Introduction

            A timely, personal, and motivational approach in learning is an effective instrument to be applied in the educational program (Draper, 2009). This approach employs the use of a rubric in every evaluation of the assessments done by the learners. This study highlights the purpose of holistic rubric.

Holistic Rubric Example: Articulating thoughts through written communication— final paper/project.

4. Above Average: The audience is able to easily identify the focus of the work and is engaged by its clear focus and relevant details. Information is presented logically and naturally. There are no more than two mechanical errors or misspelled words to distract the reader.
5. Sufficient: The audience is easily able to identify the focus of the student work which is supported by relevant ideas and supporting details. Information is presented in a logical manner that is easily followed. There is minimal interruption to the work due to misspellings and/or mechanical errors.
6. Developing: The audience can identify the central purpose of the student work without little difficulty and supporting ideas are present and clear. The information is presented in an orderly fashion that can be followed with little difficulty. There are some misspellings and/or mechanical errors, but they do not seriously distract from the work.

1.Needs Improvement: The audience cannot clearly or easily identify the central ideas or purpose of the student work. Information is presented in a disorganized fashion causing the audience to have difficulty following the author’s ideas. There are many misspellings and/or mechanical errors that negatively affect the audience’s ability to read the work.

Learning Objectives

1. To understand the significance of rubrics to the rater and the learner
2. To identify the benefits of the rubrics to both the rater and the learner

• To identify limitations of the rubrics

1. To identify ways of improving the rubric

Critique

            The rubric did not measure what it intended to measure. There are no average score given for the measure. The levels of quality are defined clearly and adequately. There is the use of the point 1-4 scale, which was used (Oosterhof, Conrad, & Ely, 2008). There is no ambiguity on the level of requirements. The maker is looking for focus, details in the work, natural and logical flow of information (Hatziapostolou & Paraskakis, 2010). There is consistency in all the levels (Suskie, 2009). The developer requires flow of information, details, and minimal eras (Higgins, 2000). All through the rubric, the language has been appropriate. It is clear and formal English, which has been, applied (Higgins, 2000). No two evaluators would give one assignment the same score. Different evaluators vary in the critique of the paper (Bailey, 2009). In order to improve this rubric, there is need to include the particular feedback for student improvement. I will also advocate for the single evaluation of mistakes such as grammatical eras. In future, I hope to incorporate various evaluation criteria whereby I will be able to evaluate adults at different levels of learning. This will include inclusion of marking variations such as grammatical eras and speed (Draper, 2009). I have come to realize that a rubric is beneficial for the student (Bailey, 2009). A student can improve when he relies on the rubric and other specific corrections. I have understood that for the sake of the growth of the student, it is necessary to incorporate previous rubrics.

Conclusion

            A rubric is very necessary for the academic growth of a student. It is however necessary to include previous rubrics to evaluate the growth of the students. It is essential for the evaluators to offer formative feedback. There is however need for specific corrections so the student can realize where to improve.

References

Bailey, R. (2009). “Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions of the role and utility of Written Assessment Feedback.” Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. 1: 1-14

Draper, S. W. (2009). “What are learners actually regulating when given feedback?” British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 306–315. 

Hatziapostolou, T., & Paraskakis, I. (2010). “Enhancing the impact of formative feedback on student learning through an online feedback system.” Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 8(2), 111–12

Higgins, R. (2000). “Be more Critical! Re-thinking Assessment Feedback.” British Educational Research Association Conference Cardiff University.

Oosterhof, A., Conrad, R.-M., & Ely, D. P. (2008). Assessing learners online. Chapter 6, “Determining How Assessments Will Be Interpreted and Used.” pp. 70–82. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. 

Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A Common Sense Guide. Chapter 9, “Using a Scoring Guide or Rubric to Plan and Evaluate an Assignment” pp.137–154. (2^nd Ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.