We act like we can measure quality. In the game of
education, we develop “rubrics” and then we measure performance by how well
students measure up. This is somehow
supposed to be different from just giving out letter grades. Sure, an A can
tell a student that she’s doing quality work, but it doesn’t explain why. The
Rubric is supposed to break it down so that the student can see where quality
lives.
But can the Rubric be used to help a student achieve
quality? Accrediting agencies and politicians, and therefore school
administrators, seem to have a fanatical appreciation for Rubrics. At Rochester
Community and Technical College, for example, the Rubrics for Aesthetic
Response, Civic Responsibility, Communication, Critical Thinking, and Global
Awareness/Diversity are all available on the Faculty homepage. Anytime I wish,
I can click on a Rubric, access a specific class that I am teaching, and rate a
student’s performance in a number of subcategories on a 1 (Unsatisfactory) to 4
(Above Average). The data generated from the report can then be used to assess
how well the course is working to achieve expected outcomes.
Actually, the Rubrics can be quite useful for summative
course evaluation purposes. And as a result, I would go as far as to admit that
having data to drive how a course is designed may be useful increasing the
overall quality of the course. Will any of this actually help more students
develop quality in their individual work? That’s the bigger question. No matter how well designed a
class may be, some students will always do well, and some students will always
perform poorly. Rubrics will always be able to measure the differences, but
they will never be able to ensure that all students perform well.
Do people promote the salvation of rubrics because they have
a strong distrust for just doing what “feels” right?
“Do or do not… there is no try.” -- Yoda
Comments
Post a Comment