This instructors' resource blog post, from 2018, gives concrete and specific examples of using a rubric to give objective and actionable feedback to a student about a piece of writing.  Since rubrics work similarly no matter what type of learning  is being assessed, this resource may also prove helpful to individuals using the rubrics in this collection.  Instructors who use rubrics may also benefit by watching, and sharing with their students, this video on how, as a student, to use the rubric provided by the instructor to get a better grade!

This six-dimension rubric, based in part on the AAC&U Intercultural Competence Rubric, was created by team of experts to assess an institutional learning outcome which stated that "...[our] graduates will be able to analyze topics and human experiences using categories such as race, ethnicity, gender, social status and ability."

This four-quadrant framework with self-reflection questions can help an evaluator or an evaluation team critically self-examine whether they are, in fact, providing "helpful help" to marginalized groups.  This work comes from Dr. Hazel Symonette, a Black American educator & qualified IDI administrator who has served on the board of the American Evaluators Association, and helped craft the very definition of a culturally competent evaluator.

This 37-item survey instrument, created by a multi-ethnic research team, is designed to measure the level of student awareness about issues of culture, intergroup interaction, social justice, and the degree to which these issues are presented in the college classroom.

This 15-question survey, created by a  renowned US scholar of race and ethnicity, asks specifically about one's reactions to and interactions with persons of another race. It measures: 1. Diversity of contact (AAC&U curiosity), relativistic appreciation for differing others (AAC&U empathy), and comfort with difference (AAC&U openness).

This well-known assessment measures: 1. Participants' implicit attitudes, stereotypes, and biases related to cultural identity markers such as religion, race, gender, and sexuality.  The HubICL curation pulls together articles and resources providing context about this fascinating, groundbreaking and also controversial instrument.

This survey instrument, created by a profoundly multi-ethnic and global panel of experts, measures: 1. The current state of diversity, equity, and inclusion within an organization. 2. Progress in managing diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. 3. Feelings of trust, acceptance, and physical/psychological safety. 4. Short and long-term goals for an organization.

This survey, by Yamada, Marsella & Yamada, measures: 1. The individual's degree of involvement with a specific, self-identified ethnic peer group. 2. Connections between behavior and cultural identity.

This 31-question survey, created by a multi-ethnic research team, measures one's degree of empathetic perspective-taking ability towards persons of other races or ethnicities. It has been used in educational contexts around the world, and translated into many languages. (This is the english version.) We note that some users feel it "centers whiteness" and therefore we suggest that caution be used when considering it for use with persons or groups of marginalized identity. Its most effective use is probably for gauging degree of privilege in non-marginalized groups.

This framework or checklist is intended to help the instructor or institution gauge the extent to a course aligns on diversity and inclusion across a wide variety of factors: from purpose and goals through pedagogy, participants, assessment methods and content.

This study, by Purdue scholar Horane Diatta-Holgate, describes the creation and validation of a survey which asks the student to evaluate whether the instructor uses culturally inclusive language, pedagogy and behavior in the post-secondary classroom, and to define the degree to which that student feels included. While culturally relevant and culturally competent pedagogy is important to inclusion, this is the first known tool to ask for feedback from the students, as opposed to probing teacher attitudes.

This rubric, created by the American Association of Colleges & Universities in 2010, and endorsed by the Purdue Faculty Senate in 2011, forms the foundational definition and sorting method for the activities & materials in this digital toolbox.  the rubric measures: cultural self-awareness, knowledge of others' cultural worldview frameworks, empathy, communication, curiosity & openness.

In today's world, it is vital to understand teamwork as a frequent source of intercultural conflict and to work intentionally on intercultural teamwork skills! This assessment measures: 1. Participants' level of supportive communication, and the abilities to enact (a) civil conflict resolution, and (b) a group-oriented work ethic.

This assessment measures: 1. Participants' level of intercultural competence in the following areas: curiosity, respect for diversity, cultural self-awareness, knowledge of host-country language, knowledge of host-country context, critical thinking, adaptability, and conflict resolution.

Originally Published in Italian in December, 2019. English translation published in February 2021 (see Links tab).

This assessment measures: 1. The extent to which participants are "advancing just, fair, and conscientious global exchange, learning, and service partnerships" (Hartman, 2015). Downloadable pdf.

