What is a Performance Task?

(Part 1)

Defined LearningFollow
Apr 11, 2015
A performance task is any learning activity or assessment that asks students to perform to
demonstrate their knowledge, understanding and proficiency. Performance tasks yield a tangible
product and/or performance that serve as evidence of learning. Unlike a selected-response item (e.g.,
multiple-choice or matching) that asks students to select from given alternatives, a performance task
presents a situation that calls for learners to apply their learning in context.

Performance tasks are routinely used in certain disciplines, such as visual and performing arts,
physical education, and career-technology where performance is the natural focus of instruction.
However, such tasks can (and should) be used in every subject area and at all grade levels.

Characteristics of Performance Tasks

While any performance by a learner might be considered a performance task (e.g., tying a shoe or
drawing a picture), it is useful to distinguish between the application of specific and discrete skills (e.g.,
dribbling a basketball) from genuine performance in context (e.g., playing the game of basketball in
which dribbling is one of many applied skills). Thus, when I use the term performance tasks, I am
referring to more complex and authentic performances.

Here are seven general characteristics of performance tasks:

1. Performance tasks call for the application of knowledge and skills, not just recall or recognition.

In other words, the learner must actually use their learning to perform. These tasks typically yield a
tangible product (e.g., graphic display, blog post) or performance (e.g., oral presentation, debate) that
serve as evidence of their understanding and proficiency.

2. Performance tasks are open-ended and typically do not yield a single, correct answer.

Unlike selected- or brief constructed- response items that seek a “right” answer, performance tasks are
open-ended. Thus, there can be different responses to the task that still meet success criteria. These
tasks are also open in terms of process; i.e., there is typically not a single way of accomplishing the
task.

3. Performance tasks establish novel and authentic contexts for performance.

These tasks present realistic conditions and constraints for students to navigate. For example, a
mathematics task would present students with a never-before-seen problem that cannot be solved by
simply “plugging in” numbers into a memorized algorithm. In an authentic task, students need to
consider goals, audience, obstacles, and options to achieve a successful product or performance.
Authentic tasks have a side benefit — they convey purpose and relevance to students, helping learners
see a reason for putting forth effort in preparing for them.

4. Performance tasks provide evidence of understanding via transfer.

Understanding is revealed when students can transfer their learning to new and “messy” situations.
Note that not all performances require transfer. For example, playing a musical instrument by following
the notes or conducting a step-by-step science lab require minimal transfer. In contrast, rich
performance tasks are open-ended and call “higher-order thinking” and the thoughtful application of
knowledge and skills in context, rather than a scripted or formulaic performance.

5. Performance tasks are multi-faceted.

Unlike traditional test “items” that typically assess a single skill or fact, performance tasks are more
complex. They involve multiple steps and thus can be used to assess several standards or outcomes.

6. Performance tasks can integrate two or more subjects as well as 21st century skills.

In the wider world beyond the school, most issues and problems do not present themselves neatly
within subject area “silos.” While performance tasks can certainly be content-specific (e.g.,
mathematics, science, social studies), they also provide a vehicle for integrating two or more subjects
and/or weaving in 21st century skills and Habits of Mind. One natural way of integrating subjects is to
include a reading, research, and/or communication component (e.g., writing, graphics, oral or
technology presentation) to tasks in content areas like social studies, science, health, business,
health/physical education. Such tasks encourage students to see meaningful learning as integrated,
rather than something that occurs in isolated subjects and segments.

7. Performances on open-ended tasks are evaluated with established criteria and rubrics.

Since these tasks do not yield a single answer, student products and performances should be judged
against appropriate criteria aligned to the goals being assessed. Clearly defined and aligned criteria
enable defensible, judgment-based evaluation. More detailed scoring rubrics, based on criteria, are
used to profile varying levels of understanding and proficiency.

Let’s look at a few examples of performance tasks that reflect these characteristics:

Botanical Design (upper elementary)

Your landscape architectural firm is competing for a grant to redesign a public space in your community
and to improve its appearance and utility. The goal of the grant is to create a community area where
people can gather to enjoy themselves and the native plants of the region. The grant also aspires to
educate people as to the types of trees, shrubs, and flowers that are native to the region.
Your team will be responsible for selecting a public place in your area that you can improve for visitors
and members of the community. You will have to research the area selected, create a scale drawing of
the layout of the area you plan to redesign, propose a new design to include native plants of your
region, and prepare educational materials that you will incorporate into the design.

Check out the full performance task from Defined STEM, here: Botanical Design Performance Task.
Defined STEM is an online resource where you can find hundreds of K-12 standards-aligned project
based performance tasks.

Evaluate the Claim (upper elementary/ middle school)

The Pooper Scooper Kitty Litter Company claims that their litter is 40% more absorbent than other
brands. You are a Consumer Advocates researcher who has been asked to evaluate their claim.
Develop a plan for conducting the investigation. Your plan should be specific enough so that the lab
investigators could follow it to evaluate the claim.

Moving to South America (middle school)

Since they know that you have just completed a unit on South America, your aunt and uncle have
asked you to help them decide where they should live when your aunt starts her new job as a
consultant to a computer company operating throughout the region. They can choose to live anywhere
in the continent.

Your task is to research potential home locations by examining relevant geographic, climatic, political,
economic, historic, and cultural considerations. Then, write a letter to your aunt and uncle with your
recommendation about a place for them to move. Be sure to explain your decision with reasons and
evidence from your research.
Accident Scene Investigation (high school)

You are a law enforcement officer who has been hired by the District Attorney’s Office to set-up an
accident scene investigation unit. Your first assignment is to work with a reporter from the local
newspaper to develop a series of information pieces to inform the community about the role and
benefits of applying forensic science to accident investigations.

Your team will share this information with the public through the various media resources owned and
operated by the newspaper.

Check out the full performance task from Defined STEM here: Accident Scene Investigation
Performance Task

In sum, performance tasks like these can be used to engage students in meaningful learning. Since
rich performance tasks establish authentic contexts that reflect genuine applications of knowledge,
students are often motivated and engaged by such “real world” challenges.

When used as assessments, performance tasks enable teachers to gauge student understanding and
proficiency with complex processes (e.g., research, problem solving, and writing), not just measure
discrete knowledge. They are well suited to integrating subject areas and linking content knowledge
with the 21st Century Skills such as critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, communication, and
technology use. Moreover, performance-based assessment can also elicit Habits of Mind, such as
precision and perseverance.

Why Should We Use Performance Tasks? (Part 2)

Defined LearningFollow
May 4, 2015
The case for the increased use of performance tasks rests on two foundational ideas: 1) Authentic
tasks are needed to both develop and assess many of the most significant outcomes identified in the
current sets of academic Standards as well as trans-disciplinary 21st Century Skills; and 2) Research
on effective learning from cognitive psychology and neuroscience underscores the importance of
providing students with multiple opportunities to apply their learning to relevant, real-world situations. In
this blog post, I will explore the first foundational idea. In blog post #3, I will examine ways in which the
use of authentic performance tasks contributes to deeper learning.

The New Standards Demand Performance

While any performance by a learner might be considered a performance task (e.g., tying a shoe or
drawing a picture), it is useful to distinguish between the application of specific and discrete skills (e.g.,
dribbling a basketball) from genuine performance in context (e.g., playing the game of basketball in
which dribbling is one of many applied skills). Thus, when I use the term performance tasks, I am
referring to more complex and authentic performances.

The most recent sets of academic standards in the U.S. — The Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
in English Language Arts and Mathematics , The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), The
College, Career and Citizenship Standards for Social Studies (C3) and The National Core Arts
Standards (NCAS) — call for educational outcomes that demand more than multiple-choice and short
answer assessments as evidence of their attainment. Rather than simply specifying a “scope and
sequence” of knowledge and skills, these new standards focus on the performances expected of
students who are prepared for higher education and careers. For example, the CCSS in English
Language Arts have been framed around a set of Anchor Standards that define the long-term
proficiencies that students will need to be considered “college and career ready.” The writers of the
E/LA Standards make this point unequivocally in their characterization of the performance capacities of
the literate individual:
“They demonstrate independence. Students can, without significant scaffolding, comprehend and
evaluate complex texts across a range of types and disciplines, and they can construct effective
arguments and convey intricate or multifaceted information… Students adapt their communication in
relation to audience, task, purpose, and discipline. Likewise, students are able independently to
discern a speaker’s key points, request clarification, and ask relevant questions… Without prompting,
they demonstrate command of standard English and acquire and use a wide-ranging vocabulary. More
broadly, they become self-directed learners, effectively seeking out and using resources to assist
them, including teachers, peers, and print and digital reference materials.” (CCSS for E/LA, p. 7)

The authors of the CCSS in Mathematics declare a shift away from a “mile wide, inch deep” listing of
discrete skills and concepts toward a greater emphasis on developing the mathematical Practices of
Problem Solving, Reasoning, Modeling, along with the mental habit of Perseverance. Similarly, the
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) have highlighted eight Practices, including Asking
Questions and Defining Problems and Analyzing and Interpreting Data. As noted in the opening pages,
these Practice are intended to actively engaging learners in “doing” science, not just memorizing facts:
“As in all inquiry-based approaches to science teaching, our expectation is that students will
themselves engage in the practices and not merely learn about them secondhand. Students cannot
comprehend scientific practices, nor fully appreciate the nature of scientific knowledge itself, without
directly experiencing those practices for themselves.
A graphic from the National Science Teachers Association depicts the commonalities among the
practices in Science, Mathematics and English Language Arts. Note that all of these reflect genuine
performances valued in the wider world

Available at http://nstahosted.org/pdfs/ngss/PracticesVennDiagram.pdf

In the same vein, the recently released College, Career and Citizenship (C3) Standards for Social
Studies highlight a set of fundamental performances that are central to an “arc of inquiry.” These
include, Developing Questions and Planning Inquiries, Gathering and Evaluating Sources, and Taking
Informed Action.

