Authentic Assessment Project (Compensatory*) Rubric 



Criteria

Approximate
Weights

Less
than Adequate

Adequate

Very
Good

Excellent

Standards  

x3

Met the criteria less than 70% of the time  Approximately 7080% of the time the criteria are met  Approximately 8090% of the time the criteria are met 
With very few exceptions, standards



Met the criteria less than 70% of the time  Approximately 7080% of the time the criteria are met  Approximately 8090% of the time the criteria are met 
With very few exceptions, as a whole, standards

Authentic Tasks 

Less
than Adequate

Adequate

Very
Good

Excellent


x8

Met the criteria less than 70% of the time  Approximately 7080% of the time the criteria are met  Approximately 8090% of the time the criteria are met 
With very few exceptions, tasks


Met the criteria less than 70% of the time  Approximately 7080% of the time the criteria are met  Approximately 8090% of the time the criteria are met 
The formative tasks building towards the summative assessment




Met the criteria less than 70% of the time  Approximately 7080% of the time the criteria are met  Approximately 8090% of the time the criteria are met 
With very few exceptions, as a whole, tasks

Criteria 
x3

Met the criteria less than 70% of the time  Approximately 7080% of the time the criteria are met  Approximately 8090% of the time the criteria are met 
With very few exceptions, criteria


Less
than Adequate

Adequate

Very
Good

Excellent


Rubrics 
x6

Met the criteria less than 70% of the time  Approximately 7080% of the time the criteria are met  Approximately 8090% of the time the criteria are met 
With very few exceptions, rubrics

Traditional Assessments (optional) 

Less
than Adequate

Adequate

Very
Good

Excellent


Met the criteria less than 70% of the time  Approximately 7080% of the time the criteria are met  Approximately 8090% of the time the criteria are met 
With very few exceptions, items



Met the criteria less than 70% of the time  Approximately 7080% of the time the criteria are met  Approximately 8090% of the time the criteria are met 
With very few exceptions, the test


Portfolios
(optional)


Less
than Adequate

Adequate

Very
Good

Excellent



Not well identified  Fairly well identified  Clearly identified and worthwhile  


Met the criteria less than 70% of the time  Approximately 7080% of the time the criteria are met  Approximately 8090% of the time the criteria are met 
Required and/or optional contents are



Met the criteria less than 70% of the time  Approximately 7080% of the time the criteria are met  Approximately 8090% of the time the criteria are met 
With few exceptions, processes



Met the criteria less than 70% of the time  Approximately 7080% of the time the criteria are met  Approximately 8090% of the time the criteria are met 
Management of portfolio



Met the criteria less than 70% of the time  Approximately 7080% of the time the criteria are met  Approximately 8090% of the time the criteria are met 
Processes of communication and evaluation

Organization 

Not well organized  Fairly well organized  Project is put together in a coherent manner with sufficient context for audiences to make sense of individual components  

Less
than Adequate

Adequate

Very
Good

Excellent


Presentation 
x3




Not user friendly  Fairly user friendly  Audiences can easily navigate project to find and compare individual components  


Met the criteria less than 80% of the time  Approximately 8085% of the time the criteria are met  Approximately 8590% of the time the criteria are met 
With very few exceptions, text is

Scope of Project 
x8

Insufficient number and type of assessments for subject matter  7080% of number and type of assessments for subject matter  8090% of number and type of assessments for subject matter  Project contains a sufficient number and type of assessments for subject matter 
*Compensatory  Although the rubric contains approximate weights, there are no score values associated with each criterion because I intend to grade the project in a compensatory manner. That means that although one component of the project (e.g., rubrics) might be somewhat weak, another component (e.g., standards) might compensate for the weaker component because the stronger one is exceptionally strong. Or, the reverse may be true. Thus, I may adjust the weights given above depending upon the quality of each component to arrive at an overall score that best captures the overall quality of the project. **Meaningful  By meaningful, I mean that the tasks and standards should address the application of knowledge and skills that are essential to future learning and life. 