Performance Task Rubric

INTRO-DUCTION

(Section I)

Minimal or no context given for the report

Outlines the situation in terms of information given on assignment sheet.

Uses the information on the assignment to pose one or more problems or questions that the report will address

Clearly connects the situation described in the assignment sheet to larger issues connected to implementation of Common Core Standards, student achievement, and teacher accountability.

Part A

Explanation

(Section II)

Part B

Does not include all 3 frameworks—Literacy, Backwards Design, Differentiation

Or

Simply describes each framework or inaccurately explains one or more framework

Or

Does not use the conceptual terminology of the frameworks, or does so inaccurately

Accurately explains all 3 frameworks in terms of their relevant principles;

But

Connects frameworks and unit plan inaccurately or vaguely;

Or

Uses the conceptual terminology, but does so unevenly, such that important terms are defined incorrectly or used inaccurately;

Or

Relies mostly on quotation to explain principal concepts

Accurately explains all 3 frameworks in terms of their relevant principles;

Accurately connects frameworks and unit plan;

Explains the principal concepts of the frameworks authoritatively, using summary, paraphrase, or quotation to support the point being made.

Accurately explains all 3 frameworks in terms of their relevant principles;

Connects frameworks and unit plan to reveal sophisticated, complex, even surprising relationships between the two;

Clearly in command of the conceptual terminology used to support points being made.

Does not draw any conclusion;

Or

Does not relate to analysis;

Or

Is unsupported by evidence;

Connects to the analysis vaguely or incompletely;

Is supported by evidence from the analysis;

Takes the form of a kind of list, e.g., of pro’s and con’s;

Or

Offers simplistic conclusions, e.g., straight up or down, clichés or truisms

Clearly connects to the analysis;

Evidence is clear and solid;

Conclusions clearly compare and contrast costs and benefits

Clearly connects to and follows from the analysis;

The line of reasoning underlying the evidence is clear;

Conclusions synthesize costs and benefits so that reader understands why the benefits are, or are not, worth the costs.

TOTAL

Established Goals (EG)

and Deep Understandings (DU)

No standards stated, only numbered; or a laundry list of standards or

No DU stated, stated as phrases, or are not related to EG clearly,  or a laundry list of statements, most of which are lower level concepts, information, or skills;

Standards are stated but either they are not clearly related to each other or they include extraneous Standards.

DU’s are written as statements but demonstrate some confusion between DU (principles) and knowledge and skills.

Or

DU is a vague “truism,” without transfer value.

Explicit Standards are clearly related to each other.

Clear statements of  DU that are complex and/or often misunderstood by novices;

Statements have “transfer” utility—they can be used to address more than one or two problems in the field or discipline

Explicit Standards are clearly related to each other.

Clear statements of DU make use of the “recurring” big ideas in the field of study. They are complex and/or often misunderstood by novices.

Statements have substantial “transfer” utility—they can be used to address a wide variety of  problems in the field or discipline.

Essential Questions (EQ)

No EQ; laundry list; or EQ has an obvious answer and/or raises no real issue, or puzzle

EQ’s pose a problem or puzzle, but pose a superficial problem that requires little use of “one or more of the six facets of understanding” to address.

Or

The wording of EQ’s is biased towards a particular answer

Or

The large number of EQ’s included dilutes the focus of the puzzle.

EQ’s pose a complex problem or puzzle that requires use of one or more of the “six facets of understanding” to address.

The wording of the EQ’s clearly allows for more than one solution. However, the range of possible solutions may be unduly limited, e.g., pro or con.  

EQ’s pose a complex problem or puzzle that require use of one or more of the “six facets of understanding” to address

The wording of the EQ’s makes the nature of the problem or puzzle very clear.

 The EQ’s clearly allow for multiple solutions or a range of solutions.

Knowledge and Skills (KS)

No KS; laundry list;

KS are clearly related to each other. They are the necessary knowledge and skills required, but not sufficient to complete the performance task (APT). Or, some knowledge and skills are irrelevant to the focus of the unit.

KS are clearly related to each other and are nearly complete—these are most of the facts and skills needed for the unit. Unnecessary or irrelevant  KS are not included.

KS are clearly related to each other and are complete—these are the facts and skills needed to address the EQ  and develop the DU

Authentic Performance Task (APT) and Assessment Rubric

No APT; no rubric; task does not use GRASPS framework

APT and rubric are included;

the task uses most or all elements of GRASPS  framework ;

But

The task is superficial, inauthentic, or more glitz than substance.

Or

The rubric describes levels of performance vaguely,

Or

omits criteria identified in the APT

Or

The APT is not written directly to students, using language that is not engaging or does not “hook” learners.

APT and rubric are included,

The task uses all elements of the GRASPS  framework.

The task tries to  simulate  a “real-world” situation in which learners must apply the expertise of professionals to complete the task.

The task is connected to one or more of the 6 facets of understanding.

The APT is written directly to students,

But

uses language that is not engaging or does not “hook” learners.

Or

The rubric criteria at best describe vaguely the level of performance expected

APT and rubric are included;

The task uses all elements of GRASPS  framework.

It clearly simulates  a “real-world” situation in which learners must apply the expertise of professionals to complete.

Learning Plan Activities

(LP)

The steps in the plan look more like the steps in traditional lessons consisting mostly of lecture or whole-class discussion.

Little or no use of small-group work or literacy activities.

Or

Steps include little or no formative assessment

Or

little or no differentiation

Steps still rely heavily lecture or whole-class discussion, but do include some small-group work and literacy activities.

Some formative assessment and differentiation occur during the steps.

But

Formative assessments or differentiation occur sporadically

Or

only vaguely relate to academic or social makeup of class or to needs of students with IEP’s

Or

relate to only some students’ needs rather than reach out to the class as a whole. For instance, activities actually consider only struggling readers instead of  the whole class .

Steps in the plan include literacy and small-group activities to scaffold student learning.

Formative assessments and differentiation occur regularly

And

target the needs of most learners

But

they do not the make use of funds of knowledge possessed by students in this class as resources for learning.

Steps in the plan systematically integrate literacy and small-group activities that clearly scaffold student learning.

Formative assessment and differentiation occur systematically throughout the plan.

And

clearly target the academic needs of learners in the class, including learners with IEP’s, when appropriate.

And

activities and assessments clearly make use of funds of knowledge possessed by students in this class as resources for learning.

Total