This Critical Reflection Rubric draws heavily on Patti Clayton's "Describe, Evaluate & Analyze Learning" (DEAL) model for deepening experiential and service learning outcomes. In this version, Clayton's rubric is mapped onto elements of the AAC&U Intercultural Competence Rubric.  Comes with a lesson plan. 

Scholars have shown a correlation between time spent living and working abroad & creativity.  Of pertinence to successfully negotiating cultural difference, the creativity rubric measures: willingness to take risks, innovative thinking, the ability to embrace contradictions and to synthesize knowledge.

This rubric was adapted primarily from the 2014 article on assessing intercultural content in travel journals, published by Malleus and Slattery. It measures the writer's comments in five categories of data: culture shock, communication challenges, cultural appreciation, cultural comparisons & reports of adaptative behavior.

This rubric was developed primarily from the 1976 Inventory of the same name by Dr. Brent D. Ruben, of Rutgers School of Communication (retired), filtered through the lens of the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett, 1986). It allows an observer to categorize or "grade" behavior that indicates: respect, openness, empathy, tolerance of ambiguity & posture towards authority. This HubICL tool comes with a lesson plan.

Since publishing their initial think piece on Socially Just Assessment (NILOA, August, 2018), Henning & Lundquist have regularly offered further examples and discussion of the "SJA" concepts at professional educator conferences and on the Campus Labs-Anthology website. This presentation was among the first to offer concrete examples of what the various levels of engagement along their transformational continuum of socially just assessment might look like. (Examples begin on slide 15).

This bibliography encompasses three categories of scholarly production and praxis related to Socially Just Assessment (SJA): citations of calls-to-action dating from 1977 through 2018, citations of frameworks & learning models relating to SJA, and a brief compendium of institutional case studies.  (For a more complete catalogue of case studies, see the Master List in this same HubICL collection.)

"The aim of the project is to engage stakeholders across the field in a conversation about terms, ideas, and practices associated with culturally responsive and socially just assessment. To this end, a series of webinars and podcasts have been produced. The webinars and the podcast series..." are available here.

Additional details and support are available at the Student Affairs Assessment Leaders website (available from link above), including further blog posts, a listserv sign-up form and a repository of presentations, tools and tips about assessment in student affairs contexts.

This paper presents a proposal of a Model of Student’ Assessment for Social Justice that seeks to go further in the construction of an education that contributes to a real and deep transformation of society.

The proposed model considers and learns from several "alternative" student assessment approaches: Inclusive, Authentic, Culturally Responsive, Participatory, Democratic-Deliberative and Critical Assessment. With this, a three-dimensional model is formulated: equitable assessment, participatory assessment and critical assessment.

NOTE: Although the abstract is in English, this paper is in Spanish.

This 2009 think piece on social justice & assessment focuses primarily on the British context & was among the very first to link related fields of assessment thought under the 'social justice' heading. It offers some useful definitions of terms, including of social justice, cultural justice and associational justice, as well as a thorough discussion of classroom & e-assessment.

 Prior to 2009, the few scholars who published on the often biased nature of educational assessment tended to use phrases like culturally-fair, culturally-responsive or anti-racist to describe assessment that looks to avoid and/or dismantle educational inequity.

Socially Just Assessment, somewhat like "flipping" the lecture-based classroom structure to a more active-learning mode, is more of a methodology or a mindset than a set of specific instruments or activities.  That said, the items listed in this resource can be particularly helpful to formative assessment of individual and institutional capacity to co-create more socially just societies.

As a result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. Analyze passages for diversity and Intercultural Development Continuum stages. 2. Recognize and discuss Intercultural Development Continuum stages and views on gay rights. 

As a result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. "Raise new questions about the relationship between individuals, communities, and land. 2. Enhance understanding and empathy for peoples experiencing the loss of connection to home landscapes & new experiences in new landscapes. 3. Build skills for personal resilience in the face of future changes in personal connection to landscape. 4. Begin to consider the role of migration (and associated loss and/or imported preconceptions about landscapes) in past and present land use (e.g. in the American West)" (Ryan, 2012). 

30-question survey that measures just what it sounds like it measures.

This assessment measures: 1. The culturally-responsive classroom primarily in terms of instructor behavior on four factors: diverse language, diverse pedagogy, inclusion, and cultural inclusion. 2. The effect of instructor behavior on the test-taker. 

As a result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. Learn what microaggressions are and be able to identify them. 2. Understand why microaggressions may be harmful or hurtful to others. 3. Understand the importance of rephrasing microaggressions in a way that is respectful.