The pattern is clear: the current crop of academic Standards focus on developing transferable
processes (e.g., problem solving, argumentation, research, and critical thinking), not simply presenting
a body of factual knowledge for students to remember. A fundamental goal reflected in these
Standards is the preparation of learners who can perform with their knowledge.

Needed Shifts in Assessment

The new emphases of the Common Core and Next Generation Standards call for a concomitant shift in
assessments — both in large-scale and classroom levels. The widespread use of multiple-choice tests
as predominant measures of learning in many subject areas must give way to an expanded use of
performance assessments tasks that engage students in applying their learning in genuine contexts.
McTighe and Wiggins (2013) echo this point in a recent article, “From Common Core Standards to
Curriculum: Five Big Ideas” (available at http://jaymctighe.com/resources/articles/):
“This performance-based conception of Standards lies at the heart of what is needed to translate the
Common Core into a robust curriculum and assessment system. The curriculum and related instruction
must be designed backward from an analysis of standards-based assessments; i.e., worthy
performance tasks anchored by rigorous rubrics and annotated work samples. We predict that the
alternative — a curriculum mapped in a typical scope and sequence based on grade-level content
specifications — will encourage a curriculum of disconnected “coverage” and make it more likely that
people will simply retrofit the new language to the old way of doing business. Thus, our proposal
reflects the essence of backward design: Conceptualize and construct the curriculum back from
sophisticated tasks, reflecting the performances that the Common Core Standards demand of
graduates. Indeed, the whole point of Anchor Standards in ELA and the Practices in Mathematics is to
 establish the genres of performance (e.g., argumentation in writing and speaking, and solving
problems set in real-world contexts) that must recur across the grades in order to develop the
capacities needed for success in higher education and the workplace.”

In recognition of these points, the two national assessment consortia, Smarter Balanced (SBAC) and
the Partnership for Assessment and Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), have declared their
intent to expand their repertoire to include performance tasks on the next generation of standardized
tests. While it is encouraging to see changes in external testing, my contention is that the most natural
home for the increased use of performance assessments is in the classroom. Since teachers do not
face the same constraints as large-scale testing groups (e.g., standardized implementation, limited
time, scoring costs, etc.), they can more readily employ performance tasks along with traditional
assessment formats. Performance assessments such as writing an essay, solving a multi-step
problem, debating an issue, and conducting research and creating an informative website ask students
to demonstrate their learning through actual performance, not by simply selecting an answer from
given alternatives.

By recommending an increased use of performance tasks in the classroom, I certainly do not mean to
suggest that this is the only form of assessment that teachers should employ. Of course, teachers can
and should also use traditional measures such as selected-response and short-answer quizzes and
tests, skill checks, observations, and portfolios of student work when assessing their students. Here’s a
useful analogy: Think of classroom assessment as photography. Any single assessment is like a
snapshot in that it provides a picture of student learning at a moment in time. However, it would be
inappropriate to use one picture (a single assessment) as the sole basis for drawing conclusions about
how well a student has achieved desired learning outcomes. Instead, think of classroom assessment
as akin to the assembly of a photo album containing a variety of pictures taken at different times with
different lenses, backgrounds, and compositions. Such an album offers a richer, fairer and more
complete picture of student achievement than any single snapshot can provide. My point is that our
assessment photo album needs to include performance tasks that provide evidence of students’ ability
to apply their learning in authentic contexts.

21st Century Skills
In an era in which students can “google” much of the world’s knowledge on a smart phone, an
argument can be made that the outcomes of modern schooling should place a greater emphasis on

trans-disciplinary skills, such as critical thinking, collaboration, communicating using various

technologies, and learning to learn. In the paper, “21st Century Skills Assessment,” the Partnership for
21st Century Skills (2007) describes this need and the implication for assessments of students:

“While the current assessment landscape is replete with assessments that measure knowledge of core
content areas such as language arts, mathematics, science and social studies, there is a comparative
lack of assessments and analyses focused on 21st century skills. Current tests fall short in several key
ways:

 The tests are not designed to gauge how well students apply what they know to new situations
or evaluate how students might use technologies to solve problems or communicate ideas.

 While teachers and schools are being asked to modify their practice based on standardized
test data, the tests are not designed to help teachers make decisions about how to target their
daily instruction.

The Partnership proposes that needed assessments should “be largely performance-based and
authentic, calling upon students to use 21st century skills” (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007, p.
6). I agree!
The Current Assessment Landscape
Many current classroom- and school-level assessments focus on the most easily measured objectives.
The pressures of high-stakes accountability tests have exacerbated this tendency as teachers devote
valuable class time to “test prep” (at least in the tested subject areas) involving practice with multiple-
choice and brief constructed-response items that mimic the format of standardized tests. While
selected-response and short-answer assessments are fine for assessing discrete knowledge and skills,
they are incapable of providing evidence of the skills deemed most critical for the 21st century.

Dr. Linda Darling Hammond, a professor at Stanford University and authority on international education
and assessment practices, elaborates on this point (2013):

As educators, we know that today’s students will enter a workforce in which they will have to not only
acquire information, but also analyze, synthesize, and apply it to address new problems, design
solutions, collaborate effectively, and communicate persuasively. Few, if any, previous generations
have been asked to become such nimble thinkers. Educators accept the responsibility to prepare our
students for this new and complex world. We also know that in our current high-stakes context, what is
tested increasingly defines what gets taught. Unfortunately, in the United States, the 21st century skills
our students need have gotten short shrift because our current multiple-choice tests do not test or
encourage students’ use of these skills.

Ironically, the widespread use of narrow, inauthentic assessments and test prep practices at the
classroom level can unwittingly undermine the very competencies called for by the next generation
academic Standards and 21st Century Skills. To be blunt, students will not be equipped to handle the
sophisticated work expected in colleges and much of the workforce if teachers simply march through
“coverage” of discrete knowledge and skills in grade-level standards and assess learning primarily
through multiple-choice tests of de-contextualized items. Moreover, such teaching and assessment
practices are unlikely to develop the transferable “big ideas” and fundamental processes of the
disciplines. Moreover, they deprive students of relevant and engaging learning experiences.

In order to counter to these trends, we need to significantly increase the use of authentic performance
tasks that require students to apply their learning in genuine contexts. We need to assess the
performance outcomes that matter most, not simply those objectives that are easiest to test and grade.
Indeed, meaningful and lasting learning will be enhanced when school curricula are constructed
“backward” from a series of rich performance tasks that reflect the “end-in-mind” performances
demanded for college and career readiness.
How Can Educators Design Authentic Performance Tasks? (Part 3)

Defined LearningFollow
Jul 1, 2015
In this blog, we will explore ideas and processes for designing authentic performance tasks to be used
as rich learning activities and/or for purposes of assessment. In the spirit of “backward design,” let’s
begin at the end by considering the qualities of a rich performance task, summarized in Figure 1. Since
the criteria listed here define the features that we should see in an authentic task, they serve as targets
for constructing tasks as well as the basis for reviewing draft tasks.

Figure 1 — Performance Task Review Criteria

Performance Task Review Criteria
Key: 3 = extensively; 2 = to some degree; 1 = not yet
The task addresses/assesses targeted standard(s)/ outcome(s).
123

The task calls for understanding and transfer, not simply recall or a formulaic response.
123

The task requires extended thinking — not just an answer.

123

The task establishes a meaningful, real-world (i.e., “authentic”) context for application of knowledge
and skills; i.e., includes a realistic purpose, a target audience, and genuine constraints.
123

The task includes criteria/rubric(s) targeting distinct traits of understanding and successful
performance; i.e., criteria do not simply focus on surface features of a product or performance.
123

The task directions for students are clear.

