Scoring rubrics may be designed for the evaluation of a specific task or the evaluation of a broader category of tasks. If the purpose of a given course is to develop a student's oral communication skills, a general scoring rubric may be developed and used to evaluate each of the oral presentations given by that student. This approach would allow the students to use the feedback that they acquired from the last presentation to improve their performance on the next presentation. If each oral presentation focuses upon a different historical event and the purpose of the assessment is to evaluate the students' knowledge of the given event, a general scoring rubric for evaluating a sequence of presentations may not be adequate. Historical events differ in both influencing factors and outcomes. In order to evaluate the students' factual and conceptual knowledge of these events, it may be necessary to develop separate scoring rubrics for each presentation. A "Task Specific" scoring rubric is designed to evaluate student performances on a single assessment event. Scoring rubrics may be designed to contain both general and task specific components. If the purpose of a presentation is to evaluate students' oral presentation skills and their knowledge of the historical event that is being discussed, an analytic rubric could be used that contains both a general component and a task specific component. The oral component of the rubric may consist of a general set of criteria developed for the evaluation of oral presentations; the task specific component of the rubric may contain a set of criteria developed with the specific historical event in mind. Generic rubrics can be applied to a number of different tasks. In language assessment, one frequently finds generic rubrics used with assessment tasks within a modality (generally writing and speaking) or mode (interpersonal and presentational). A truly generic rubric could be applied to any task within the same modality or mode.
The dimensions in a generic rubric for second -language assessment often emphasize features of language production, such as comprehensibility, accuracy, and vocabulary, without making reference to specific content or task details. Generic rubrics are often derived from models of language proficiency and/or second language acquisition. Figure 1shows a sample generic, analytic anal ytic rubric for oral presentations (presentational mode) for Intermediate level learners adapted from the ACTFL the ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners (K-12 Guidelines). Guidelines). This example reflects a focus onfeatures of second-language production, but additional dimensions might be included in order to measure such aspects of oral presentation as conten t coverage, organization, connection with audience, elocution, use of graphics, and so on.
The terminology in Figure 1 is accessible to language-teaching professionals, but it may not provide meaningful feedback to learners. Large-scale and external assessments for purposes such as certification, placement, articulation, and program evaluation often u se generic scales that contain a high degree of professional language and require modification for classroom use. A high school French teacher who commented on the rubric in Figure 1 indicated that, for classroom use, he prefers a rubric with short descriptors that he can take in at a glance and that serve primarily to refresh his memory of what performance is like at each step on the scale. Because he has only a few seconds to evaluate each student, and because he wants to spend as little class time as possible explaining the terms in th e rubric to his students, hepreferes simple vocabulary that neither he nor his students must ponder (J. L. Roche, personal communication, October 22, 2002). Figure 2 presents an adaptation of the oral presentation generic rubric for classroom use. It is certainly most efficient to design or identify rubrics that can b e used for multiple purposes, but when weighing the use of generic versus task-based rubrics, efficiency is not the only important criterion. Tedick (2002) writes: "While some rubrics are created in such a wa y as to be generic in scope for use with any number of writing or speaking tasks, it is best to consider the task first and make sure that the rubric represents a good fit with the task and your instructional objectives. Just as a variety of task-types should be used in language classrooms, so should a variety of rubrics and checklists be used for assessing performance on those tasks" (p. 37). For learners who are new to performance assessment and evaluation, Tedick recommends making students comfortable with the process by first using generic rubrics and g radually introducing task-specific rubrics. Task-specific rubrics are used with particular tasks, and their criteria and d escriptors reflect specific features of the elicited performance. Rubrics developed for a defined group of tasks within a modality or mode, such as writing narratives, performing role-plays, or exchanging e-mail messages may combine elements of language production with dimensions related to the content and language function(s) of the lesson/task.For example, if an assessment task requires learners to use a series of pictures to tella story in the past about a visit to monuments in Paris, the scoring criteria would focus on lan guage competencies related to narration in past tense alo ng with one or more dimensions measuring content and cultural knowledge. A possible rubric for this task is shown in Figure 3.
Rubrics that combine features of generic and task-specific rubrics are very useful in classroom assessment because they provide feedback to le arners on broad dimensions of language production along with their performance on the particular competencies and knowledge targeted by course content and aligned assessments. When adapting the rubrics for other tasks, teachers may keep the generic language production elements as they are and change one or two categories to focus on task expectations. For example, one might add level-appropriate, generic dimensions such as pronunciation or fluency to the task-specific categories of narration, use of past tense, and knowledge about monuments of Paris to the rubric in Figure 3.
