Article

An Effective Rubric Norming Process

---

Abstract

Within higher education, rubric use is expanding. Whereas some years ago the topic of rubrics may have been of interest only to faculty in colleges of education, in recent years the focus on teaching and learning and the emphasis from accrediting bodies has elevated the importance of rubrics across disciplines and different types of assessment. One of the key aspects to successful implementation of a shared rubric is the process known as norming, calibrating, or moderating rubrics, an oft-neglected area in rubric literature. Norming should be a collaborative process built around knowledge of the rubric and meaningful discussion leading to evidence-driven consensus, but actual examples of norming are rarely available to university faculty. This paper describes the steps involved in a successful consensus-driven norming process in higher education using one particular rubric, the Computing Professional Skills Assessment (CPSA). The steps are: 1) document preparation; 2) rubric review; 3) initial reading and scoring of one learning outcome; 4) initial sharing/recording of results; 5) initial consensus development and adjusting of results; 6) initial reading and scoring of remaining learning outcomes; 7) reading and scoring of remaining transcripts; 8) sharing/recording results; 9) development of consensus and adjusting of results. This norming process, though used for the CPSA, is transferable to other rubrics where faculty have come together to collaborate on grading a shared assignment. It is most appropriate for higher education where, more often than not, faculty independence requires consensus over directive. Accessed 1,689 times on https://pareonline.net from September 12, 2018 to December 31, 2019. For downloads from January 1, 2020 forward, please click on the PlumX Metrics link to the right.

Keywords: Test Construction, Academic Achievement

How to Cite:

Schoepp, K., Danaher, M. & Ater Kranov, A., (2018) “An Effective Rubric Norming Process”, Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 23(1): 11. doi: https://doi.org/10.7275/z3gm-fp34