123

The task allows students to demonstrate their understanding/ proficiency with some appropriate
choice/variety (e.g., of products or performances).
123

The task effectively integrates two or more subject areas.

123

The task incorporates appropriate use of technology.

123

Source: McTighe and Wiggins (2004)

Let’s examine these task characteristics as they apply to designing authentic performance tasks:

The task addresses/assesses targeted standard(s)/ outcome(s).

As noted in previous blogs in this series, performance tasks ask students to perform with their
knowledge. Accordingly, they are well suited to those educational goals that call for application of
learning, including the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English/Language Arts Anchor
Standards for listening, speaking, reading and writing; the CCSS Standards of Mathematical Practice;
the Next Generation Science Standards eight Practices; the four dimensions of informed inquiry in The
College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies; and many of the National Coalition
of Core Arts Standards (NCCAS). Also, performance tasks are naturally aligned with trans-disciplinary
outcomes, such as the 21st Century Skills of Critical Thinking, Cooperation, Communication and
Creativity (4Cs).

Here is a quick check to see if a performance task is well aligned to targeted standard(s)/ outcome(s):
Show your task to another teacher or a team and ask them to tell you which standards/outcomes are
being addressed. If they can determine all of your targeted standards/outcomes, then the alignment is
sound. If they can infer one, but not all, of your targeted standards/outcomes, then you will likely need
to modify the task (or eliminate one or more of the outcomes since they are not being addressed.)

The task calls for understanding and transfer, not simply recall or a formulaic response.
Students show evidence of their understanding when they can effectively do two things:

1. apply their learning to new or unfamiliar contexts; i.e., they can transfer their learning;
 2. explain their process as well as their answer(s).

Therefore, when designing a performance task, educators should make sure that it requires
application, not simply information. The task must also call for learners to present the why not just the
what; to explain a concept in their own words; use new examples to illustrate a theory; and/or defend
their position against critique.

A wise teacher I met once offered a wise aphorism: With performance tasks, “the juice must be worth
the squeeze.” In other words, the time and energy needed to design, implement and score a
performance task must be worth the effort because it will promote meaningful learning and show that
learners can use their learning in authentic and meaningful ways.

The task requires extended thinking — not just an answer.

Authentic performance tasks engage students in the thoughtful application of knowledge and skills. In
order to insure that our tasks involve “higher order” thinking, I suggest using the Depth of Knowledge
(DOK) framework developed by Dr. Norman Webb as a reference. DOK describes four levels of rigor
or cognitive demand in assessment tasks and learning assignments. Figure 2 presents a brief
summary of the four levels of the DOK Framework with associated performance verbs. My general
recommendation is that authentic performance tasks should target DOK Level 3. Longer-term projects
for older students (such as those featured in Project-based Learning) would exhibit the characteristics
of Level 4, while performance tasks could be appropriately challenging for children in the primary
grades.

Figure 2 — The Depth of Knowledge (DOK) Framework

Tasks at Level 1
Performance Verbs associated with Level 1

 Require students to recite or recall information including facts, formulae, or simple procedures.

 Require students to demonstrate a rote response, use a well-known formula, follow a set
procedure (like a recipe), or perform a clearly defined series of steps.

 Typically expect a “correct” answer.

 Arrange

 Calculate

 Cite

 Define

 Describe

 Draw

 Explain

 Give examples

 Identify

 Illustrate

 Label
 Locate

 List

 Match

 Measure

 Name

 Perform

 Quote

 Recall

 Recite

 Recognize

 Record

 Repeat

 Report

 Select

 State

 Summarize (factual info.)

 Tabulate

Tasks at Level 2
Performance Verbs associated with Level 2

 Focus on application of basic skills and concepts.

 Involve some reasoning beyond recall.

 Require students to perform two or more steps and make some decisions on how to approach
the task or problem.

 Apply

 Calculate

 Categorize

 Classify

 Compare

 Compute

 Construct

 Convert
 Describe

 Determine Distinguish

 Estimate

 Explain

 Extend

 Extrapolate

 Find

 Formulate

 Generalize

 Graph

 Identify patterns

 Infer

 Interpolate

 Interpret

 Modify

 Observe

 Organize

 Predict

 Relate

 Represent

 Show

 Simplify

 Solve

 Sort

 Summarize (conceptual ideas)

 Use

Tasks at Level 3
Performance Verbs associated with Level 3

 Require strategic thinking and reasoning applied to situations that generally do not have a
single “right” answer.

 Require students to go beyond the information given to generalize, connect ideas, evaluate,
and problem solve.
 Often have more than one possible answer.

 Expect students to support their answers, interpretations and conclusions by explaining their
reasoning and citing relevant evidence.

 Appraise

 Assess

 Cite evidence

 Check

 Compare

 Compile

 Conclude

 Contrast

 Critique

 Decide

 Defend

 Describe

 Develop

 Differentiate

 Distinguish

 Examine

 Explain

 Formulate

 Hypothesize

 Identify

 Infer

 Interpret

 Investigate

 Judge

 Justify

 Reorganize

 Solve

 Support
Tasks at Level 4
Performance Verbs associated with Level 4

 Require extended thinking and complex reasoning over an extended period of time.

 Expects students to transfer their learning to novel, complex and “messy” situations.

 Requires students to devise an approach among many alternatives for how to approach the
task or problem.

 May require students to develop a hypothesis and perform complex analysis.

 Appraise

 Connect

 Create

 Critique

 Design

 Evaluate

 Judge

 Justify

 Prove

 Report

 Transfer

 Synthesize

Source: McTighe and Wiggins (2004)

The task establishes a meaningful, real-world (i.e., “authentic”) context.

If you have ever watched a house or apartment being constructed, you know that carpenters frame out
the individual rooms to outline the walls, doors, windows, closets and ceiling based on the dimensions
specified in a blueprint. This framing guides the installation of sheetrock (drywall) on the walls and
ceiling, etc. Then, the windows and doors are installed and the finishing touches (e.g., painting,
carpeting) applied. The idea of framing applies to the construction of performance tasks as well!

Grant Wiggins and I created a task design frame based on the acronym, G.R.A.S.P.S. Here are
the G.R.A.S.P.S. elements that are used to frame a performance task: (1) a real-world Goal; (2) a
meaningful Role for the student; (3) authentic (or simulated) Audience(s); (4) a
contextualized Situation that involves real-world application; (5) student-
generated Products and Performances; and (6) performance Standards (criteria) by which successful
performance would be judged. Figure 3 presents this practical task design tool containing associated
prompts for each of the G.R.A.S.P.S. elements.

Figure 3 — G.R.A.S.P.S. Design Tool

Directions: Use the following prompts to brainstorm ways of establishing an authentic context for
performance tasks if needed. (Note: The goal of this tool is not to fill in all of the blanks. Rather, use
whatever prompts apply to help you generate ideas to embellish a task.)
Goal
Your task is _____________________________________________________
The goal is to ____________________________________________________
The problem/challenge is ___________________________________________
The obstacle(s) to overcome is (are) __________________________________
Role
You are _________________________________________________________
You have been asked to ____________________________________________
Your job is ______________________________________________________
Audience
Your client(s) is (are) ______________________________________________
The target audience is ______________________________________________
You need to convince ______________________________________________
Situation
The context you find yourself in is ____________________________________
The challenge involves dealing with __________________________________
Product/Performance and Purpose
You will create a _________________________________________________
in order to ___________________________________________________

You need to develop _______________________________________________

so that ______________________________________________________
Standards & Criteria for Success
Your performance needs to _________________________________________
Your work will be judged by ________________________________________
Your product must meet the following standards _________________________
A successful result will __________________________________________________

Source: McTighe and Wiggins (2004)

Here is a performance task that was created using the G.R.A.S.P.S. elements.

State Tour
The state Tourism Office has hired you to plan a tour of your state for a group of six foreign exchange
students (who speak English) to help them understand the state’s history, geography, economy and
culture. Plan your tour so that the visitors are shown sites that will teach them about the state and show
the ways that it has influenced the nation’s development. You should prepare a written tour itinerary,
including an explanation of why each site was selected. Include a map tracing the route for the four-day
tour and a budget for the trip.

The task includes criteria/rubric(s) targeting distinct traits.

Since authentic tasks do not typically result in a single, correct answer, student products and
performances need to be judged against appropriate criteria aligned to the goals being assessed.
Clearly defined and aligned criteria enable defensible, judgment-based evaluation by teachers and self-
assessment by learners. I will devote a future blog post to the topic of criteria and rubrics.

The task directions for students are clear.

