The Implementation of Different Types of Rubrics in a Hong Kong Secondary School

Ho Shing Chu

Abstract


Rubrics were traditionally a perfect choice for assessing performance. Yet, most rubrics and previous research only focused on its traditional summative aspect, limiting its functions, or even leading to some inappropriate usage or misconception of using rubrics. As formative assessment was found to favor low-achieving students, it has become increasingly popular that rubrics can also be used for formative use and help reduce learning diversity. In this study, different types of rubrics in a Hong Kong Secondary School were investigated, which has been a popular tool that has been widely used among various subjects as an assessment tool. The classification of the rubrics based on different learning areas unveiled that distinct learning areas tended to use heterogeneous rubrics, so the implementation and learning outcomes were then reviewed. It was also noted that a rubric was used for formative assessment in a newly developed STEM curriculum, hence the effectiveness was examined. 


Keywords


rubrics; formative assessment; secondary education; learning

Full Text:

PDF

References


Andrade, H. L. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: Academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. In Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 90–105). Routledge.

Benson, S. K., Therrien, W. J., Lovette, G. E., Doabler, C., & Longhi, M. (2022). Rubrics: useful beyond assessments. Science and Children, 59(5), 52–56.

Bertolini, R., Finch, S. J., & Nehm, R. H. (2021). Testing the impact of novel assessment sources and machine learning methods on predictive outcome modeling in undergraduate biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(2), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09888-8

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.

Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Ascd.

Brookhart, S. M., & Nitko, A. J. (2008). Assessment and grading in classrooms. Pearson College Division.

de Boer, I., de Vegt, F., Pluk, H., & Latijnhouwers, M. (2021). Rubrics–a tool for feedback and assessment viewed from different perspectives.

Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538645

Fahrer, N. E. (2019). The Development and evaluation of rubrics used to assess the quality of pre-service teachers’ teaching practices in STEM education. North Carolina State University.

Halonen, J. S., Bosack, T., Clay, S., McCarthy, M., Dunn, D. S., Hill IV, G. W., McEntarffer, R., Mehrotra, C., Nesmith, R., & Weaver, K. A. (2003). A rubric for learning, teaching, and assessing scientific inquiry in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 30(3), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3003_01

Harwood, C. J., Hewett, S., & Towns, M. H. (2020). Rubrics for assessing hands-on laboratory skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(7), 2033–2035. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00200

Hasselquist, L., & Bertolini, K. (2018). Developing effective rubrics. NACTA Journal, 62(4), 379–380.

Heitink, M. C., van der Kleij, F. M., Veldkamp, B. P., Schildkamp, K., & Kippers, W. B. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.002

Menéndez-Varela, J.-L., & Gregori-Giralt, E. (2018). Rubrics for developing students’ professional judgement: A study of sustainable assessment in arts education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58, 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.06.001

Moss, C. M., & Brookhart, S. M. (2019). Advancing formative assessment in every classroom: A guide for instructional leaders. ASCD.

Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002

Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2020). A critical review of the arguments against the use of rubrics. Educational Research Review, 30, 100329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100329

Rouffet, C., van Beuningen, C., & de Graaff, R. (2022). Constructive alignment in foreign language curricula: an exploration of teaching and assessment practices in Dutch secondary education. The Language Learning Journal, inpress, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2025542

Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society, 97, 67–98.

Schamber, J. F., & Mahoney, S. L. (2006). Assessing and improving the quality of group critical thinking exhibited in the final projects of collaborative learning groups. The Journal of General Education, 55(2), 103–137. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2006.0025

Surahman, E., & Wang, T. H. (2022). Academic dishonesty and trustworthy assessment in online learning: a systematic literature review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, inpress. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12708

Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post‐secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education, 14(3), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701591867

Wallace, V. L., & Husid, W. N. (2011). Collaborating for inquiry-based learning: School librarians and teachers partner for student achievement. ABC-CLIO.

Zhang, H., Su, S., Zeng, Y., & Lam, J. F. I. (2022). An experimental study on the effectiveness of students’ learning in scientific courses through constructive alignment—a case study from an MIS course. Education Sciences, 12(5), 338. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050338

Zhang, W. (2021). Assessing english literacy in a digital age. In Assessing Digital Literacy (pp. 1–12). Springer.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/um031v9i22022p108

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Ho Shing Chu

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

=====================================================================

JINOTEP Indexed by:

      

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TOOLS:

   

_________________________________________________________________________________________

ARTICLE TEMPLATE:

 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

MEDIA PARTNER:

      

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CONFERENCE PARTNER:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jurnal Inovasi dan Teknologi Pembelajaran (JINOTEP) : Kajian dan Riset Dalam Teknologi Pembelajaran published by Department of Educational Technology, Faculty of Education, State University of Malang in collaboration with Indonesian Educational Technology Study Program Association (APS TPI).

Publisher Address:
Laboratorium Teknologi Pendidikan, Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan
Universitas Negeri Malang 
Jalan Semarang No. 5, Kel. Sumbersari, Kec. Lowokwaru
Kota Malang Jawa Timur Indonesia Kode Pos: 65145 Telepon: 0341-551334, Pst. 109
E-mail: jinotep.fip@um.ac.id (CP: 087821191948)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Jinotep Statistics (Since July 13th, 2020)

View My Stats