January 2026 - UDL Tip of the Month
Cutting Through the Noise to Build Better Choice Rubrics
By Marc Thompson (CITL)
One of the most common challenges instructors encounter when offering Multiple Means of Action and Expression is not coming up with assignment options, it's designing a single rubric that works well across all of them (Thompson, 2024). When students can choose between an essay, a presentation, a podcast, or another format, instructors often struggle to identify criteria that are equally relevant to every assignment option. In situations like this, rubrics can sometimes drift toward format-specific features, or instructors cave and create separate rubrics for each assignment option. Either way, consistency tends to suffer.
This is where thinking in terms of signal-to-noise ratio can be especially useful. Signal-to-noise thinking can help instructors identify which criteria should remain constant across formats because they reflect the learning outcomes, and which criteria are better treated as flexible, contextual, or secondary.
Signal, Noise, and Rubric Design
In educational assessment, the "construct" is the specific knowledge, skill, or capability an assessment is intended to measure (Messick, 1989). That construct is the "signal." A well-designed rubric makes that signal visible and stable across student work. The difficulty is that student submissions often include additional demands that are not central to the construct: time constraints, tool fluency, familiarity with genre conventions, or comfort with specific modes of communication. These factors can introduce "noise," not because they are unimportant in general, but because they aren't always relevant to what the assignment is meant to assess.
When instructors design rubrics for multiple submission options, this noise can become especially pronounced. Criteria that work well for one format may feel awkward, irrelevant, or overly restrictive for another. Signal-to-noise thinking provides a way through that problem. It starts by identifying the signal, then designing rubric criteria that capture that signal in ways that apply across formats (CAST, 2018; Meyer et al., 2014). A "signal-first choice rubric" does exactly that. It anchors evaluation to the learning outcomes and uses the same core criteria for each of the assignment options, while at the same time allowing the form of students' action and expression to vary.
The following checklist offers some strategic questions to ask when designing a signal-first choice rubric:
Design Checklist for Signal-first Choice Rubric
- Name the signal: What specific knowledge, skill, or capability is this assignment designed to measure?
- Anchor criteria to outcomes: Do all rubric criteria clearly align with the stated learning outcomes?
- Test for cross-format relevance: Would each criterion still make sense if the student chose a different approved assignment format?
- Identify potential noise: Are timing, tool proficiency, genre fluency, or production polish influencing the score without directly supporting the learning outcome?
- Be intentional about conventions: If disciplinary conventions matter and must be measured, are they explicitly named and tied to the construct?
- Check for equity and clarity: Can students easily see what counts as evidence of learning, regardless of how they choose to express it?
If each of these checklist items can be answered confidently, the rubric is likely doing a good job of keeping the signal clear while allowing meaningful choice across a variety of assignment options.
Examples of Signal-First Choice Rubrics Across Disciplines
The following assignment examples illustrate how consistent, relevant rubric criteria can be applied across different submission formats without privileging one assignment option over another.
Example 1: History Assignment
Assignment Instructions
Students will develop an interpretive analysis of a historical question using primary sources. The submission must advance a defensible historical claim and support that claim through contextualized analysis of multiple primary sources. Students may choose one of the approved formats below. All formats will be evaluated using the same criteria.
Approved formats:
- An 8–10 page analytical essay
- A 12–15 minute narrated digital exhibit
- A structured podcast episode with an annotated source record
Signal-First Choice Rubric (History)
| Criterion | Exemplary | Proficient | Developing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretive Claim | Advances a clear, original historical interpretation that drives the analysis | Presents a coherent interpretation with minor lapses | Relies largely on description or an implicit claim |
| Use of Primary Sources | Analyzes sources for perspective, purpose, and limitation | Uses sources appropriately with uneven analysis | Treats sources primarily as factual records |
| Contextualization | Situates sources convincingly within broader historical contexts | Provides relevant context with limited integration | Context is minimal or disconnected |
| Synthesis | Connects sources to each other in service of the argument | Some connections are made | Sources remain largely isolated |
| Scholarly Practice | Uses attribution and citation conventions appropriate to the medium | Minor inconsistencies in scholarly practice | Significant problems with attribution or framing |
In this rubric, scholarly practice is included because transparent use of evidence is part of the historical construct itself. Criteria remain relevant whether the work is written, narrated, or exhibited digitally.