A key feature of authentic performance tasks is their “open ended” nature. However, this feature can
also inject ambiguity. Sometimes students will interpret the task differently than the teacher intended
and go off on unproductive tangents. Here are three practical ways of checking task clarity and getting
feedback for improving the directions if needed:
  Show your draft task to a teacher from a different subject or grade level and ask them to tell
what they think the outcomes or standards are; what students would need to do to successfully
complete the task; and what the key evaluative criteria should be. If they have difficulty with any of
these questions, you probably need to refine/sharpen the task directions.

 Conduct a “pilot test” of a draft task to see if and when students become confused or go off on
unproductive tangents. Revise the directions based on this feedback.

 Following their work on a task, ask your students to offer edits to the task directions to make
them clearer for next year’s students.

The task allows students some appropriate choice/variety.

The open-ended nature of performance tasks allows teachers to offer their students options.
Students may be give choice(s) about:

1. Task Topic — For example, if the outcome involves research, then students might be allowed to
pick the topic or question for their investigation.

2. Product/Performance — For example, if a performance task focuses on a concept in social

studies or science, learners may be given some options regarding how they demonstrate their
thinking and learning, such as a poster, blog, or an oral presentation.

3. Audience — For some tasks, it may be appropriate to allow the students to identify a target
audience (e.g., readers of a community newspaper, younger students, viewers of a website) for
their product or performance.

Ultimately, the purpose of the task will determine if and when students should be given choices, and if
so, which are the appropriate options.

The task effectively integrates two or more subject areas.

In the wider world beyond the school, most issues and problems do not present themselves neatly
within subject area “silos.” While performance tasks can certainly be content-specific (e.g.,
mathematics, science, social studies), they also provide a vehicle for integrating two or more subjects
and/or weaving in 21st century skills (4Cs). Indeed, the more “authentic” the context, the more likely it
will be to involve more than a single subject.

One natural way of integrating subjects is to include English/Language Arts processes — reading,

research, and/or communication (e.g., writing, graphics, oral or technology presentation) to tasks in
content areas like science, social studies, business, and health/physical education. Such tasks
encourage students to see meaningful learning as integrated, rather than something that occurs in
isolated subjects and segments.

The task incorporates appropriate use of technology.

Authentic performance tasks offer many opportunities for involving students in the purposeful and
productive use of technology — for finding information, processing it, interacting with others and
communicating. Of course, today’s students are truly digital natives and it makes sense to let them play
in the digital sandbox. Increasingly, teachers are finding that the incorporation of digital tools can
transform a mundane task and engage more learners. I will devote a future blog post to ideas for
“upgrading” performance tasks through technology.

Conclusion
The design of authentic performance tasks, like any writing or composing process, is iterative in nature.
It is very common for task developers to revise task directions, add options for students or modify the
evaluative criteria as the task design evolves. Additionally, feedback from self-assessment, peer review
and classroom implementation invariably suggests further refinements to the task and associated
rubric(s).

Remember to always keep the “end in mind” when designing performance tasks. The goal of the task
is to address and assess targeted learning outcomes, not to simply offer “cool” products, entertaining
technology or interesting scenarios. The main goal is to design rich tasks that will promote meaningful
learning while gathering evidence of students’ abilities to apply their learning in authentic contexts.

Here are examples of performance tasks from an online resource called Defined

STEM (www.DefinedSTEM.com) where you can find hundreds of standards-aligned K-12
performance tasks:

Ancient Engineer: Roman Roads (gr.3)

Baseball Bat Analyst (gr.7)

How Can We Differentiate Performance Tasks? (Part 4)

Defined LearningFollow

Aug 26, 2015

In this blog, we will explore ways to responsibly differentiate performance tasks so as to address the
targeted learning goals and obtain needed evidence of their attainment.

When educators are asked to reflect on and describe their most effective and engaging learning
experiences, they frequently cite the “opportunity for some personal choice within assignments and
assessment tasks.” The frequency of this comment should be no surprise since we know that learners
differ not only in how they prefer to take in and process information but also in how they best
demonstrate their learning. Some students thrive on oral explanations; others need to “do.” Some
students excel at creating visual representations; others are adept at writing. Allowing students some
choice within open-ended performance tasks provides a practical way to personalize learning while
letting them work to their strengths and interests. A standardized, one-size-fits-all approach to
instruction and assessment may be efficient, but it is rarely optimal for all learners.

One practical way of differentiating performance tasks is to use the G.R.A.S.P.S. format (presented in
Blog #3) to offer students appropriate choices. In other words, learners could be given options
regarding the audience, product/ performance, context, topic, and/or process for working on the task.
Here is one example:

Consider a health standard that calls for a basic understanding of “balanced diet.” Evidence of this
understanding could be obtained by having students explain the concept, present examples of
balanced and unbalanced meals, and list health problems that might result from a nutritionally
imbalanced diet. Such evidence could be collected in writing, but this requirement would be
inappropriate for a learner with dysgraphia or an ESL student with limited skills in written English.
Indeed, some students’ difficulty with writing could cause the teacher to incorrectly infer that they do
not understand the concept of balanced diet. However, if students are offered varied manners of
response (such as creating a picture book to show a balanced vs. imbalanced diet or explaining the
concept orally), the teacher can obtain a more valid measure of their understanding.

Another idea for differentiating performance tasks is to use an adaptation of the game, Tic-Tac-Toe, to
offer students choices of products and performances. Figure 1.0 offers one example in which the
teacher structures product and performance options of various genres through which students could
display their content understanding and skill proficiency.

The product and performance options are flexible. For example, if we want students to write, then all
learners would be asked to choose one option from the first column, along with one other
product/performance from the second or third columns. Figure 2.0 shows a Tic-Tac-Toe chart with
greater openness. By including a FREE blocks, teachers could allow students to propose an alternative
source of evidence that suits their strength. For a major performance task, we might allow students to
produce more than a single product (e.g., pick one from each column).
Here are several examples of performance tasks offering product chioces…

Weather Reporter (gr. 3)

Paralympics Equipment (gr. 12)

Environmental Scientist (gr. 7)

Regardless of how open-ended the task and how many product/performance options are provided, it is
important to identify a common set of evaluative criteria for assessing what the students produce. This
might seem counter-intuitive; i.e., how can we have the same criteria if we give students different
product options? The answer goes back to the learning goals and purpose for the tasks. Consider the
unit on nutrition again: IF want students to show their understanding of a “balanced diet, ” AND
students have some choices for audience (e.g, younger students, peers, adults) and products (e.g., a
picture book, an information flier, a website), THEN student work on these various versions of the task
would be judged by a rubric containing the following key criteria connected to the content — clear,
accurate and complete explanation of “balanced diet, with appropriate examples that illustrates the
concept. In other words, the evaluative criteria are derived primarily from the learning goal(s) rather
than from the particular product a student chose.

Of course, a teacher may wish to add product-specific criteria. For example, if a student prepares a
poster to illustrate a balanced diet, we could look for neatness, composition and effective use of visual
elements. Likewise, if a student made an oral presentation, we could judge their pronunciation, delivery
rate, and eye contact with the audience. However, in this example we consider these to be secondary
criteria linked to specific products/ performances, rather than the key criteria determined by the
learning goal.

While I encourage teachers to differentiate their performance tasks whenever possible and appropriate,
I offer three cautions. First, we must always keep in mind that our aim is to engage learning in
authentic and meaningful learning and to collect appropriate evidence of that learning — not to simply
offer a “cool” menu of product and performance possibilities. If a standard calls for proficiency in writing
or oral presentation, it would be inappropriate to provide alternative performance options other than
writing or speaking. However, it might be suitable to offer the students some choice regarding the topic,
audience, and form of the written product to obtain the evidence we seek. Second, the options we
provide must be worth the time and energy required. Since tasks typically require time to plan,
implement and score, we should reserve them for the most valued learning goals. It would be inefficient
and unnecessary to have students develop an animated Power Point presentation or an elaborate 3-
dimensional display for content that could be memorized and efficiently and appropriately assessed
with a multiple-choice quiz. In the folksy words of teacher friend, with performance tasks, “the juice
must be worth the squeeze.”

Third, feasibility must be considered. Ideally, we might wish to individualize all major assignments and
performance tasks, but realistically we only have so much time and energy. Therefore, educators must
be judicious in determining when it is important to offer product and performance options — striking a
balance between a single path and a maze of options that would be impossible to manage.

Despite the challenges, I believe that efforts to provide options within performance tasks are well worth
it. When students are given appropriate choices on worthy tasks, they are more likely to put forth effort
and experience a genuine sense of accomplishment for a job well done.
How can we upgrade performance tasks with technology? (Part 5)

Defined LearningFollow
Sep 19, 2015
Today’s students are truly digital natives and it makes sense to let them play in the digital sandbox.
Accordingly, an increasing number of schools provide students with technology (laptops and tablets)
and/or allow their learners to BYOD (bring your own device) to the classroom. Authentic performance
tasks offer many opportunities for involving students in the purposeful and productive use of technology
for finding and processing information, interacting with others, and communicating. In addition to the
increasing availability of digital devices, a growing number of free or very inexpensive applications
(apps) are available to transform a mundane task or assignment. Most of these apps are built for Web
2.0, and many can be used on a variety of digital devices including cell phones and tablets.

