D evelopment and Validation of Analytic

Scoring Rubric
for Scoring
Teaching Demonstration

2nd National Conference on Educational Measurement and Evaluation

2
3
4
 Dimensions of the Rubric
Dimension Number of Indicators
Lesson Planning 7
Teacher Personality 6
Content 6
Utilization of Instructional
Materials 11

Teaching Methods and

Instructional Delivery 21

Classroom Management 7
Questioning Skills 11
Percentage for
Each Dimension
 Steps Considered in the
Development of the Rubric
 Steps Considered in the
Development of the Rubric
 Steps Considered in the
Development of the Rubric
 Content Validation
Three experts checked and reviewed the
items that were constructed. Content
validation was attained in this study by
presenting to these 3 experts the draft
items where they gave their comments.
Their valuable suggestions were
considered for the desired improvement
of the instrument.
Inter-Rater Reliability
In this instrument, the inter-rater reliability
was established by requesting 3 qualified faculty
members (by expertise) to simultaneously rate
the performance of student teachers as they
perform teaching tasks. This was done to
measure the homogeneity of ratings between and
among the two or more raters using the same
instrument (Arter, 2001).
Inter-rater Reliability & Homogeneity
Dimension r Description F test P F critical

Teacher Personality .93 Very strong 0 1

Lesson Planning .91 Very strong

1 0.405344
Content .89 Very strong 0.5 0.622431
Utilization of
.70 Very strong
Instructional Materials 1.3333 0.31105 4.256495
Teaching Methods and
.87 Very strong
Instructional Delivery 0.3 0.747947
Classroom Management .96 Very strong 0.9 0.440235

Questioning Skills .52 Strong

3 0.100388
Over-all .83 Very strong Description No significant difference
Legend: (Rosenthal, 2001)
Correlation Size of Association Strength of Association
About +/-.10 small weak
About +/-.30 medium moderate
About +/- .50 large strong
About +/- .70 very large Very strong
Criterion-Related Validation
In this study, criterion-related validity was
established by correlating the performance of the student
teachers in their demonstration to their performance in the
final examination in one of their major subjects. This was
done in 3 selected state universities. The final
examination used was departmental examination given
across all students enrolled in the particular major subjects
in the state universities where the pilot testing was
conducted.
Criterion-Related Validation
Criterion-related validation results in 3 state universities

State University Students’ Students’ Correlation

Average Score Average Grade Coefficient
in Teaching in Major
Demonstration Subject

1 92.40 93.27 0.76*

2 91.67 92.07 0.86*
3 89.20 92.27 0.55*
* Significant at p>.05
 The Scoring Procedure
  Below are the steps in grading the whole demonstration
teaching using this rubric:
1. In evaluating student’s performance against a set of criteria
articulated in this rubric, the evaluator is expected to be very
objective by going through each item in every dimension and
identify if the said item is clearly observed.
2. To determine the grade for each dimension, count the number
items with X mark and identify the performance level
corresponding to the score (e.g., two Xs is equivalent to 2
which is qualitatively described as in-progress). Write in the
evaluator column (please identify your number whether you
are evaluator 1. 2 or 3) the score for that dimension. Take note
that the highest score must be 4.
 The Scoring Procedure
 
3. Take note that there is corresponding percentage for every dimension which
should serve as multiplier of the score points obtained by student. The
following are the percentage for each dimension:

Dimension Weight in
Percent
1. Teacher Personality 5%
2. Lesson Planning 5%
3. Content 35%
4. Utilization of Instructional Materials 5%
5. Teaching Methods and Instructional
25%
Delivery
6. Classroom Management 20%
7. Questioning Skills 5%
Total 100%
 The Scoring Procedure
 
4. Transmute the weighted rating by referring to the table below to
determine the grade for demonstration teaching:
Equivalent Grade
Rubric Rating
in Percent
4 - Exceeds Expectations 100
3 – Meets Expectations 90
2 – In Progress 80
1 – Novice 70
5. To get the equivalent grade of weighted rating that is a mixed
number, refer to the table above for the equivalent of the whole number
and then every 0.1 decimal would be translated to % (e.g., 2.4 would
mean 84% while 3.6 would mean 96%).
Scale Equivalence and Interpretation
Equivalent
Scale Grade
in %
Interpretation
You are excellent! Congratulations! That means you have
4 100 shown the characteristics of a good teacher as measured in this
instrument. Keep up the good work.
You did it well! You could be an outstanding teacher in the
future. But remember, there is still a room for improvement.
3 90 Try to work on those indicators you have ignored.

You got a passing grade but such grade indicates that you need
to exert much effort to meet the standard of excellence in
2 80 teaching. Go over the evaluation result as reflected in this
rubric and try to reflect on the indicators you ignored.

You got a failing mark which means that there is a need for
you to try again for the better. Remember to give your best in
1 70 teaching the second time around and never give up. Please see
your teacher for help.
Note: Round off decimals to the nearest whole number to figure out the interpretation of grades.
 i st e n ing !
Thank you fo r l

The researchers like to acknowledge the invaluable comments and

suggestions of the following:

Dr. Marilyn Ubina-Balagtas – Philippine Normal University

Dr. Elmer Dela Rosa – Central Luzon State University
Ms. Ruby Leah S. Lising – Harris Memorial College
Ms Jonalyn B Villarosa – Palawan State University

For further inquiries, please email

pedritoaton@yahoo.com or fraideganotc@yahoo.com