Rueful “Rubrics”

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.


I like the explanation of rubrics found at the teaching section of UNSW’s (University of New South Wales) website. It states:

“A rubric makes explicit a range of assessment criteria and expected performance standards. Assessors evaluate a student's performance against all of these, rather than assigning a single subjective score. A rubric:

• handed out to students during an assessment task briefing makes them aware of all expectations related to the assessment task, and helps them evaluate their own work as it progresses
• helps teachers apply consistent standards when assessing qualitative tasks, and promotes consistency in shared marking.”

I think those of us who are educators/trainers or who belong to any other groups responsible for assessing performance should seriously consider developing and using rubrics rather than simple rating scales when it comes to the important task of grading performance. What we turn in as a grade may have a profound effect on our students’ lives. I think this is even more so at the tertiary level where often sacrificial sums are spent to attain a diploma or degree on the pathway of upward social mobility and economic gain.

So, back to the beginning… If there had been criteria listed for the rating "five," the highest rating, and these criteria described a range, for example, “student is on time for class 90- 100% of the time,” then my colleague would have clearly seen that indeed a person may be able to attain the highest ranking without being “perfect.”

I rest my case.

Links
https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/assessment-rubrics
Image courtesy of Pixabay: http://pixabay.com/en/centimeter-equipment-inch-inches-2261/