This article looks at the concept of the instructional rubric as a nonformal evaluation tool. The premise is that educators can obtain evaluation information on short-term programs where formal evaluation design is not desired. Examples of instructional rubrics are given for 4-H, agriculture, and family and consumer science. In addition to the rubric itself, there are implications for educator intervention and retooling the experience

Maxa, Ed

Schwab, Carol

Yoder, Mike

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

The Journal of Extension Volume 40 Number 3 Article 23 6-1-2002 Use of Instructional Rubrics in Cooperative Extension Programming Ed Maxa North Carolina State University, ed_maxa@ncsu.edu Carol Schwab North Carolina State University, carol_schwab@ncsu.edu Mike Yoder North Carolina State University, mike_yoder@ncsu.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Maxa, E., Schwab, C., & Yoder, M. (2002). Use of Instructional Rubrics in Cooperative Extension Programming. The Journal of Extension, 40(3), Article 23. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol40/iss3/23 This Tools of the Trade is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. 	 JOEHOME JOURNAL GUIDELINES ABOUT	JOE CONTACT NATIONAL	JOB	BANKCurrent	Issues Back	IssuesJune	2002	//	Volume	40	//	Number	3	//	Tools	of	the	Trade	//	3TOT2Use	of	Instructional	Rubrics	in	Cooperative	ExtensionProgrammingAbstractThis	article	looks	at	the	concept	of	the	instructional	rubric	as	a	nonformal	evaluation	tool.	Thepremise	is	that	educators	can	obtain	evaluation	information	on	short-term	programs	whereformal	evaluation	design	is	not	desired.	Examples	of	instructional	rubrics	are	given	for	4-H,agriculture,	and	family	and	consumer	science.	In	addition	to	the	rubric	itself,	there	areimplications	for	educator	intervention	and	retooling	the	experience.	IntroductionTo	Extension	educators,	evaluation	is	synonymous	with	terms	such	as	"significant	differences,""knowledge	gained,"	and	"cost/benefit	analysis."		Another	term	that	should	become	part	of	theExtension	educator's	vocabulary	is	"instructional	rubric."			Instructional	rubrics	are	assessmentmethods	that	are	useful	for	everyone	involved	in	the	learning	process.	(Phifer	&	Nixon,	1998).A	rubric	is	represented	as	an	evaluation	instrument	that	contains	identified	criteria	down	itsvertical	axis	and	gradations	of	quality	across	the	horizontal	axis.	In	most	cases,	rubrics	are	measures	of	the	degree	of	excellence	achieved	by	participants	against	pre-determined	criteria.Instructional	rubrics	provide	a	means	of	measuring	progress	while	the	learner	is	participating	inthe	experience	and	provide	a	more	positive	learning	experience	than	post-experience	evaluations(Andrade,	1999).Rubrics	have	been	shown	to	be	effective	instruments	of	assessment	in	art	(Huffman,	1998),science	education	(Luft,	1997),	lab	investigations	(Eyster,	1997),	and	in	specific	scientific	concepts(Jensen,	1995).	Researchers	such	as	Luft	(1997)	advocate	the	general	use	of	rubrics	in	thefacilitation	and	implementation	of	the	National	Science	Education	Standards	with	regard	to	scienceas	inquiry.	Others,	such	as	Popham	(1997),	believe	the	rubrics	are	instructionally	fraudulent	andthat	problems	can	arise	when	rubrics	are	too	task	specific,	general,	or	lengthy	and	confuse	the	skilltested	with	the	skill	itself.Used	wisely,	however,	rubrics	facilitate	learners	to	see	themselves	in	positive	ways	whilecontinuing	toward	their	goals	(Phifer	&	Nixon,	1998).	Rubrics	can	help	learners	(youth	and	adult)evaluate	themselves	while	giving	the	educator	insight	into	additional	teachable	moments.	