Example Evaluation Tools
A number of evaluation tool examples are provided as the appendix to the evaluation compliance guide. The examples here are intended to provide further details about a variety of formats, including their potential drawbacks and benefits. As a reminder, the goal of this process is to generate actionable feedback for the program, rather than create a different kind of summative assessment for all students or assess individual faculty in any way.
To make comparisons between types of evaluation tools as clear as possible, the same learning outcome is used in each:
"Recognize the provisional nature of knowledge, the disciplinary preference for complexity, and the comfort with ambiguity that history requires"
This learning outcome, one of the American Historical Association's Core Competencies and Learning Outcomes, was selected for two reasons: 1) its use of broad, liberal arts skills that (despite the final three words) are potentially relevant in a range of Dartmouth programs, and 2) there is no existing evaluation tool for the outcome, allowing for a more open discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of multiple approaches.
Please note that the examples are provided only for comparative purposes and are neither prescriptive nor are intended to suggest preferred language, outcomes, or criteria.
If you would like examples of evaluation tools pertaining specifically to your discipline, the Office of Institutional Research would be more than happy to assist; please contact Gareth Cordery (Gareth.JE.Cordery@Dartmouth.edu).
Standard Grid Rubric
The amount of text in a grid rubric makes it challenging for in-the-moment assessments of presentations, exhibitions, concerts, or other activities that cannot be re-read or re-watched. One way to adapt grid rubrics for this context is to ensure that all criteria and components use the same formatting and phrasing, which makes the distinctions between levels of achievement more obvious. Additionally, rubrics can be difficult to score accurately if students achieve some--but not all--components of a particular criterion. As such, it is usually best to include 3 or more components for each criterion, although it is not always easy to develop this many components.
However, as the most-used evaluation tool, perhaps the biggest benefit of the grid rubric is its familiarity among faculty from classroom experience. There are also extensive resources available to assist in creating a grid rubric, including elsewhere on this website and from the Dartmouth Center for the Advancement of Learning, helping to make this format an attractive choice. The text in the scale (or the columns other than the criteria column) of grid rubrics is especially useful for generating actionable feedback and carefully distinguishing between levels of achievement.
| Criteria | Excellent | Meets Expectations | Unsatisfactory |
| Recognizes the Provisional Nature of Knowledge | The student work frequently considers the context and assumptions of the topic, showcases regular awareness of the student’s perspective, and continually draws on opposing viewpoints | The student work occasionally considers the context and assumptions of the topic, showcases sporadic awareness of the student’s perspective, and draws on opposing viewpoints a few times | The student work disregards the context and assumptions of the topic, does not showcase awareness of the student’s perspective, and never draws on opposing viewpoints |
| Demonstrates a Preference for Complexity | The student work objectively and carefully examines multiple claims relevant to its topic, systematically evaluates evidence found in secondary literature, and shows strong awareness of the limitations of the student's own research | The student work examines multiple claims relevant to its topic, evaluates evidence found in secondary literature, and shows some awareness of the limitations of the student's own research | The student work does not consider multiple claims relevant to its topic, does not evaluate evidence found in secondary literature, and ignores the limitations of the student's own research |
| Embraces Ambiguity | The student work considers multiple causes, rejects simplistic explanations, and marshals contradictory evidence in support of the thesis | The student work references multiple causes, occasionally relies on simplistic explanations, and explains away contradictory evidence in support of the thesis | The student work draws unicausal conclusions, relies on simplistic explanations, and ignores any evidence that contradicts the thesis |
List-Based Rubric
A different way to format a rubric, rather than a distinct evaluation tool, a list-based format is created in exactly the same way as a standard grid rubric. As such, the drawbacks of list-based rubrics are roughly the same as grid rubrics, although extensive text can be easier to read in list format than bunched together on a grid.
The benefits of a list rubric include the use of a score range (here, from 1-3), which makes scoring easier if a significant amount of student work is being assessed (although there are ways to include scoring ranges in grid rubrics as well). Additionally, the list format can be more readily grasped if grid rubrics are unfamiliar.