In this blog, we will explore ways in which teachers and students can make use of various digital
technologies and apps to enhance performance tasks.

Research-based Tasks
The ability to locate relevant information for a purpose is recognized as a particularly valuable skill in
an information-rich world where knowledge continually expands. One type of performance task
involves students in gathering information to explore a topic, answer a question, investigate an issue,
or solve a problem. Such research-based tasks can clearly benefit from the application of digital tools
and apps.

Flashback
“When I began teaching in the early 1970’s, students’ access to information in school was generally
limited to the knowledge of teachers, textbooks (often outdated), encyclopedias and other reference
sources available in libraries. How times have changed!” — Jay McTighe

Today’s students can access much of the world’s knowledge on their smart phones on a 24/7 basis,
and there are innumerable websites offering up-to-date, well-organized and curated sources of
information. Many of these excellent reference sites include primary source materials to enable
students to conduct truly authentic research. Here are a few of my favorites:

Cautionary Notes
Despite the enormous potential offered by such Internet-based information sources to enhance
meaningful research, the potential for superficial information gathering and uncritical analysis abounds.

Flashback
“As a student in the 60’s, the “research” I did consisted mostly of locating and copying information
gleaned from an encyclopedia or a reference book. As a teacher in the 70’s and 80’s, I tried to teach
students how to synthesize information from more than a single source and to communicate what they
found in their own words, rather than simply copying verbatim from a source. It was always a struggle
and the results were mixed.” — Jay

Today, we face the prospect that web-based research projects can too easily be accomplished by a
speedy Google search, a “cut and paste” from a Wikipedia entry, or the appropriation of a previously
published student research paper. To avoid these likelihoods, I recommend framing research-based
performance tasks around authentic issues, problems and essential questions for which “the answer”
cannot be Googled.

As an example, Benjamin Yeo, a high school World History teacher at an international school, frames
his courses around open-ended, issues-based questions that require research, thoughtful analysis,
discussion and debate, and communication with support for the position taken or solution proposed.
This year, one of his questions is, Who is responsible for the plight of the world’s migrants? He also
encourages student-generated questions that form the basis for research projects. His methodology
engages students in “doing history” — not just learning facts about historical periods.

Here are examples of performance tasks built around information gathering and application to address
authentic problems and issues.

Astronomer-Locating A Telescope (gr. 5)

Environmental Scientist: Fracking (gr. 7)

Marketing Segment Analyst (gr. 9)

The plethora of knowledge websites presents another challenge for today’s digital learners and their
teachers. While volumes of information are immediately accessible, the credibility of that information is
not guaranteed. Indeed, the instant availability of “stuff” on-line demands a commitment to developing
the critical thinking capacities needed to enable students to know how to gauge the extent to which the
information they find online is accurate, complete and unbiased.

I endorse the systematic teaching of critical thinking skills and associated dispositions, including
comparing and evaluating sources, distinguishing fact from opinion, identifying potential bias and
willingness to change one’s mind if the evidence is compelling. Such instruction can be guided by an
overarching essential question that can be posed to students from the elementary grades through
college: How do I know what to believe in what I see, read and hear? For research-based, performance
tasks, I also recommend that their associated rubrics include a trait for critical analysis of information to
make it clear that merely locating information is insufficient.

Idea
Use the following website in a lesson to help cultivate a more skeptical attitude toward on-line
information!

 http://www.ibtimes.com/fake-tree-octopus-exposes-risks-internet-reliance-among-students-
263707
Similarly, introducing a verification website like Snopes (http://www.snopes.com) gives learners a tool
to debunk the many “urban legends” and bogus claims circulating on the Internet.

Tasks involving Authentic Audiences and Products

In Blog #3 in this series, I presented the G.R.A.S.P.S. format as a way of creating a more authentic
context for performance tasks, by establishing: a real-world Goal; a meaningful Role for the student; an
authentic (or simulated) Audience(s); a contextualized Situation that involves real-world application;
student-generated Products and Performances; and performance Standards (criteria) by which
successful performance would be judged.
The “A” and “P” categories within G.R.A.S.P.S. offer natural opportunities for upgrading tasks with
digital tools.

Rather than simply completing a task on paper to turn into their teacher or share with their class,
students can target a world-wide audience and publish their work using the many available apps. For
instance, instead of an oral presentation to one’s classmates, students can record a “Ted Talk” and
upload it as a Podcast or Vodcast. As they develop skills of narrative writing, young students can use
cartoon creation apps such as Strip Generator or Toondoo to practice plot/character development and
story sequencing. Instead of composing an editorial to the school paper, students can share their
opinions via a blog post through WordPress or EduBlog.

Figure 1 presents a before-and-after example of a performance task for which Role, Audience, and
Product have been upgraded. Figure 2 offers a chart suggesting ways in which traditional products and
performances could be upgraded through the use of free apps.

Note: When appropriate, students may be given some choice in how they show their learning, and
the many available apps offer practical ways for personalizing performance tasks. Experience shows
that when students are given appropriate choices on worthy tasks, they are more likely to put forth
effort and experience a genuine sense of accomplishment for a job well done. See my Blog #4 in this
series in which the topic of differentiation in performance tasks is discussed.

Conclusion
While I encourage teachers to incorporate digital tools as part of their performance tasks whenever
possible and appropriate, another cautionary note is in order. We must always keep in mind that our
aim in using performance tasks is to engage students in authentic and meaningful learning and to
collect appropriate evidence of that learning — not to simply jump on the latest “cool” app or tech tool.
Students can easily become absorbed in the bells and whistles of the technology or become absorbed
in product creation and lose site of the overall purpose of the task. If and when we incorporate digital
tools as part of performance tasks, we want to insure that “the juice is worth the squeeze.”

 McTighe, J. (2013). Core learning: Assessing what matters most. Midvale, UT: School

Improvement Network.

 McTighe, J. and March, T. (2015). “Choosing apps by design.” Educational Leadership, May

2015. Alexandria, VA:, ASCD
How will we evaluate student performance on tasks? (Part 6)

Defined LearningFollow
Mar 2, 2016
Student responses to assignments and assessment items that have a single, correct answer can be
scored using an answer key or a scanning machine. In contrast, performance tasks are typically open-
ended and therefore, teachers must use their judgment when evaluating the resulting products and
performances. By using a set of established criteria aligned with targeted standards/outcomes, it is
possible to fairly, consistently, and defensibly make a judgment-based evaluation of students’ products
and performances. In this blog, we’ll explore: 1) four types of criteria for evaluating student
performance on open-ended tasks; 2) four kinds of criterion-based evaluation tools; 3) practical
processes for designing effective rubrics, and, 4) benefits to teachers and students.

Types of Evaluative Criteria

Criteria are guidelines or rules for judging student responses, products or performances. In essence,
they describe what is most important in student work in relation to identified learning goals. Criteria
serve as the foundation for the development of a rubric, a tool for evaluating student work according to
a performance scale.

I propose four general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate student work depending on
the targeted standards or outcomes and the purpose of the performance task. The four criterion types
focus on evaluating content, process, quality, and impact. Let’s consider each type.

1. Content criteria are used to evaluate the degree of a student’s knowledge and understanding
of facts, concepts and principles.

2. Process criteria are used to evaluate the proficiency level of performance of a skill or process,
as well as the effectiveness of the methods and procedures used in a task.

3. Quality criteria are used to evaluate the overall quality and craftsmanship of a product or
performance.

4. Impact criteria are used to evaluate the overall results or effects of a product or performance
given its purpose and audience.

Figure 6.1 presents some descriptive terms associated with each of the four criterion types.

Figure 6.1 — Descriptive Terms for Criterion Types 

Criterion Types
Descriptive Terms (examples)

Content
accurate, clearly explained, complete, expert, knowledgeable,
Process
collaborative, coordinated, efficient, methodical, precise

Quality
creative, organized, polished, effectively designed, well crafted,

Impact
entertaining, informative, persuasive, satisfying, successful

Here is an example in which all four types of criteria are used to evaluate the dining experience in a
restaurant:

 Content — the server accurately describes the appetizers, main courses, side items, desserts
and drinks; all meals and drinks are correctly delivered as ordered

 Process — the kitchen staff collaborates well and coordinates with the server; the server
checks on diners regularly

 Quality — all the dishes are cooked to taste, presented in an aesthetically pleasing manner,
and served in a timely fashion

 Impact — the meal is tasty and satisfying to all diners

It is important to note that in this example, the four criteria are relatively independent of one another.
For example, the server may accurately describe the content of the menu items, but the food may
arrive late and be overcooked. When different traits or criteria are important in a performance, they
should be evaluated on their own. This analytic approach allows for more specific feedback to be
provided to the learner (as well as to the teacher) than does an overall, holistic rating.

