Analytic and holistic rubrics are two common ways of assessing student writing. Both have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the purpose, context, and criteria of the writing task. In this article, you will learn about the differences, benefits, and challenges of using these two types of rubrics for writing assessment.
Analytic rubrics break down the writing task into specific components or criteria, and assign a score or level for each one. For example, an analytic rubric for an essay might include criteria such as thesis, organization, content, grammar, and mechanics. Analytic rubrics are useful for providing detailed feedback and guidance to students, as well as for identifying strengths and weaknesses in their writing.
In my experience, analytic rubrics contain descriptions of the specified criteria for each level of performance, enabling students to get detailed feedback to improve on specific aspects. It is especially suitable for performance-focused undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Instructors can provide useful feedback on areas of strength and weakness. Criterion can be weighted to reflect the relative importance of each aspect. From the creator's perspective, it requires more time and attention to details. There is also the compulsion to have well-defined raters for each criterion.
Holistic rubrics evaluate the writing task as a whole, using a single score or level to represent the overall quality or performance. For example, a holistic rubric for an essay might use descriptors such as excellent, good, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory. Holistic rubrics are useful for making quick and consistent judgments, as well as for encouraging students to focus on the main message and purpose of their writing.
The holistic rubrics I use require more qualitative and written feedback than assigning a number or grade. Holistic rubrics are great for more creative or open-ended assessments or projects.
Analytic rubrics have several benefits for writing assessment. First, they can help students understand the expectations and standards of the writing task, and guide them through the writing process. Second, they can help teachers provide specific and constructive feedback to students, and pinpoint areas for improvement. Third, they can help teachers grade more objectively and fairly, and justify their decisions with evidence.
In my experience, analytic rubrics are great for assessments that have a defined exemplar and end product. Analytic rubrics can also be molded into checklists for students to use prior to submitting their assessments.
Analytic rubrics also have some challenges for writing assessment. First, they can be time-consuming and complex to create and use, especially for large-scale or high-stakes assessments. Second, they can limit the creativity and flexibility of students, and discourage them from taking risks or exploring different approaches. Third, they can create a false sense of precision and objectivity, and ignore the holistic impression and impact of the writing.
I agree that analytic rubrics ignore the holistic impression and impact of the writing. It forces the reviewer to take apart the student's writing, which could impact the overall score. For example, if one sentence "meets" the criterion, but the next sentence is considered "approaching," that decision may impact the score negatively instead of deciding whether the sentences together achieve the overall purpose. It can also make the reviewer overthink scoring the writing because of whether or not the specific writing "fits" the criterion or not.
Holistic rubrics have several benefits for writing assessment. First, they can save time and effort for teachers, and simplify the grading process. Second, they can encourage students to focus on the overall quality and effectiveness of their writing, rather than on isolated aspects or errors. Third, they can capture the holistic impression and impact of the writing, and acknowledge the diversity and complexity of writing performance.
Holistic rubrics also have some challenges for writing assessment. First, they can be vague and subjective, and lack clear criteria and standards. Second, they can provide limited and general feedback to students, and fail to address specific areas for improvement. Third, they can be inconsistent and unreliable, and vary depending on the teacher's mood, expectations, or preferences.
I agree, but holistic rubrics provide the space for educators to give extensive, specialized feedback to the student instead of selecting particular criteria for a student to follow.