Compare methods
Review your selected methods side by side; rows that differ are highlighted.
| Rubric Development× | Portfolio Assessment× | |
|---|---|---|
| Field | Education | Education |
| Family | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Year of origin≠ | 2007 | 1992 |
| Originator≠ | Performance-assessment tradition (Andrade; Arter & McTighe; Jonsson & Svingby synthesis) | Performance-assessment tradition (Arter & Spandel; Koretz; Vermont/Kentucky programs) |
| Type≠ | Systematic design of criterion-based scoring guides for performance | Assessment based on a purposeful collection of student work over time |
| Seminal source≠ | Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144. DOI ↗ | Arter, J. A., & Spandel, V. (1992). Using portfolios of student work in instruction and assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(1), 36–44. DOI ↗ |
| Aliases | Scoring Rubric Design, Analytic and Holistic Rubrics, Performance Scoring Guides, Rubric Construction | Educational Portfolio Assessment, Student Portfolio Evaluation, Showcase / Working Portfolio Assessment, Portfolio-Based Assessment |
| Related | 4 | 4 |
| Summary≠ | Rubric development is the systematic design of criterion-referenced scoring guides for judging complex performance such as writing, projects, presentations, and problem solving. A rubric specifies the dimensions on which work is evaluated and describes, in ordered levels, what each degree of quality looks like. Done well — as the syntheses by Andrade and by Jonsson and Svingby show — rubrics make scoring more reliable and transparent, clarify expectations for students, and turn assessment into a tool for learning rather than merely a verdict. | Portfolio assessment evaluates learning through a purposeful collection of a student's work assembled over time rather than through a single test. The portfolio may showcase best work, document growth, or demonstrate mastery against standards, and typically includes student selection and reflection. Articulated for education by Arter and Spandel and stress-tested in large-scale programs analyzed by Koretz, it captures authentic, complex performance that on-demand testing misses, while raising distinctive challenges for the reliability and comparability of scores. |
| ScholarGateDataset ↗ |
|
|