While these four categories reflect possible types of criteria, I certainly do notmean to suggest that a
teacher should use all four types for each and every performance tasks. Rather, teachers should select
only the criterion types that are appropriate for the targeted standards or outcomes, as well as the
specific qualities for which you want to provide feedback to learners. Having said this, I want to make a
case for the value of including Impact Criteria in conjunction with authentic performance tasks. The
more a task is set in an authentic context, the more important it is to consider the overall impact of the
resulting performance. Indeed, we want students to move beyond “compliance” thinking (e.g., How
many words does it have to be? Is this what you want? How many points is this worth?) to consider the
overall effectiveness of their work given the intended purpose and target audience. Impact criteria
suggest important questions that students should ask themselves. For example:

 Did my story entertain my readers?

 Was my diagram informative?

 Could the visitor find their way using my map?

 Did I find answers to my research questions?

 Was my argument persuasive?

 Was the problem satisfactorily solved?

Educators can help their students see purpose and relevance by including Impact criteria as they work
on authentic performance tasks.

So… given these four types of criteria, how should a teacher decide which criteria should be used to
evaluate student performance on a specific task? The answer may surprise you. In a standards-based
system, criteria are derived primarily from the targeted standards or outcomes being assessed, rather
than from the particulars of the performance task. For example, if a teacher is focusing on the CCSS
E/LA Standard of Informative Writing, then the criteria for any associated performance task will likely
require students to be: accurate (i.e., the information presented is correct), complete (i.e., all relevant
aspects of the topic are addressed), clear (i.e., the reader can easily understand the information
presented; appropriate descriptive vocabulary is used), organized (i.e., the information is logically
framed and sequenced), and conventional (i.e., proper punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and
sentence formation/transitions are used so that the reader can follow the writing effortlessly).

This point may seem counter-intuitive: How can you determine the evaluative criteria until you know the
task? What if one version of a task required students to produce a visual product (e.g., a poster or
graphic organizer) while another version of the same task asked students to give a verbal explanation?
Certainly, there are different criteria involved in evaluating such different products and performances!

Indeed, there may be different secondary criteria related to a particular product or performance. For

example, if students were to create a visual product to show their understanding of a concept in history,
then we could include quality criteria (e.g., the visual should be neat and graphically appealing).
However, the primary criteria in this example should focus on the content associated with the history
standard instead of simply the qualities of the product (in this case, a visual display).

This point can be lost on students who tend to fixate on the surface features of whatever performance
or product that they are to develop at the expense of the content being assessed. For example, think of
the science fair projects where the backboard display is a work of art, while the depth of the science
content or the projects’ conclusions are superficial.

Criterion-Based Evaluation Tools

Once the key criteria have been identified for a given performance (based on the targeted
standards/outcomes), we can use them to develop more specific evaluation tools. Let’s now examine
four types of criterion-based scoring tools used to evaluate student performance — criterion list, holistic
rubric, and analytic rubric.

Criterion List

A basic and practical tool for evaluating student performance consists of a listing of key criteria,
sometimes referred to as a performance list. For example, my wife was a high school art teacher and
department chair. She and her department colleagues identified the following four key criteria that they
used in evaluating student art portfolios.

 Composition — Effective use of elements of art and principles of design in organizing space.

 Originality — Evidence of development of unique ideas.

 Visual Impact — Sensitivity in use of line, color and form to effectively convey ideas and mood.
  Craftsmanship — Skill in use of media tools and technique. Attention to detail and care for
results.

Here is another example of a criterion list for composing a fairy tale (Figure 6.2):

Figure 6.2 — Criterion List for a Fairy Tale

Key Criteria

1. Plot — The plot has a clear beginning, middle, and end that is carried throughout the tale.

2. Setting — The setting is described with details and shown through the events in the story.

3. Characterization — The characters are interesting and fit the story.

4. Details — The story contains descriptive details that help explain the plot, setting, and characters.

5. Fairy Tale Elements — The story contains the elements of a fairy tale (i.e.: appropriate characters,
settings of the past, events that can’t really happen, magical events, etc.).

 6. Pictures — Detailed pictures are effectively used to help tell the story.

7. Mechanics — The fairy tale contains correct spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. There are no
errors in mechanics.

Well-developed criterion lists identify the key elements that define success on a performance task.
They communicate to students how their products or performances will be judged and which elements
are most important. Despite these benefits, criterion lists do not provide detailed descriptions of
performance levels. In other words, there are no qualitative descriptions of the difference between a
“15” and a “9” rating for a given element (or a full smile versus partial smile on the pumpkins). Thus,
different teachers using the same performance list may rate the same student’s work quite differently.

Well-crafted rubrics can address this limitation. A rubric is based on a set of criteria and includes a
description of performance levels according to a fixed scale (e.g., 4-points). Let’s examine three types
of rubrics.

Holistic Rubric

A holistic rubric provides an overall rating of a student’s performance, typically yielding a single score.
Here is an example of a holistic rubric for a scientific investigation task.

Holistic Rubric for a Scientific Investigation

4
The student’s investigation includes a stated hypothesis, follows a logical and detailed procedure,
collects relevant and sufficient data, thoroughly analyzes the results, and reaches a conclusion that is
fully supported by the data. The investigative process and conclusion are clearly and accurately
communicated in writing so that others could replicate the investigation.

3
The student’s investigation includes a hypothesis, follows a step-by-step procedure, collects data,
analyzes the results, and reaches a conclusion that is generally supported by the data. The process
and findings are communicated in writing with some omissions or minor inaccuracies. Others could
most likely replicate the investigation

2
The student’s stated hypothesis is unclear. The procedure is somewhat random and sloppy. Some
relevant data is collected but not accurately recorded. The analysis of results is superficial and
incomplete and the conclusion is not fully supported. The findings are communicated so poorly that it
would be difficult for others to replicate the investigation.

1
The student’s investigation lacks a stated hypothesis and does not follow a logical procedure. The data
collected is insufficient or irrelevant. Results are not analyzed, and the conclusion is missing or vague
and not supported by data. The communication is weak or non-existent.

Since they yield an overall rating, holistic rubrics are well suited for summative evaluation and grading.
However, they typically do not offer a detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of a student’s
work, and are thus less effective tools at providing specific feedback to learners.

Holistic rubrics can also present a challenge for teachers when they are evaluating a student’s complex
performance having multiple dimensions. For example, consider two different students who have
completed a graphic design project. One student uses visual symbols to clearly communicate an
abstract idea. However, her design involves clip art that are sloppily pasted onto the graphic. A second
student creates a beautiful and technically sophisticated design, yet his main idea is trivial. How would
those respective pieces by scored using a holistic rubric? Often, the compromise involves averaging,
whereby both students might receive the same score or grade, yet for substantially different reasons.
Averaging obscures the important distinctions in the student’s performance, and doesn’t provide the
student with detailed feedback. If all a student receives is a score or rating, it is difficult for the them to
know exactly what the grade means or what refinements are needed in the future.

Analytic Rubric

An analytic rubric divides a product or performance into distinct elements or traits and judges each
independently. Analytic rubrics are well suited to judging complex performances (e.g., multi-faceted
problem solving or a research project) involving several significant dimensions. As evaluation tools,
they provide more specific information (feedback) to students, parents and teachers about the
strengths of a performance and the areas needing improvement.

Here is an example of an analytic rubric for mathematical problem solving (Figure 6.6).

Figure 6.6 — Analytic Rubric for Mathematical Problem Solving

Reasoning
Computation
Representation
Communication

4
An efficient and effective strategy is used and progress towards a solution is evaluated. Adjustments in
strategy, if needed, are made, and/or alternative strategies are considered. There is sound
mathematical reasoning throughout.
All computations are performed accurately and completely. There is evidence that computations are
checked. A correct answer is obtained.
Abstract or symbolic mathematical representations are constructed and refined to analyze
relationships, clarify or interpret the problem elements, and guide solutions.

Communication is clear, complete and appropriate to the audience and purpose. Precise mathematical
terminology and symbolic notation are used to communicate ideas and mathematical reasoning.

3
An effective strategy is used and mathematical reasoning is sound.

Computations are generally accurate. Minor errors do not detract from the overall approach. A correct
answer is obtained once minor errors are corrected.
Appropriate and accurate mathematical representations are used to interpret and solve problems.