Example 2: Biology Assignment
Assignment Instructions
Students will interpret experimental results from a provided dataset and explain what the data suggest about an underlying biological process. The submission must connect claims directly to evidence and demonstrate understanding of the experimental design. Students may choose one of the formats below.
Approved formats:
- A written Results and Discussion section
- A recorded research briefing with annotated figures
- An interactive lab report using R Markdown or Jupyter Notebook
Signal-First Choice Rubric (Biology)
| Criterion | Exemplary | Proficient | Developing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data Interpretation | Accurately explains trends, variability, and anomalies | Identifies major patterns with minor errors | Misinterprets data or describes without analysis |
| Evidence-based Reasoning | Claims are explicitly tied to figures or statistics | Evidence is present but unevenly integrated | Claims are weakly supported |
| Experimental Design Awareness | Clearly explains controls, variables, and limitations | General awareness of design features | Limited or incorrect understanding |
| Biological Explanation | Uses appropriate biological mechanisms and models | Explanations are plausible but underdeveloped | Explanations are vague or inaccurate |
| Research Communication | Follows core conventions for presenting scientific results | Conventions mostly followed | Conventions interfere with interpretation |
Here, communication conventions are assessed because they support accurate interpretation of data. The same criteria apply across all formats, even though the presentation of results may differ substantially.
Example 3: Sociology Assignment
Assignment Instructions
Students will apply one or more sociological theories to analyze a contemporary social issue or case. The submission must demonstrate accurate theoretical application and sustained sociological reasoning. Students may select from the formats below.
Approved formats:
- An analytic paper
- A policy memo written for a defined stakeholder audience
- A recorded case analysis with a written analytic outline
Signal-First Choice Rubric (Sociology)
| Criterion | Exemplary | Proficient | Developing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theoretical Application | Applies theory insightfully to explain social dynamics | Applies theory correctly with limited nuance | Theory is referenced but poorly applied |
| Analytical Depth | Examines causes, structures, and implications | Analysis present but uneven | Largely descriptive |
| Use of Evidence | Integrates course readings or empirical sources effectively | Uses relevant evidence | Evidence is minimal or disconnected |
| Argument Coherence | Develops a sustained sociological argument | Argument mostly coherent | Reasoning fragmented |
| Genre Awareness | Adapts tone and structure effectively to audience and purpose | Some genre awareness | Genre interferes with clarity |
In this example, genre awareness is assessed because sociological analysis often circulates in professional and public contexts. The criteria remain focused on sociological reasoning rather than format-specific polish.
Why Signal-to-Noise Matters for Choice Rubrics
Designing a rubric that works across multiple assignment options is difficult because formats vary. Signal-to-noise thinking offers a way to manage that complexity. By first identifying the construct and treating that as the stable signal, instructors can develop consistent, relevant criteria that apply across the different assignment options students are allowed to choose from. The result is a choice rubric that supports UDL's Multiple Means of Action and Expression while at the same time maintaining rigor, fairness, and alignment with stated learning outcomes. Ultimately, when the signal is clear and the noise is intentionally managed, both students and instructors have a better shared understanding of what counts as evidence of learning.
References
- CAST. (2024). The UDL Guidelines. http://udlguidelines.cast.org
- Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). Macmillan.
- Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. CAST.
- Thompson, M. (2024) UDL Principle 3: Multiple Means of Action and Expression. https://citl.illinois.edu/udl-tip-month-2024. (January 2024)