Recognizes the Provisional Nature of Knowledge
3. Exemplary: The student work frequently considers the context and assumptions of the topic, showcases regular awareness of the student’s perspective, and continually draws on opposing viewpoints
2. Satisfactory: The student work occasionally considers the context and assumptions of the topic, showcases sporadic awareness of the student’s perspective, and draws on opposing viewpoints a few times
1. Unsatisfactory: The student work disregards the context and assumptions of the topic, does not showcase awareness of the student’s perspective, and never draws on opposing viewpoints
Demonstrates a Preference for Creativity
3. Exemplary: The student work objectively and carefully examines multiple claims relevant to its topic, systematically evaluates evidence found in secondary literature, and shows strong awareness of the limitations of the student's own research
2. Satisfactory: The student work examines multiple claims relevant to its topic, evaluates evidence found in secondary literature, and shows some awareness of the limitations of the student's own research
1. Unsatisfactory: The student work does not consider multiple claims relevant to its topic, does not evaluate evidence found in secondary literature, and ignores the limitations of the student's own research
Embraces Ambiguity
3. Exemplary: The student work considers multiple causes, rejects simplistic explanations, and marshals contradictory evidence in support of the thesis
2. Satisfactory: The student work references multiple causes, occasionally relies on simplistic explanations, and explains away contradictory evidence in support of the thesis
1. Unsatisfactory: The student work draws unicausal conclusions, relies on simplistic explanations, and ignores any evidence that contradicts the thesis
Rating Scale
While rubrics are ideal for written assignments, they are less adaptable for assessing presentations, performances, and other live activities, as well as long-term projects like fieldwork, practica, or internships. For these artifacts of student work, a rating scale might be more logical. Rating scales take specific components of a larger criterion, allowing assessors the chance to score relative levels of achievement on each. However, rating scales involve a greater degree of subjectivity in their assessment than rubrics. Whereas rubrics carefully define levels of achievement, rating scales leave the fine distinctions between scores up to the assessor. If you choose to use a rating scale, it is usually helpful to reach some agreement among assessors as to what each level signifies (i.e. a certain number of times a skill is displayed, a number of errors included, etc.) before the actual assessment. Also, applying numerical value to criteria results in usable data only when the criteria are highly specific.
Rating scales are particularly helpful, though, if the student work is being assessed using a significant number of criteria (for example, if using multiple learning outcomes) that would make a rubric of any format too large and unwieldy. The more specific the criteria, the more useful the rating scale.
To create a series of specific criteria while retaining the same learning outcome, this rating scale uses the breakdown of the criteria rather than the criteria themselves from the rubrics--in other words, the first column in this and the following example is drawn from the definitions of each criterion above. As such, there is some repetition among the criteria used, demonstrating the value of combining related expectations together when using a rubric format.
| Criteria | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Consideration of context | |||||
| Consideration of student assumptions of topic | |||||
| Awareness of the student's perspective | |||||
| Consideration of opposing viewpoints | |||||
| Evaluation of evidence found in secondary literature | |||||
| Awareness of the limitations of student's own research | |||||
| Consideration of multiple causes | |||||
| Rejection of simplistic explanations | |||||
| Use of contradictory evidence in support of thesis |
Checklist
As an even simpler version of a rating scale, checklists have the same benefits and drawbacks and are also most relevant for live or long-term activities. But checklists have an important downside: with their simple yes/no dichotomy, they provide much less actionable feedback than both rubrics and rating scales. One way of improving a checklist is to add qualifying terms like “clear,” “appropriate,” and “illustrative." Specifying some level of achievement in this manner helps to distinguish students who merely included all components from those who did so in an exemplary manner.
However, checklists can be especially useful if the student work is expected to be formatted in a highly specific way or assessed using a significant number of criteria. Checklists allow assessors to simply follow along, checking for the presence of each component.
In order to replicate the sense of a carefully formatted structure with the same learning outcome, the checklist below is envisioned for a presentation with the expected criteria appearing in a predetermined order.
| Introduction | |
| Consideration of context | |
| Consideration of student assumptions of topic | |
| Awareness of the student's perspective | |
| Historiography | |
| Consideration of opposing viewpoints | |
| Evaluation of evidence found in secondary literature | |
| Argument | |
| Awareness of the limitations of student's own research | |
| Consideration of multiple causes | |
| Use of contradictory evidence in support of thesis | |
| Conclusion | |
| Rejection of simplistic explanations | |
Other Options
Rubrics of various formats, rating scales, and checklists are by no means the only types of evaluation tools available, although they are the most commonly used. Other alternatives, depending on the type of assignment, include, but are not limited to:
- Answer keys, in this case specific test questions and answers accompanied by a description of how a student's potential answers demonstrate achievement of the learning outcome;
- Staged rubrics, which break down assignments into their scaffolded parts (i.e. drafts, project + presentation, etc.); and,
- Structured observation guides, which describe criteria for assignments that require observations for assessment, like class participation.
- Standardized exams, which can also provide comparisons with peer institutions and national results.
Please do not hesitate to contact Gareth Cordery (Gareth.JE.Cordery@Dartmouth.edu) if you have any questions about alternative approaches, including different assessment techniques already used in your program.