Communication is generally clear. A sense of audience and purpose is evident. Some mathematical
terminology is used to communicate ideas and mathematical reasoning.

2
A partially correct strategy is used, or a correct strategy for only solving part of the task is applied.
There is some attempt at mathematical reasoning, but flaws in reasoning are evident.
Some errors in computation prevent a correct answer from being obtained.
An attempt is made to construct mathematical representations, but some are incomplete or
inappropriate.

Communication is uneven. There is only a vague sense of audience or purpose. Everyday language is
used or mathematical terminology is not always used correctly.

1
No strategy is used, or a flawed strategy is tried that will not lead to a correct solution. There is little or
no evidence of sound mathematical reasoning.

Multiple errors in computation are evident. A correct solution is not obtained.

No attempt is made to construct mathematical representations or the representations are seriously
flawed.

Communication is unclear and incomplete. There is no awareness of audience or purpose. The

language is imprecise and does not make use mathematical terminology.

Analytic rubrics help students understand the nature of quality work since these evaluation tools
identify the important dimensions of a product or performance. Moreover, teachers can use the
information provided by an analytic evaluation to target instruction to particular areas of need (e.g., the
students are generally accurate in their computations, but less effective at describing their
mathematical reasoning).

Since there are several traits to be considered, the use of an analytic scoring rubric may take a bit
more time than assigning a single score. However, I believe that the more specific feedback that
results from this additional time is well worth the effort, especially given the ultimate goal of improving
learning and performance.

Developmental Rubric

A third type of rubric — developmental — describes growth along a proficiency continuum, ranging from

novice to expert. As examples, think of the colored belts that designate various proficiency levels in
Karate or the categories for swimming from the American Red Cross.

Developmental rubrics are well suited to subjects that emphasize skill performance. Hence, they are
natural to English/language arts, physical education, the arts, and language acquisition. The American
Teachers of Foreign Language (ACTFL) has developed sets of longitudinal proficiency rubrics for
listening, speaking, reading and writing that can be used in conjunction with assessment for world
languages. View these at:

 http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/LANGUAGELEARNING/OtherResources/ACTFLProficiencyGuid
elines/contents.htm

Similar developmental rubrics exist for English/language arts. Bonnie Campbell-Hill has created a set
of proficiency continuums for literacy, available at:

 http://www.bonniecampbellhill.com/support.php

Developmental rubrics are generic in that they are not tied to any particular performance task nor
age/grade level. Thus, teachers across the grades can profile student proficiency levels on the same
rubric. Furthermore, an agreed-upon longitudinal scale enables learners, teachers, and parents to
collectively chart progress toward desired accomplishments.

Yes, but… One often hears concerns about subjectivity when judging performance, whether during an
Olympic ice skating event, at a juried art exhibit, or when teachers evaluate students’ products and
performances for a task. Admittedly, all performance evaluation can be considered subjective in that
human judgment is required. However, that does not mean that such judgments are destined to be
biased or arbitrary. Student performance can be reliably judged as has been demonstrated by years of
experience in statewide writing assessments, music adjudications, and AP art portfolio reviews. The
reliability of evaluation increases with: 1) clear criteria embedded in well-developed rubrics; 2) models
or anchors of performance coupled with the rubrics; and, 3) training and practice in scoring student
work.

Conclusion

Over the years, I have observed five benefits resulting from the use of well-developed rubrics — two for
teachers and three for students:
Benefits for Teachers

1. Scoring Reliability — A rubric constructed around clearly defined performance criteria assists
teachers in reducing subjective judgments when they evaluate student work. The resulting
performance evaluations, including grades, are thus more defensible to students and parents.
When a common rubric is used throughout a department or grade-level team, school or district
(with accompanying anchor examples), the consistency of judgments (i.e., scoring reliability) by
teachers across classrooms and schools increases.

2. Focused Instruction — Clearly developed rubrics help clarify the meaning of standards and
serve as targets for teaching. Indeed, teachers often observe that the process of evaluating
student work against established criteria make them more attentive to addressing those qualities
in their teaching.

Benefits for Students

1. Clear Targets — When well-developed rubrics are presented to students at the beginning, they
are not left to guess about what is most important or how their work will be judged.

2. Feedback — Educational research conclusively shows that formative assessment and feedback

can significantly enhance student performance. Clear performance criteria embedded in analytic
rubrics enable teachers to provide the detailed feedback that learners need to improve their
performance.

3. Guides for Self Assessment — When teachers share performance criteria and rubrics with
students, learners can use these tools for self-assessment and goal setting.

Through the use of rubrics in these ways, educators can enhance the quality of student learning and
performance, not simply evaluate it.
How Should We Teach Toward Success with Performance Tasks? (Part 7)

Defined LearningFollow
Mar 4, 2016
In this blog we’ll examine five recommended practices for instructional planning and teaching in order
to prepare students to tackle authentic performance tasks.

Practice #1 — Plan Your Teaching Backward from Authentic Performance Tasks

In our work on Understanding by Design ® (2012, 2011, 2005), Grant Wiggins and I proposed that the
most effective teaching is planned “backward” from desired learning outcomes (e.g., academic
standards, 21st century skills) and from the assessments that will show evidence of their attainment.
Backward design of instruction is the norm in performance-based disciplines (e.g., visual and
performing arts, career and technology education), as it is in extra-curricular activities (e.g., athletics,
yearbook, theater). This is likely due to the fact that these areas are naturally directed toward authentic
performance (e.g., the game in athletics, the concert in band, the public display in visual art, the
production deadline for yearbook). Teaching, learning and practice are thus orchestrated to prepare
learners for a desired performance.

Planning our teaching “backward” from desired performances on rich, authentic tasks helps teachers
focus on what matters most. With this performance orientation, teachers are less likely to simply march
through lists of content objectives or pages in a textbook, or to have their students complete
worksheets on discrete skills. When genuine performance is the goal, we can emulate the practices of
effective coaches and sponsors of extra-curricular activities by following a general instructional process
like the following:

1. Once the performance task has been identified, deconstruct the task to identify necessary
concepts, knowledge and skills needed by learners for a successful performance.

2. Use pre-assessments to find out the entry level current knowledge and skill levels of the
learners.

3. Plan targeted lessons to develop the knowledge, skills and confidence needed to tackle the
summative task. Differentiate this instruction as needed to address the learning variability among
students. Use on-going formative assessments to check on the development of requisite
knowledge, skills and understandings.

4. Engage learners with formative “mini tasks” — simplified or scaffolded versions of the

summative task — and provide feedback to students as they work on the mini tasks.

5. Allow time for them to practice and/or make revisions based on the feedback.

It has been my observation that this last two steps (#4 and 5) are often skipped. This is understandable
given the pressures that teachers face to “cover” a large volume of material. Indeed, it is tempting to
think that if I cover all the factual information and component skills, then I have prepared students for
performance. But ask yourself, How do successful coaches and band directors prepare their charges
for the game or the concert?  They do more than simply have their players or performers learn the
rules/notes and practice the necessary skills. They recognize the need for players to be able to “put it
all together.” Consequently, they include scrimmages and concert rehearsals that simulate
game/opening night conditions, and they offer feedback in the context of authentic performance.

Classroom teachers in all subjects can emulate the practices of effective coaches, for example, by
including the equivalent of “scrimmages” as formative assessments. To be blunt: It is important for
teachers to realize that just covering a body of discrete knowledge and skills, and assessing their
mastery in isolation, will not prepare learners to apply their learning in an authentic context. Basic
knowledge and skills are necessary, but insufficient, in the quest for genuine performance.

A wonderful resource in support of Practice #1 has been developed by The Literacy Design
Collaborative (LDC). Click on this link to see their description of “mini tasks” — https://ldc.org/how-ldc-
works/mini-tasks In addition, you can view examples of units for English/Language Arts, Science and
Technical Subjects, and History/Social Studies that have been planned backward from rich
performance tasks and follow the teaching sequence I have proposed. Click — 
http://www.literacydesigncollaborative.org/resources/sample-modules/

Yes, but… When performance tasks are being used as assessments, some educators may object that
the practice I described equates to “teaching to the test” and is thus not desirable. I agree that the
backward design approach doesteach with the task (or the test) in mind, but that’s not a bad thing if the
test or task reflects what matters most — authentic performance reflecting core standards and 21st
century skills. Have you ever heard coaches apologize for coaching to/for the next game, or theater
directors say they are sorry when their actors rehearse for the play?

Practice #2 — Present Authentic Performance Tasks as the Learning Targets

Some schools require teachers to list their daily objectives on the board. While it certainly makes sense
to have clear lesson goals, my contention is that students need to know not only what they will be
learning today, but also why they are learning it and how this learning will prepare them for something
worthwhile in the future. One way to help students see the larger goal for their learning teachers to
frame their learning outcomes not simply as lists of knowledge and skill objectives (or grade level
standards) but rather in terms of the authentic performances that learning will enable. The message to
students is, “we are learning this so that you will be able to….”

