in standards and associated rubric criteria.

Accordingly, we strongly recommend using analytic rubrics as feedback tools. Since they identify and evaluate distinct traits important to effective performance, analytic rubrics provide more detailed, targeted feedback to students about the strengths of their performance and areas needing attention. Analytic rubrics can also provide valuable feedback to teachers. For example, if a teacher notices a high percentage of students are showing weakness on a particular trait, that information suggests the need for greater instructional emphasis on that dimension of performance. Since there are several traits to consider, using an analytic scoring rubric may take a bit more time than assigning a single score. But we believe that the more specific feedback that results is well worth the effort.

Figure 3 summarizes key "do's and don'ts" for constructing and using rubrics in a manner that meets Wiggins' criteria for effective feedback.

Guiding Students to Use Feedback from Rubrics

Presenting students with a well-developed rubric and reviewing it with them is necessary, but not sufficient, to guarantee that students will get the most benefit possible from that feedback. Research on how feedback is used by those who receive it notes that "the ability to receive feedback well is not an inborn trait, but a skill that can be cultivated" (Stone & Heen, 2014, p. 8). In other words, students need to be taught the meaning of rubrics and how feedback works if we expect them to highly benefit.

For instance, to help students understand a rubric's relevant language, explicitly teach key vocabulary contained in standards and associated rubrics. If explanation or justification appear frequently in your priority standards and success criteria, for example, these terms should be highlighted as learning goals and included in vocabulary lessons and assessments.

One method we highly recommend is using examples of student work-anonymous samples from previous classes or ones you've created-to make more concrete the often-abstract criteria in rubrics and bring feedback to life. Teachers might:

Show students one or two examples of high-quality work, highlighting how the success criteria are evident within them. Highlight specific traits that are most important to the targeted standard. Then show several more samples and ask students to identify where they see the success criteria appearing in each.

To help students identify distinctions among the different performance levels described in rubrics, use a set of anonymous student work samples that range in quality. Present the diverse examples and ask students to rank order them into three or four sets and to give a rationale for their placements by describing the differences they see between the sets, using the language of the success criteria.

To help learners see how to use rubric criteria and level descriptors as feedback, ask students to identify specific ways that lower-level examples could be improved. Model this process through a "think aloud" to get students started.

Another good practice is to teach students how to use success criteria from a rubric to self-assess and set future learning goals. This practice is based on the recognition that the most effective learners are metacognitive -they self-assess their performance, welcome and use feedback, learn from their mistakes, and set goals to improve their performance (Wiggins & McTighe, 2004). Two simple graphic additions to a rubric, illustrated in Figure 4, can support the cultivation of these learning habits (McTighe, 2013). The first is the inclusion of two tiny check boxes at the bottom of each cell of an analytic rubric. The student uses the check boxes on the left to self-assess their work before they turn it in. The teacher uses the other box for his or her evaluation. Ideally, the two judgments should match. Any discrepancy raises an opportunity to discuss the success criteria in relation to a student's work.

The bottom of the rubric includes a section for feedback comments (from the teacher or peers) and a space for the student to identify learning goals and action steps to improve their performance, based on external feedback and self-assessment. These minor additions turn an evaluation instrument into a tool for feedback, self-assessment, and goal setting.

Of course, teachers will need to explicitly teach students how to self-assess their work against criteria and model how to set improvement goals. But imagine the impact if every K-12 teacher, across subject areas, embraced this practice and encouraged their students to regularly self-assess and identify specific action goals!

Well-crafted rubrics can serve as a shared road map for teaching and learning. They mark the most important routes for teachers and students to navigate as they walk the circuitous path to deeper learning and more effective performances. When educators use those rubrics to teach students how to discuss and describe that terrain, rubrics become the basis for the specific, understandable language of feedback-which students can leverage to guide their next steps to improvement.

Reflect and Discuss

➛ Do rubrics function effectively as a feedback tool in your classroom or school? Why or why not?

➛ Based on the criteria McTighe and Frontier discuss, in what ways could you improve the design and clarity of your analytic rubrics?

➛ What steps could you take to help students better understand and use rubrics for assignments?

Teaching with Clarity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Provide Better Feedback Through Rubrics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Well-crafted rubrics create a shared language that lets teachers and students work together.