DiscussionEd	MaxaAssociate	ProfessorInternet	Address:	ed_maxa@ncsu.eduCarol	SchwabProfessorInternet	Address:	carol_scwab@ncsu.eduMike	YoderYouth	Livestock	DirectorInternet	Address:	mike_yoder@ncsu.eduNorth	Carolina	State	UniversityRaleigh,	North	CarolinaWhen	participant's	responses	are	constructed	in	the	form	of	a	rubric,	children	and	youth	will	knowwhat	success	looks	like	before	engaging	in	the	activity.	Because	the	participant	has	a	voice	indetermining	the	goals	and	success	of	the	project,	it	is	a	�negotiated	rubric."	Assume	a	12-year-old	who	is	learning	to	use	tools	correctly	in	the	woodworking	curriculum,	andassume	she	is	to	build	a	birdhouse.	Table	1	is	an	instructional	rubric.	Notice	the	criteria	listedvertically	and	the	quality	gradient	listed	as	levels	horizontally.	The	criteria	represent	those	tasksthat	must	be	accomplished	if	the	outcome	is	to	be	obtained.	The	quality	gradients	represent	levelsof	proficiency	that	can	be	either	independent	or	dependent.	For	instance,	drilling	the	hole	for	thebird	entrance	is	not	dependent	upon	any	other	criteria;	however,	both	measuring	and	sawingaffect	the	tightness	of	joints.Table	1.Instructional	Rubric	for	Assessing	Woodworking	Knowledge	Quality	Gradient	----------------------------------------->CriteriaMasterCraftsman Carpenter Apprentice BeginnerHammer -	Joints	are	tight-	No	hammermarks-	No	nailsshowing-	Joints	holdtogether-	Some	hammermarks-	Nails	not	set-	Some	jointsloose-	Many	hammermarks-	Few	nailsprotruding-	Most	jointsloose-	Gouges	in	wood-	Wood	split	bynails	in	manyplacesSaw -	Cuts	are	straight-	Cuts	aresmooth-	Cuts	are	evenMost	cuts	arestraight,	smooth,evenSome	cuts	arestraight,	smooth,evenNo	cuts	arestraight,	smooth,or	evenMeasure MeasurementsflushMeasurementswithin	1/16thMeasurementswithin	1/8thMeasurementswithin	1/4thDrill Holes	correctsize,	smooth	andin	proper	locationHoles	nearly	theright	size,	slightlyrough,	andnearly	in	theright	placeHoles	not	theright	size,	veryrough	or	in	thewrong	placeHoles	not	madeThis	instructional	rubric	encourages	the	12-year-old	to	assess	her	progress	toward	the	level	ofproficiency	she	desires.	The	participant	can	then	change	the	quality	gradient,	based	upon	herexperience,	making	it	more	or	less	challenging.	This	is	important	with	youth	and	adult	audiences,because	often	they	want	immediate	perfection	that	is	beyond	their	present	capabilities.	The	aboverubric	may	be	beyond	the	capabilities	of	most	12-year-olds,	but	just	right	for	a	15-year-old	who	hasdone	some	woodworking.The	rubric	provides	for	helper	intervention	in	an	unobtrusive	manner,	providing	support	basedupon	an	agreed	set	of	quality	standards	and	criteria,	which	are	designed	to	assist	participants	asthey	work	through	the	activity.	By	using	the	rubric,	we	offer	participants	a	platform	on	which	tobuild	their	skills.In	Tables	2	and	3,	we	look	at	programs	in	Agriculture	and	Family	and	Consumer	Sciences	that	alsoemploy	this	type	of	self-assessment	instrument.	These	should	be	of	significant	interest	tocolleagues	in	adult	programming	because	often	they	present	information	in	a	single	session	withno	formal	follow-up.	Yet	it	is	still	important	that	the	people	served	feel	that	they	have	somemethod	to	measure	what	they	have	learned.Table	2.Instructional	Rubric	for	Setting	up	a	Cattle	Handling	Facility	 Quality	Gradient	-------------------------------------->Criteria Level	1 Level	2 Level	3 Level	4Safer	for	workers Includes	gates,walk-ways,	andequipment	thatminimizes	therisk	of	injury	toworkersIncludes	gates,walk-ways	andequipment	thatprovidemoderate	risk	ofinjury	to	workersIncludes	gates,walkways	thatprovide	littleprotection	frominjury	to	workersLacks	acombination	ofgates,	walk-waysand	equipmentto	enhanceworker	safetyReduces	injuryand	stress	tocattle-	Cattle	easilymove	throughthe	chutes	withminimalstimulation.	