This assessment measures: 1. Diversity awareness about issues of value and appreciation, learning and knowledge, intercultural interaction, social justice, and discipline practice. 

As a result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. Define the concept of "critical mass." 2. Analyze photos for critical mass, inclusion/exclusion, and stereotypes. 

As a result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. Give an example of white privilege. 2. Identify colorblindness as a form of white privilege. 3. Express how talking about whiteness can help deconstruct white privilege.

As a result of this two-week reflection, participants will be able to: 1. Consider and articulate more personal details about themselves and their goals. 

As a result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. Develop awareness of how subtle beliefs and behaviors can affect social interactions in everyday life. 2. Reflect on situations where race, gender, sexuality, disability, weight, and age affect interactions.

This lesson asks participants to consider how self-care advice may be inaccessible or non-inclusive to a variety of populations. During this activity, they will be tasked with creating their own self-care guides and accessing their level of accessibility and inclusivity.

As a result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. Understand and articulate how we place people into categories. 2. Understand how empathy impacts how we form relationships. 3. Explain how they put people into categories in their lives. 

As a result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. "Realize what privileges they may not have and/or take for granted." 2. "Recognize that privilege is not only a legal construct but also social, religious, economical, and so on." 3. Understand "how their personal perspective, life situation, etc. influence the types of choices they make" (Bolger, n.d.).

Trigger warning: This film is highly emotional and discusses an actual case of suicide, specifically self-immolation as sociopolitical protest. Man on Fire tells the story of a white minister, Charles Moore, who set himself on fire in 2014 to protest the racism in his small town of Grand Saline, TX.

As a result of using this media resource, participants will be able to:

1. Explore what small town racism looks like in contemporary America.
2. Question the efficacy of Charles Moore’s death by protest in changing the situation.

As a result of using this media resource, participants will be able to: 1. Practice suspending judgement (Openness) and asking deeper questions (Curiosity). 2. Recognize emotional and intellectual dimensions of more than one worldview (Empathy). 3. Recognize new perspectives about own cultural rules (Cultural Self-Awareness). 4. Develop real connections based on deep relationships with other participants, ideally from backgrounds other than their own.  CILMAR thanks diversity educators Dr. Zenephia Evans, Ms. Renee Thomas and Ms. Annette Watters for introducing us to this one!

As a result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. Describe the phenomenon of identity-based rejection sensitivity and its consequences. 2. Analyze potential solutions that avoid self-fulfilling prophecies of rejection based on a stigmatized identity.

Just what it sounds like. Thanks to Renee Thomas, of Purdue's Black Cultural Center, for teaching us how to teach this one! Renee, your leadership is inspirational!

20-minute imaginative exercise for putting yourself in the space of another being.

30-minute activity. As a result of this activity, participants will: 1. Define empathy. 2. Consider how perspectives toward empathy have changed. 3. Examine the difference between empathy and tribalism. 4. Learn what the "dark side of empathy" means. 

One hour activity. As result of this activity, participants will be able to: 1. Describe the negative and positive aspects of empathy. 2. Develop empathy for those who are different from them. 

As a result of using this media resource, participants will be able to: 1. Understand the ways in which narratives and stories can create stereotypes about people and places. 2. Analyze “single stories” participants may have about specific people or cultures. 3. Demonstrate how “single stories” influence bias and stereotypes in order to complicate and grow out of these viewpoints.

This rubric can be used as a formative assessment to set the tone for appropriate and effective behavior in any group of culturally disparate persons or culture-crossers. It can also be used by an observer or instructor to grade behavior(s) of an individual or a group. Triangulation of observed behavior with expressed self-assessment can, in the hands of a good debriefer or coach, lead to strong "a-ha" moments.

45 minute activity. Suitable for all ages as it uses the metaphor of an elephant and a giraffe to discuss reactions to difference.

This assessment measures teamwork competencies.

This assessment measures participants' sense of social connectedness.

This assessment measures participants' level of good communication, civil conflict resolution, and a strong but group-oriented work ethic.

This assessment measures participants' sense of loneliness.

This assessment measures participants' sense of belongingness --and it has been validated for use with learners as young as nine years old!

This assessment measures diversity awareness about issues of value and appreciation, learning and knowledge, intercultural interaction, social justice, and discipline practice. 

This assessment measures participants' general sense of belongingness and loneliness.

  This assessment measures a participant's general sense of belongingness.

