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.
