Rubric Maker

Interview Project Rubric Template

A ready-to-use, analytic interview project rubric for Student-conducted interview with a real person, written up or presented (Grades 6–12). Score the work that makes an interview project good — preparing real questions, following up in the moment, quoting accurately, and building something out of what the subject actually said — instead of grading how interesting the interviewee turned out to be. Edit it for your own assignment, print it, download it as a Word file, or share a link with your students.

Edit this template in the maker →

The interview project rubric

CriterionExcellent (4)Proficient (3)Developing (2)Beginning (1)
Background research & question designQuestions are built on specific prior research about the subject or topic, are open-ended, and are sequenced so early answers set up later ones; at least two questions could not be answered with a yes or a no.Questions are mostly open-ended and show general familiarity with the subject or topic, but several could have been written without any preparation at all.Questions are generic and could be asked of almost anyone ('What is your job like?'), and several can be answered in a single word.Fewer than five questions prepared, or the list was assembled during the interview itself with no research beforehand.
Conducting the interview & follow-upDeparts from the prepared list at least twice to follow up on something the subject said, asks for a specific example or clarification when an answer is vague, and lets pauses run rather than filling them.Asks at least one unplanned follow-up question, but otherwise works down the prepared list in order regardless of what the subject offers.Reads the prepared questions in order with no follow-ups; vague or incomplete answers are accepted and the next question is asked.Interrupts or talks over the subject, answers their own questions, or the interview ends well short of the assigned length because the list ran out.
Accuracy of the recordQuotations are word-for-word accurate against the recording or notes, paraphrases are clearly marked as paraphrase, and the date, place, and full name of the subject are recorded.Quotations are accurate in substance with only filler words tidied away, and the subject's name and the interview date are recorded.Quotations are approximate reconstructions from memory, or the line between the subject's words and the student's summary is unclear in places.Quotes cannot be traced to any record of the interview, or the account contradicts itself about what the subject said.
Ethics & professionalismObtained and documented the subject's permission to be interviewed and recorded, arrived or called on time and prepared, kept to the agreed length, and honored any request to keep something off the record.Obtained the subject's permission and completed the interview as arranged, with one lapse in timing, length, or preparation.Went ahead without clearly asking permission to record, rescheduled repeatedly, or ran far past the agreed time.Interviewed or recorded someone without their knowledge, or used material the subject asked to keep private.
Write-up: selection & structureOrganizes the material around a point the interview revealed, chooses the quotations that carry the most weight rather than the longest ones, and gives the reader enough context to know who the subject is and why the answers matter.Organized around a clear theme with a reasonable selection of quotes, though some transcript is included that adds nothing to the point being made.Follows the interview from first question to last, with questions and answers reproduced rather than shaped into anything.A raw transcript or list of answers with no introduction, no ordering, and no statement of what the interview showed.

Four levels — Excellent (4) to Beginning (1). Print this page, or open it in the editor to change the wording, levels, or points.

How to use this rubric

An interview project is usually graded on whichever student happened to know the most interesting person, which is the one part of the assignment they had no control over. The work a teacher can actually grade happens before, during, and after the conversation: researching enough to ask a real question, hearing an unexpected answer and following it, keeping quotes exactly as spoken, treating the subject decently, and then finding what the interview was about instead of typing up the transcript in order. This rubric scores those five things, so a careful interview with a next-door neighbor can outscore a lazy one with someone famous.

Why these criteria

Each row targets something the assignment is really teaching, with descriptors written to be observable rather than vague:

Background research & question design
The difference between an interview and a questionnaire is whether the student knew enough beforehand to ask something the subject has not already been asked a hundred times.
Conducting the interview & follow-up
Grades what happens when the subject says something unexpected — a student who leaves the script to chase a good answer is doing the actual skill this assignment teaches.
Accuracy of the record
An interview project is only worth anything if the quotes are what the person actually said, so fidelity to the record is graded rather than assumed.
Ethics & professionalism
Interviewing puts a student in contact with a real person who gave up their time, and how that person is treated belongs in the grade rather than beside it.
Write-up: selection & structure
Separates a student who found the story inside a forty-minute conversation from one who typed the transcript out in the order it happened.

How to adapt it

Frequently asked questions

How do I grade a project where the interviewee gave short, unhelpful answers?
That is what 'Conducting the interview & follow-up' is for — short answers are the moment the skill is tested. A student who asked for a specific example, waited through the pause, or rephrased the question can score at the top of that row even if the subject stayed brief. Only lower 'Write-up: selection & structure' if the thin material was reproduced as-is; a student who was honest about what they got and built around it is still doing the work.
Do students need to record the interview?
Not necessarily, but the 'Accuracy of the record' row assumes some record exists — a recording, or notes taken during the conversation with quotes marked as quotes. If recording is not practical, tell students in advance that quotation marks mean word-for-word and anything reconstructed later must be written as paraphrase. That keeps the top level of that row reachable without a device.
What about permission and privacy when students interview real people?
Handle it before the assignment goes out: a short written permission line the subject signs or emails, covering being interviewed, being recorded, and whether the piece can be shared beyond the class. The 'Ethics & professionalism' row grades whether the student got and documented that. For interviews with minors, or anything to be published publicly, check your school's own policy first — this rubric grades classroom practice, not legal compliance.
How is this different from the podcast rubric?
The podcast rubric grades a produced audio show — sound quality, segment structure, editing, and hosting across an episode. This one grades the interview itself as research: the preparation, the questioning, the fidelity of the record, and what the student made of the answers. If the interview is one segment inside a produced episode, use the podcast rubric and borrow the 'Conducting the interview & follow-up' row from here.

More rubric templates