The IDI teaches participants about where they fall on the intercultural development continuum.

The LSI assesses learning preferences and teaches how to expand learning flexibility. While most widely used among college-age and adult populations, the Kolb instrument has been used in research with students down to grade five (in Dubai, sample of over 700, see Abosalem, 2013: https://bspace.buid.ac.ae/handle/1234/511).  A modified version has been used in Thailand with students as young as first grade (Buaraphan, Asian Social Sciencee; Vol. 11, no. 10, 2015). 

This 14-question survey adapts the AAC&U Intercultural Competence Rubric. 

This assessment investigates how the participant likes to learn new material and have new experiences. 

The IES measures: continuous learning disposition, interpersonal engagement and hardiness. Note: while primary usage seems to be with college-age and adult learners, the IES is validated for use with upper secondary (high school) age learners (approximately 15-18 years of age).

This quiz identifies how bias can be a barrier to experiences or decision-making. 

The Language Learning Strategies Inventory should make the participant more aware of his/her preferred ways of language learning. 

This 20-question survey measures community engagement, ethical leadership and cultural competency. 

This quiz examines how participants express values through their behavior. 

This assessment identifies the similar and different values of participants in a team. 

The One-Minute Paper helps participants to give quick feedback to a facilitator and demonstrate their understanding of a lesson.

This assessment helps the participant to understand more about how to learn effectively.  Also validated in a South African secondary school context with a sample of 238 students. Bosman, A., & Schulze, S. (2018). Learning style preferences and Mathematics achievement of secondary school learners. South African Journal of Education, 38(1).

This assessment measures the ability to value diverse others, capacity to appreciate change or novelty, tolerance for challenging perspectives and capacity for comfort with unfamiliarity.

This assessment allows participants to reflect on the degree to which they have adapted to a new sociocultural environment. Suitable for use with learners as young as 10 years of age.

Participants can use this assessment to reflect on their empathetic abilities. Has been used in validated research with learners as young as 13. If working with younger learners, consider Bryant's 1982 Empathy Index for Children and Adolescents (Psychological Reports, 2004) --not yet curated into the HubICL.

This assessment instrument helps individuals identify the quality that is commonly called "charisma." Additionally, it helps them reflect upon whether their nonverbal expressiveness is appropriate and effective to a given audience or in a cross-cultural situation. 

The Big Five-2 is based on decades of psychology research into personality traits. It has been repeatedly validated as measuring personality tendencies that are both stable and predictive. It measures Openness, Agreeableness, Extraversion, Conscientiousness & Negative Emotionality. 

This assessment measures four scales that each represent a facet of empathy: perspective-taking, empathic concern, personal distress, and fantasy (ability to imagine oneself in another's situation). This instrument has been widely used at the secondary school level (roughly ages 12-18) and a simplified version exists which has been used with learners as young as seven years old. (For more information on this simplified version, consult: Hawk, S. T., Keijsers, L., Branje, S. J., Graaff, J. V. D., Wied, M. D., & Meeus, W. (2013). Examining the interpersonal reactivity index (IRI) among early and late adolescents and their mothers. Journal of personality assessment, 95(1), 96-106.)

This is a seven-question instrument, which uses a seven-point Likert scale to measure two dimensions of curiosity: appetite for novelty, and "absorbtion," e.g. the desire to want to "dig deeper" and learn more about a topic, person, activity, etc.  Absorption is also sometimes known in the literature, particularly in technology-related fields,  as "flow."

The instrument, a short checklist, was created for use in clinical professional assessment of athletic trainers and/or health-care professionals or for self-assessment by the health professional. It covers "bedside manner," tone of voice, facial expression, posture, zone of proximity, and distracting or negative body language. Although created primarily for use in clinical health-related professions, it may also have some value for use in STEM lab partnerships, shared office spaces and/or conflict resolution situations.

This is a 15 question version of a longer instrument which measures Diversity of Contact (AACU curiosity), relativistic appreciation for differing others (AACU Empathy) , and comfort with difference (Openness). If used as a formative assessment, e.g. for group discussion or individualized feedback, it can also increase the learners self-awareness. Validated for use with students at least as young as twelve years of age.

This is a formative assessment, generally for personal use only. It is as appropriate for the leader of a cross-cultural program as for the learners. If completed anonymously and turned in to the leader, it can also be a useful device to gauge whether one's group of learners is being too challenged and is in need of additional support. It can also be useful for helping a group of students release frustration about "ineffective" and "non-timely" cultural phenomena, as well as prepare them to plan for intentional but productive stress release.

