So... It's been a while since my last post. I took some time off from the educational scene for a while. As I'm gearing up to get back out there, I've had some discussions with colleagues who are also using this month (August) to refresh and revive their teaching strategies.
I came across this presentation on teaching science with concept maps.Thanks Dr. Victor! I also like Dr. Victor's blog.
Thursday, 30 July 2015
Sunday, 7 December 2014
Wednesday, 26 November 2014
A recent encounter with a colleague who insisted that he could not award a student the highest mark on a so called “rubric” because this would mean the student is perfect has raised some concerns over the fairness, and therefore quality, of assessments sometimes meted out to unfortunate and unsuspecting students.
I was a member of a team assigned to assess pre-service teachers. They are assessed on a number of dimensions ranging from lesson planning to the sometimes intangible qualities of professionalism. Although some of us on the team referred to the assessment instrument as a rubric (I know I did), on further reflection it is not a rubric, but is rather a rating scale. I define the instrument as a rating scale because it consists of a series of statements that are ranked (rated) from one to five, with "five" being the highest. For example, a statement may go as follows: “student is punctual” or “objectives were clearly written.” A student may get a "four" if she is mostly on time or a "two" if his objectives are unclear. In my case, I believe the critical elements missing from this rating scale are the criteria that describe the behaviours or conditions that warrant a particular rating.