-	Difficult	forcattle	to	injureddue	to	qualitydesign	andconstruction.-	Cattle	requiremoderatestimulation	tomove	throughthe	chutes.	-	Moderatechance	of	injurydue	to	qualitydesign	andconstruction.-	Cattle	requirefrequentstimulation	tomove.	-	Moderately	highchance	of	injurydue	to	quality	ofdesign	andconstruction.-	Cattlefrequently	placedin	unsafeposition	due	tothe	poor	qualityof	design	andconstruction.	-	Cattle	must	beprodded	throughthe	chutes.Reduces	labor Reduces	laborneeds	by	50%	ormore.Reduces	laborneeds	by	25%	ormore.Labor	needed	towork	cattle	ismoderately	highand	expensiveLabor	needed	towork	cattle	isextensive	andcostlySaves	time Number	of	cattleworked	per	houris	maximizedNumber	of	cattleworked	per	houris	acceptable.Number	of	cattleworked	per	houris	less	thandesiredNumber	of	cattleworked	per	houris	unacceptableand	costlyTable	is	not	meant	to	be	inclusive,	and	other	criteria	may	be	added	or	deleted	to	fitprogram	needs.Producers	using	this	rubric	will	be	able	to	assess	the	differences	that	are	found	in	cattle-handlingfacilities	and	make	decisions	about	which	system	best	suits	their	needs.	Remember	that	costs	arenot	one	of	the	criteria,	but	are	implied	in	the	rubric.	Facility/material	costs	may	decrease,	but	laborand	probably	maintenance	costs	will	increase	as	you	move	from	left	to	right.Table	3	is	an	instructional	rubric	for	end-of-life	preparation.	Many	people	find	this	issueoverwhelming	because	of	its	complexity.	Breaking	the	process	down	into	clearly	identifiable	stepshelps	the	participant	measure	what	has	been	accomplished	and	how	much	is	left	to	do.Table	3.Instructional	Rubric	for	End-of-Life	Preparation	Quality	Gradient	--------------------------------------->Criteria Level	1 Level	2 Level	3 Level	4Possible	FutureDisability(Durable	powerof	attorneytrusts,	living	will,health	carepower	ofattorney,	bank	orgovernmentforms,	etc.)-	Appropriatelegal	documentsare	executed,and	originals	arestored	in	a	safeplace.	-	Agent(s)	and/ortrustee(s)	arenotified	andgiven	copies	andlocation	oforiginals.-	Attorney	iscontacted	andretained.	-	Options	areexplored	withattorney.	Finaldecisions	aremade.	-	Documents	arereviewed	andclarified.-	Educatedthrough	self-study	andseminars.	-	Issues	andwishes	arediscussed	withfamily	andagent(s)	and/ortrustee(s).	-	Options	areexplored,	andpreliminarydecisions	aremade.-	Awareness	ofissues,	but	noaction	is	taken.	-	Wishes	areunknown.LivingArrangements(Home	care,assisted	livingfacilities,	nursinghomes,	etc.)Arrangementsare	made,	andpayment	plan	isin	place.**-	Different	typesof	facilities	arevisited	andcompared.	-	Financialsituation	is-	Options	areexplored	anddiscussed	withfamily.	-	Wishes	aremade	known.-	Awareness	ofissues,	but	noaction	is	taken.	-	Wishes	areunknown.reviewed	andnecessaryadjustments	aremade.	-	Realisticoptions	arediscussed	withfamily,	andpreferences	arestated.Will,	trust(s),	andothertestamentarydocuments,	suchas	a	letter	of	lastinstruction	or	amemorandumdisposing	ofselected	items	ofpersonalproperty-	Appropriatelegal	documentsare	executed,and	originals	arestored	in	a	safeplace.	-	Executor(s),guardian(s),trustee(s)	andother	fiduciaries*are	notified	and,if	appropriate,given	copies	andlocation	oforiginals.-	Necessaryinformation	isgathered.-	Attorney	iscontacted	andretained.	-	Options	areexplored	withattorney.	-	Final	decisionsare	made.	-	Documents	arereviewed	andclarified.	-	Educatedthrough	self-study	andseminars.	-	Issues	arediscussed	withfamily	andproposedfiduciaries.	-	Options	areexplored,	andpreliminarydecisions	aremade.-	Awareness	ofissues,	but	noaction	is	taken.	-	Wishes	areunknown.Funeral -	Arrangementsare	made	forburial,	cremationor	memorialservices.	