This is a twenty-question survey which measures the four factors which contribute to the construct of cultural intelligence: motivation (drive), metacognition (strategy), cognition (knowledge), and behavior (action). 

This survey instrument poses 14 short communication scenarios. The survey-taker is asked to rank, on a five-point Likert scale, whether the communicative response portrayed in each scenario is "Not at all like me" or "Exactly like me." According to the authors it can be used as either as a self-report instrument or as a diagnostic tool for the instructor. 

This tool can be used as a formative assessment to set the tone for appropriate and effective behavior in any group of culture-crossers. It can also be used by an observer or instructor to grade behavior(s) of an individual or a group. Triangulation of observed behavior with expressed self-assessment can, in the hands of a good debriefer or coach, lead to strong "a-ha" moments.

This assessment increases participants' cultural self-understanding and cultural other-standing, as well as better manage stress and anxiety during conflict and use culturally responsive strategies while communicating. 

This summative instrument will enable the instructor to make sense of qualitative data from students journals or blogs. It categorizes the writer's reflections into one of five categories of data: Culture Shock, Communication Challenge, Cultural Appreciation, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Adaptive Behavior.

The BEVI is a complex instrument with 185 items plus demographics and qualitative items, 17 scales, and numerous subgroup analysis options. Respondents to the BEVI receive an individual narrative report by email after completing the instrument. Among the facets of intercultural competence which it measures are: tolerance of disequilibrium, critical thinking, self access (self-awareness), sociocultural openness & ecological resonance. As of early 2023, it was available in both English & Japanese.

Typically, the instructor uses the rubric to assess critical thinking skills of the learner(s).   If the model is given to the learners after an intercultural learning experience, the instructor will generally find that learners reflect more deeply rather than merely reporting what happened and how they did or didn't like it.

This assessment allows users to discover their strengths and learn how to use them in various contexts. Can be useful for a gentle introduction to difference as a positive thing, so it is particularly effective for learners in polarization.

While the original instrument was created for use with college-age learners and above, a simplified instrument called "Strength Explorers" is available for learners as young as ten years of age.

This assessment tool assesses the culturally-responsive classroom primarily in terms of instructor behavior on four factors: diverse language, diverse pedagogy, inclusion and cultural inclusion. Secondarily, it assesses the effect of instructor behavior on the test-taker. 

The creativity rubric can be used to help learners work on tolerance of ambiguity ("risk-taking") or ability to shift perspectives ("embracing contradictions"), especially in situations where they are otherwise hesitant to engage with folks from other cultures.

This inventory enables participants to identify their preferred strategies for learning about another culture and recognize that additional options may exist and be worth trying.

This assessment can be used formatively (assessment for learning) to inform curriculum design, summatively, in a pre/posttest format (assessment of learning) to measure growth as the result of a learning intervention, or as part of the learning process (assessment as learning) in which results are debriefed and discussed with learners as a group.

This assessment will enable participants to become more aware of how they compare to others in terms of three types of curiosity and gain a language for better understanding their own curiosity and its benefits in the workplace.

The Culture Compass, created by Hofstede Insights, helps participants to understand how their cultural values impact the way they interact with individuals from other cultures.

This is a 30-question instrument, designed to measure intellectual empathy, empathetic emotions and the communication between the two. As such, it addresses four factors: Empathetic Feelings and Expression; Empathetic Perspective-Taking; Acceptance of Cultural Differences; and Empathetic Awareness.

This is a self-scoring 18-question instrument, which measures four modes of receiving verbal information: Receptive Listening, Consensus-based Listening, Exploratory Listening, & Action Listening.

Given its self-scoring nature, this assessment will help individuals or teams develop greater awareness of the components of active and empathic listening.  Used in tandem with a debrief or as a discussion starter, it may also create awareness of others' listening skills or help trigger empathy.

This assessment will enable participants to reflect on the extent to which they are "advancing just, fair, and conscientious global exchange, learning, and service partnerships" (Hartman). 

This 19-question survey instrument measures the individual's degree of involvement with a specific, self-identified ethnic peer group. It was developed and validated with a group of Asian-American & Pacific Islander informants, and is thus particularly apt for individuals who so identify. However, it is also culture-general enough for wider use.

This tool helps foreign language learners set goals and track their progress as they learn a new language.