Using A Holistic Rubric in an Environmental Engineering Course

What this resource is about: 

This resource discusses using a holistic rubric to support communication goals in an environmental engineering course. 

What is a holistic rubric? 

A holistic rubric describes the quality of a paper’s features as they relate to the assignment criteria. These features are placed in separate categories with a grade percent assigned to each category (See “Rubric” below). 

The rubric used for this class was adopted from “Implementing a Single Holistic Rubric to Address Both Communication and Technical Criteria in a first Year Design-Build-Test-Communicate Class” by Sheffield et al. (2017) and frames the grade as a potential response a supervisor might have to an employee’s work and whether or not it would be advanced to the client. 

Reflection from Dr. Phillips: 

In this writing-intensive course (EENV387), I try to emphasize to the students that engineering as a profession values good communication as much as a person’s technical knowledge and skills. A holistic rubric emphasizes the impact of issues in the written document on the audience. To me, this made space for a conversation with students about the fact that even good ideas presented poorly can fail to communicate necessary information to an audience. 

I also used a common feedback document. It made grading much easier once it was developed because students often could make similar improvements to their drafts. I will present those common feedback items to the class as a whole, so all students, even those that achieved high scores, can benefit from the collective feedback. 

I think moving forward I would include a few more technical point-by-point assessment metrics into the description of each rubric level. I would also add a few more levels of grades because I felt some efforts needed additional reward. 

Benefits:  

I liked having a rubric that did not distinguish between the technical and communication portions of the assignment because in practice that is often true. I also like that this rubric could be adapted to shift the focus of audience and tone from a “client” to another stakeholder (for example, the regulator(s), a community group, a contractor, etc.) in communicating an environmental engineering project. 

Challenges:  

I experienced a learning curve in developing and using the holistic rubric. It was challenging to keep in my mind what technical requirements I was looking for in each submission without a point-by-point analytic-type rubric. Since this was the first time using one, it was difficult to decide how much to weigh individual components of the assignment. It was hard to balance keeping track of the required technical information and evaluating the overall technical narrative at the same time. I also had a challenge developing and using the D2L rubric tool for the first time (syncing grades from the Assignment to the Gradebook did not work for me- time to call the D2L support team!).  

The assignment: 

Assignment Summary: Your client, a major food manufacturer, recently realized that they need to assess their yearly greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to determine whether they need to report their emissions yearly to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Please prepare a two-page summary of the regulatory requirements for your clients. Your summary should include a figure/table that helps to explain to the client some part of the requirements (be creative and make sure it helps the understanding of your client). The group making decisions based on your guidance includes the Environmental Health and Safety Officer (engineer who is familiar with regulations but not this particular regulation), the Manufacturing Manager (business sector), and the Chief Operating Officer (business sector). 

Goal: Prepare a technical summary of an environmental regulation with an audience of informed, interested but partially non-technical clients. 

Learning outcomes: analyzing and translating a complex environmental regulation, communicating technical information about the regulation toward an informed but (semi/non)-technical audience, practice preparing a concise, accurate summary 

The Rubric:  

(A+) 100.0% of points possible. The work is ready to be passed on to a client and it meets the audience needs for professional and concise communication. The major points are clear and well supported with evidence and references to the key points of the regulation; technical content is correct. The format is organized so that the client can find the requirements easily. The figure/table are presented clearly and support and enhance the technical content. The client would understand the technical requirements of the regulation and the document is professional. 

 

(A/A-) 93.5% of points possible. All of the technical content about the regulation is correct, but minor changes would be required before sending it on to a client. Changes would include revisions to the language, table or figure, or formatting to increase clarity and readability. The suggestions are minor, such that if the document was sent to the client without further changes, the client would receive a professional document that would be understandable and convey the necessary details about the regulatory requirements. Suggested changes are made in the text.  

 

(B+/B) 86.5% of points possible. The draft is good, but changes would be required before sending it on to a client. There is either a single major issue such as an error or missing technical content about the regulation, or there are changes needed to the language to improve understanding about what requirements in the regulation are applicable to your client. The figure/table(s) that are presented are not clear or do not support/enhance the technical content or help in explaining the regulation. Suggested changes are made in the text. 

 

(B-/C+) 80.0% of points possible. The draft shows some promise, but it lacks polish and/or includes technical errors about the regulation. This work would require major revision to most of the document before it would be passed on to a client. Good ideas are present, but as it stands, the client would not understand the technical requirements or would be distracted by the problems and/or technical errors. The figure/table(s) that are presented are not clear or do not support/enhance the technical content or help in explaining the regulation. Suggested changes are made in the text. 

 

(C/C-) 73.5% of points possible. Major revision is required before it can be passed on to a client. Changes are required to improve clarity and readability as well as in major technical content (for example regulatory content is missing, unclear, or represented incorrectly). The figure/table(s) that are presented are not clear or do not support/enhance the technical content. Without revision the client would have a difficult time determining the regulatory requirements. Suggested changes are made in the text. 

Lower scores than this are possible but uncommon (and usually the result of incomplete work). 

Using D2L for Rubric Development: 

Rubric

Adapted from: Sheffield et al. (2017) Implementing a Single Holistic Rubric to Address Both Communication and Technical Criteria in a First Year Design-Build-Test-Communicate Class American Society of Engineering Education Paper ID #18713 Accessed Feb 9, 2022: https://peer.asee.org/implementing-a-single-holistic-rubric-to-address-both-communication-and-technical-criteria-in-a-first-year-design-build-test-communicate-class.pdf