What are holistic rubrics?

Holistic rubrics are very general in that they provide a broad description of criteria for each level of proficiency. These criteria might contain multiple components: for example, a description of annotation content, description of annotation replies, as well as descriptions of basic commenting requirements.

Holistic rubrics are generally easier for instructors to develop and use, but without additional comments, may be too broad to provide students with actionable feedback.

If you're interested in using a holistic rubric, explore the example developed by a faculty member below. There is also a starter holistic rubric here you can use in your course, or adapt for your assignment.

Holistic rubric example

Sample Social Annotation Marking Rubric

Created by Judy Ingerman, Kelly Macdonald, Heather Roffey, and Patti Kingsmill

The Online Curation and Social Annotation Project at Vanier College

Global Checklist

Initiates comments on the discourse (not simply replying to the comments of others).
Makes comments and replies to others’ comments throughout the text (not only on first few pages).
Poses important questions about the discourses within the text(s).
Writes comments that fulfill the criteria (found in the marking rubric below).

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

All commenting requirements (as listed in the checklist) are fulfilled.

Comments accurately refer to, discuss, and analyze specific data in the text or in a classmate’s comment(s).

Initiates and responds to stimulating discussions about the discourse analysis and relevant course concepts.

Makes clear connections between the discourse and course content.

Responds constructively, insightfully to questions or perceived misunderstandings.

Provides evidence for any agreement or disagreement expressed.

Offers an alternative analysis when disagreeing with a point.

The majority of commenting requirements (as listed in the checklist) are fulfilled.

Comments refer to, discuss, and analyze data in the text or a classmate’s comment(s).

Initiates or responds to discussions about the discourse analysis and relevant course concepts.

Makes connections between the discourse and course content.

Responds helpfully to questions posed or perceived misunderstandings.

Mostly provides evidence for agreements or disagreements expressed.

Offer some reasons when disagreeing with a point.

At least 60% of commenting requirements (as listed in the checklist) are fulfilled.

Comments refer vaguely to the text or a classmate’s comment(s), occasionally offering a few specific details.

Responds to discussions about the discourse analysis and course concepts but mostly in a superficial way.

Occasionally makes connections between

the discourse and course content.

Sometimes answers questions or responds to perceived misunderstandings but not always in a helpful way.

Occasionally provides evidence for agreements or disagreements expressed.

Occasionally offers a reason for disagreeing with a point.

Less than 60% of commenting requirements (as listed in the checklist) are fulfilled.

Comments offer few, if any, specific details relating to the text or a classmate’s comment(s).

Rarely, if ever, engages in discussions about the discourse and course concepts, and then only superficially.

Rarely, if ever, makes connections between the discourse and course content.

Rarely, if ever, answers questions or responds to perceived misunderstandings, and then in an unhelpful way.

Does not provide evidence for agreements or disagreements expressed.

Rarely, if ever, offers a reason for disagreeing with a point.