The practice of working toward known tasks is certainly not a new idea. There are multiple examples
both within and outside of school such as the merit badge system for Boy and Girl Scouts, colored
belts for the proficiency levels in karate, or completing the annual yearbook on deadline. In all such
cases the performance tasks are known (i.e., what you need to accomplish) along with the evaluative
criteria (i.e., how your performance will be judged).

When the performance tasks are set in an authentic context that reflects “real world” application of
knowledge and skills, learners are more likely to see the purpose and relevance of what they are being
asked to learn. Like the game in athletics and the play in theater, having a clear and authentic
performance goal (solid performance on a known task) focuses both teaching and learning.

Here are three examples of performance tasks that can serve as learning targets.

Ancient Engineers
Roman Roads Gr.3
Community Advocate

Fracking Gr. 7
Automotive Materials Engineer

Fuel Efficiency Gr. 11

Practice #3 — Present the Evaluative Criteria, Rubrics and Models at the Start

In Blog # 6 in this series, I discussed the benefits for teachers of having clearly articulated criteria,
embedded in rubrics. Well developed rubrics can benefit learners as well. In order to enhance learning
and the quality of student performance, teachers can (and should) present evaluative criteria and
rubrics to students early in the instructional process in order to help their students focus on the purpose
and important dimensions of authentic performance. When students know the criteria in advance, they
don’t have to guess about what is most important or how their work will be judged. There is no
“mystery” as to the elements of a quality of a targeted product/performance or the basis for its
evaluation (and grading). In addition, when we share criteria and rubrics with students, we offer them
the opportunity to self-assess as they work.

This recommended practice of sharing criteria/rubrics with students does not mean that this process
has to be completely teacher directed. In fact, involving students in helping to create a rubric can
engage them in thinking carefully about the goals of the task and help them better understand the
salient qualities needed for successful performance.

Presenting a well-designed rubric to students in conjunction with the performance task, does not
guarantee that the benefits will be fully realized, especially if/when students do not understand the
language of the rubric. Phrases such as “logically organized,” “insightful interpretation,” and “sufficient
evidence” may have little meaning for inexperienced students. To be useful, students need to be able
to comprehend what the language in the rubric means. One strategy toward this end is to couple the
rubric with tangible examples that illustrate its key traits and the different performance levels. By
showing examples that display both excellent, good and novice-level work, teachers can make the
abstract language in a rubric become more specific, relevant, and understandable. The practice is
grounded in a basic principle: If we expect learners to produce high quality work, they need to know
what that looks like, and how it differs from work of lesser quality.

Yes, but… Some teachers express concern that students will simply copy or imitate an example. A
related worry is that showing an excellent model (sometimes known as an exemplar) will stultify
student creativity. I have found that providing multiple models helps avoid these potential problems.
When students see several exemplars showing how different students achieved high-level
performance in unique ways, they are less likely to follow a cookie-cutter approach. In addition, when
students study and compare examples ranging in quality — from very strong to very weak — they are
better able to internalize the differences. The models enable students to more accurately self-assess
and improve their work before turning it in to the teacher.

Practice #4 — Assess before and while you teach.

Like effective coaches and sponsors of extra-curriculars, successful teachers don’t just begin a new
unit before they have assessed their learners. Indeed, diagnostic (or pre-) assessment is as important
to teaching as a physical exam is to prescribing an appropriate medical regimen.

Thankfully, a variety of practical and efficient pre-assessment techniques are available (e.g., Skill
Checks, Pre-Tests, K-W-L, Concept Mapping) to enable teachers to determine students’ prior
knowledge and skill levels and reveal potential misconceptions that can influence their performances.
By gathering such information in the beginning, a teacher can determine the best starting place for
instruction and decide what differentiation may be needed to best equip students with varied
knowledge and skill levels for the desired performance.
Pre-assessments are not solely for the teacher. They can also serve as advanced organizers by
previewing forthcoming learning and activating prior knowledge that learners may have about the
concepts and skills that will support their forthcoming performance on known tasks.

In addition to pre-assessment, the use of on-going, formative assessments is an essential practice for
optimizing student performance on authentic tasks. The purpose of formative assessments is
to inform both teachers and learners by providing feedback about what is working and what
adjustments are needed. Indeed, learning of all kinds –whether in the dance studio, on the practice
field, or in the classroom — requires substantive feedback.

Not surprisingly, the best examples of formative assessment and feedback are often observed in the
performance-based subjects, such as the visual and performing arts, physical education and athletics,
and vocational-technical courses. Indeed, the essence of coaching involves ongoing assessment and
feedback. However, what is common practice in these areas is less widespread in the mainstream
academic subjects. In their seminal research on classroom assessment, British researchers Paul Black
and Dylan William (Black and William, 1998) noted that formative assessment and feedback is lacking
in many classrooms.

To serve learning, feedback must meet four criteria: It must be timely, specific, understandable to the
receiver, and allow for self-adjustment by the learner. Feedback on strengths and weaknesses needs
to be prompt for the learner to improve. Waiting two weeks to find out how you did on a test will not
help your learning. In addition, specificity is key to helping students understand both their progress and
the areas in which they can improve. Too many educators consider grades and scores as feedback
when, in fact, they fail the specificity test. Pinning a letter (B-) or a number (82%) on a student’s work is
no more helpful than such comments as “Nice job” or “You can do better.” Although good grades and
positive remarks may feel good, they do not advance learning. Specific feedback sounds different, as
in this example: “The website you designed is generally well organized, visually appealing and contains
a great deal of information on your topic. You used multiple sources and documented them correctly.
However, your conclusion is not clear, nor are the actions you expect viewers to take based on the
information the website provides.”

Finally, learners need opportunities to act on the feedback — to refine, revise, practice, and retry — and
teachers need to build in time for these. Writers rarely compose a perfect manuscript on the first try,
which is why the writing process stresses cycles of drafting, feedback, and revision as the route to
excellence.

The teacher should be a main feedback provider, but students are encouraged to seek feedback from
peers, parents, and others as they work on performance tasks. Regardless of the source, here’s a
straightforward test for a feedback system: Can learners tell specifically from the given feedback what
they have done well and what they could do next time to improve? If not, then the feedback is not
sufficiently specific or understandable enough for the learner.

Note: It is critical that students understand the purpose of formative assessments and know that their
results will not be used as part of a summative evaluation. Accordingly, I advise teachers not to
average formative assessment results into the calculation of a final grade.

Practice #5 — Expect students to self assess their learning and performance and set goals
based on assessment results.

The most effective learners are metacognitive; i.e., they self-assess their performance, seek and use
feedback, see mistakes as learning opportunities, set goals to improve their performance, and reflect
on their learning. Teachers can cultivate these productive dispositions by modeling the processes of
self-assessment, reflection and goal setting for students who have never been asked to do so. They
should also expect students to apply them regularly and structure opportunities for them to do so. For
example, ask students to self-assess (and/or peer assess) their work against a rubric before it is
submitted. Teachers are often pleasantly surprised at how honest students can be with the assessment
of their own work and that of their peers.

Here are a few examples of prompting questions to encourage such students to self assess their
performance, set goals for improvement and reflect on their learning:

 What aspect of your work do you think was most effective? Why? How so?

 What aspect of your work do think was least effective? Why? How so?

 What specific action(s) would improve your performance based on the feedback you received?

 What advice would you offer to next year’s students to help their performance on this task?

 What did you learn from working on this task — about the content, topic, process and/or
yourself?

Self-assessment requires a small investment of time for an impactful return. This practice signals that
self-assessment and goal setting are expected as part of a learner’s job.

Educators who provide regular opportunities for learners to self-assess and set goals often report a
change in the classroom culture. As one teacher put it, “My students have shifted from asking, ‘What
did I get?’ or ‘What are you going to give me?’ to becoming increasingly capable of knowing how they
are doing and what they need to do to improve. Over time, we should expect students to become
increasingly capable of honest self-assessment and adjustment, without the teacher having to tell them
how they did or what they need to do to improve.

A related practice to encourage self-assessment and goal setting is to include students in parent–
teacher conferences. In “student involved” or “student run” conferencing, the learner takes an active
role in reviewing his or her work, and with a teacher’s guidance, sets specific goals to improve his or
her future performance. Parents are more likely to be able to support their child’s academic growth if
they are aware of these agreed-upon goals.

Conclusion
Teaching toward authentic performance calls for teachers to employ an array of instructional practices,
including direct instruction and modeling, facilitative teaching and ongoing assessments. When
preparing students to apply their learning in realistic situations, teachers function like coaches,
providing feedback as students develop the skills and work on “scrimmages.”