-	Services	arepre-paid-	Specific	funeraland	burialservice	providersare	contacted.	-	Options	areexplored	withprofessionals.	-	Final	decisionsare	made.	-	Contracts	forservices	and/orburial	plot	arereviewed	andclarified.-	Options	areexplored.	-	Funeral	andburial	servicesare	compared.	-	Issues	arediscussed	withfamily,	andwishes	are	madeknown.-	Awareness	ofissues,	but	noaction	is	taken.	-	Wishes	areunknown.Death -	Organ	donationcard	is	executed.-	Wishes	aremade	known	tofamily	and	healthcare	providers.Driver's	licenseindicates	desireto	be	organdonor.Options	areexplored,	andissues	arediscussed	withfamily.Wishes	areunknown.*	The	term	"fiduciary"	is	used	to	describe	someone	who	holds	a	position	of	trust,	such	asan	executor,	a	trustee,	a	guardian,	a	health	care	agent,	an	attorney-in-fact,	etc.**	Optimally,	participants	will	not	reach	Level	4	because	they	will	be	able	to	maintainindependent	living	until	the	end	of	their	lives.An	Extension	educator's	role	normally	ends	at	Level	3,	but	that	role	is	critical	to	help	theparticipant	progress	to	higher	levels.	Educational	materials	that	have	been	developed	by	Extensioneducators	include:Planning	Your	Estate	Web	site,	http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/estates/,	developed	by	theNorth	Carolina	Cooperative	Extension	Service;Who	Gets	Grandma's	Yellow	Pie	Plate:	™Transferring	Non-titled	Property,	developed	by	theUniversity	of	Minnesota	Extension	Service	(order@extension.umn.edu);Griefwork:	Guides	for	Survival	and	Growth,	developed	by	the	Kentucky	Cooperative	ExtensionService	(fax:	606.257.1512);	andEstate	Planning	MontGuides,	developed	by	the	Montana	Cooperative	Extension	Service,http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/pubs/index.html.ImplicationsThese	examples	show	that	regardless	of	subject	matter,	instructional	rubrics	have	a	place	inhelping	the	program	participant	determine	their	level	of	current	knowledge	or	readiness	and	whatis	required	to	increase	their	knowledge	or	readiness.	For	Extension	professionals,	it	revealsopportunities	for	program	improvement,	and	it	outlines	areas	for	additional	teaching	interventions.ReferencesAndrade,	H.	G.	(1999).	Using	rubrics	to	promote	thinking	and	learning.	Educational	Leadership.	57,5.Eyster,	L.	A.	(1997).	Comprehensive	rubric.	Science	Teacher.	64,	9.Huffman,	E.	S.	(1998).	Authentic	rubrics.	Art	Education.	51,	1.Jensen,	K.	(1995).	Effective	rubric	design:	Making	the	most	of	this	powerful	assessment	tool.Science	Teacher.	62,	5.Luft,	J.	(1997).	Design	your	own	rubric.	Science	Scope.	20,	5.Phifer,	S.	J.,	&	J.	A.	Nixon.	(1998).	Rubrics:	A	handbook	for	construction	and	use.	TechnomicPublishing	Co.,	Lancaster,	PA,	(pp.	53).Popham,	W.	J.	(1997).	Educational	Leadership,	55,		2.Copyright	©	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Articles	appearing	in	the	Journal	become	the	property	of	theJournal.	 Single	 copies	 of	 articles	 may	 be	 reproduced	 in	 electronic	 or	 print	 form	 for	 use	 in	 educational	 or	 trainingactivities.	Inclusion	of	articles	in	other	publications,	electronic	sources,	or	systematic	large-scale	distribution	may	bedone	only	with	prior	electronic	or	written	permission	of	the	Journal	Editorial	Office,	joe-ed@joe.org.If	you	have	difficulties	viewing	or	printing	this	page,	please	contact	JOE	Technical	Support©	Copyright	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Copyright	Policy

Use of Instructional Rubrics in Cooperative Extension Programming

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5166&context=joe

Use of Instructional Rubrics in Cooperative Extension Programming

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints