Proficiency Scales and ~ Rubrics in Action The genius of rubrics is that they are descriptive and not evalu- ative. OF course, rubrics can be used to evaluate, but the oper ating principle is you match the performance to the deseriotion rather than ‘Judge" it Susan M, Brookhart general, success criteria describe qualities of exémplary works the-more direct expression of criteria comes through’ rubrics and scales, solidifyinig cvieeria as a navural progression of sophistication {Andrade scales and rubrics in a variety of fortnass, the fundamental purposeis.to miake’perfor- ‘mance criteria eransparent and aceessible: subrics work together in tandems, with the rubric providing a more narrow and detailed: view oF success wich a particular standard or skill, and the proficiency scale providing mote holisticoverarching view. Moving From Rationale to Action: Scales and rubrics are similar in that both attempt to ¢téate a continuum that articulates distinct levels of knowledge and skill rélative to 2 specific topic (Marzano, 2010). Operationally, however, there are differences that emerge in that scales are often number based (from 0 to 4, for example), whereas rubrics tend to use a descrip- tive scale (from novice to exemplary, for example). Both scales and rubrics create a progression of quality (from the simplest to che most sophisticated),‘The advantage of both scales and rubrics is that the energy and focus of instruction is on the intended earning rather than the specific task at band; this may be the most important aspect of scales and rubrics because they create a cohesive pathway that transforms a series of (what can appear to be) random assignments into a purposeful progression of learning, The Research ‘The research we explore in the following sections focuses on making criteria ‘wansparent, interpreting accurately, using student-fiendly language, moving from simple to sophisticated, choosing a format, and deciding between general and task- specific criteria. Making Criteria Transparent ‘When teachers make learning goals and success criteria transparent in an orga- nized, clear, and cohesive way, iti fat more possible that students will fully invest in the assessment process (Andrade, 2013; Vagle, 2014). Transparent success crite- tia in the form of @ scale or rubric make it easier for students to see where they ate headed and are essential to maximizing the self and peer assessment processes we discussed in chapter 6 (page 109). Provided the success eriteria are not trivial of tangential, transparency pulls back the curtain not only on what teachers expect of students in terms of their performances, but reveals specifically how teachers will judge those performances, Scales and rubrics are technically the same ching in that both attempt to create a continuum that articulates distinct levels of knowledge and skill relative to a specific topic (Marzano, 2010). David Balch, Robert Blanck, and David Howard Balch (2016) describe a rubric as a “visual narrative ofthe criteria that defines and describes the important components of an assignment. The criteria are stated in several levels of competence; from not meeting the requi git’ (p. 20). Operationally, however, there are differences that emerge in that scales also called holistic rubtics) are ‘often number based (such as 0 0 4), whereas rubries (also called analytic rubrics) tend 10 use a descriptive sale (uch as novice to exemplary), Both scales and rubrics create 4 progression of quality, from the simplest to the most sophisticated, so students and parents can clearly see what it takes to reach the next level, Interpreting Accurately Clearly articulated criteria are also essential for teachers, Within a critetion- referenced, standards-based learning environment, it is necessary that teachers haveFFOLLELE OFT of f Proficiency Scales and Rubrics in Action {or develop) the confidence thar the judgments they're making about students’ per- formances are similar to the judgments « colleagues would make (Guskey & Jung, 2016). While this consistency in applying success criteria (inter-rater reliability) takes time to develop, itis importanc because so many standards require teachers to infer quality. There is, for example, no completely objective way to assess argumen- tative writing, ‘There are aspects of quality, but success is a mace of interpretation in which che teacher has to match the quality of the writing to the specific evel of qualities the criteria oudline. ‘The research is mixed on whether teachers in general are skilled at accuracely summarizing student achievement. Some claim that teachers are the best sources for judging student performances because they have more experience with thelr students (Meisels, Bickel, Nicholson, Xue, & Atkins-Burnett, 2001); however, others claim that an inability co distinguish between student achievement and student traits can cloud teacher judgments (Moss, 2013), especially when teachers are assessing students with diverse backgrounds (Martinez & Mastetgeorge, 2002; Tiedemann, 2002). If the former is true, rubrics and scales will only strengthen that skills if the latter is true, then rubrics and scales are necessary to ensure achievement and traits do not intetmingle in the assessment process. According to Catherine Welch (2006), reliable scoring rubrics must meet the following five characteristics 1. Be consistent wich the decisions and inferences teachers make with the results. 2. Define the characteristics of the response that teachers will evaluate along a continuum. 3. Convey performance criteria in an understandable way. 4, Use tems that elicit a range of performance 5. Align wich the content standards that teachers are assessing. While rubrics and scales appear in a variety of structural formats, the reliabilicy of the scoring inferences derived from the rubric or scale is a non-negotiable feature (Parkes, 2013). Using Student-Friendly Language Rubrics and scales provide leasnets with @ natural progression of qualicy chat runs feom the simplest co the most sophisticated. Teachers can create as many levels as they choose, provided they can describe the differences in quality between the level. Labeling the levels is the easy part; describing them is much tougher, For example, ies easy to label ewelve levels on a scale: 44, 4, 4- 34, 3, 3-, and so on, Is much 167