Powerful post, Terry. Here are two quotes that stood out to me, and why:
"As long as there is no clear, constitutional vision with a coherent framework of schooling with children at the center, there can be only piecemeal change."
- Instructional frameworks are essential for achieving that vision of school that works for all kids. I use it to support teachers when someone from the outside might be critical of their practice. Frameworks (not rubrics!) articulate the practices that serve as a pathway toward that vision.
"In a culture where adults working in schools serve children, not other adults, the experiences of children would inform pedagogical reform."
- The labels "teacher" and "student" are antiquated if you see the relationships in a learning environment as based on reciprocity. Teachers who learn during instruction and respond in real time are most effective; students often make the best teachers for one another when supported through structured dialogue and discussion.
Thank you Terry for bringing us back to our big purpose!
I’ve been thinking a lot about rubrics lately and am working on a post. I’m not so sure it’s the rubric that’s the problem as the bad rubric. They can wield real power; when they are bad, they do a lot of damage. But when they are good… therein lies the post I’m working on
The word ‘rubric’ is a lot like the word ‘science.’ Both words have a dark side in the discourse of schooling. They who control the pen in the writing of a rubric for assessing a large population wield considerable power that seeps into the most vulnerable parts of classroom activities. Motives for writing rubrics as well as transparency of purpose are always suspect. But we can’t learn nor teach without a degree of shared clarity in intentions and goals; and concrete criteria to describe qualities of progress can focus effort, guide revisions and adjustments, facilitate self-assessment, and motivate. That said, most rubrics suck once they become evaluative rather than pedagogical tools—but not all.
If I’m looking at the right document, I wouldn’t classify this as a rubric useful in assessment. Here’s what you need to convert this into a rubric. Get a cross section of people to create products based on this template. Then have experienced people examine the qualities of the most effective examples. Then look at examples of products that are not quite as effective. Then look at those that miss the mark. Finally, write descriptive, objective statements that characterize the substance of these performances at different levels. This template is the starting point for creating a rubric in that it specifies the task. The rubric is a collection of empirical statements that inform either a learner or an assessor about what you would see in a novice, apprentice, or expert performance. Good rubrics are difficult to create but valuable once well made. Just saying you need these parts doesn’t afford an observer an anchor for differentiating qualitative differences in performances. You need a clear task, a field test to generate a collection of performances, and an analysis of the collection before you have a potentially useful rubric.
Interesting distinction, Terry. I can see what I shared as a starting point. Based on what you are sharing here, I can also see why good rubrics are difficult to develop, especially with the somewhat subjective nature of assessing creative expression such as writing. I'm the worst judge of my own writing, proven time and again when I post something on my newsletter with lots of hope and see little resonance with readers (and vice versa). Maybe this is a primary reason why portfolio assessment is important.
I’ve been working on a rubric for judging the quality of a rubric. Some rubrics are quite valuable in teaching (score = 6). Others get in the way or introduce distortions (score = 1). The key is to discern details of a performance which others can also discern, students as well as parents, other teachers, and interested stakeholders; rubrics can establish joint attention on work processes and products and provide ground for discussing a piece of work dispassionately. It’s not enough to say that some work is weak, some is ok, some is beautiful. What makes it so? Because rubrics are by nature applied to qualitative data, they are a tool to quantify what is inherently non-quantifiable (e.g., creative expression). Because people can see objects in similar ways, they can learn to agree to value particular details or features more or less than others. By collaborating with others in making concrete statements that refer to visible and knowable aspects of a performance, we see how principals can learn to lead, teachers to teach, and kids to grow.
Powerful post, Terry. Here are two quotes that stood out to me, and why:
"As long as there is no clear, constitutional vision with a coherent framework of schooling with children at the center, there can be only piecemeal change."
- Instructional frameworks are essential for achieving that vision of school that works for all kids. I use it to support teachers when someone from the outside might be critical of their practice. Frameworks (not rubrics!) articulate the practices that serve as a pathway toward that vision.
"In a culture where adults working in schools serve children, not other adults, the experiences of children would inform pedagogical reform."
- The labels "teacher" and "student" are antiquated if you see the relationships in a learning environment as based on reciprocity. Teachers who learn during instruction and respond in real time are most effective; students often make the best teachers for one another when supported through structured dialogue and discussion.
Thank you Terry for bringing us back to our big purpose!
I’ve been thinking a lot about rubrics lately and am working on a post. I’m not so sure it’s the rubric that’s the problem as the bad rubric. They can wield real power; when they are bad, they do a lot of damage. But when they are good… therein lies the post I’m working on
I am interested in reading what you share, Terry. I haven't found a lot that I like but I will keep an open mind.
The word ‘rubric’ is a lot like the word ‘science.’ Both words have a dark side in the discourse of schooling. They who control the pen in the writing of a rubric for assessing a large population wield considerable power that seeps into the most vulnerable parts of classroom activities. Motives for writing rubrics as well as transparency of purpose are always suspect. But we can’t learn nor teach without a degree of shared clarity in intentions and goals; and concrete criteria to describe qualities of progress can focus effort, guide revisions and adjustments, facilitate self-assessment, and motivate. That said, most rubrics suck once they become evaluative rather than pedagogical tools—but not all.
I appreciate the distinction between evaluative rubrics and ones used as a teaching tool.
I am learning more about online course design and came across this rubric that seems to fall in the latter category: https://help.maven.com/en/articles/6815473-landing-page-rubric?_hsmi=239544562&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9TkB3pWDgAYMa3uH_m7VhjBs63GJLDAF3nQ4FIrMkFnDZPxfdiyo2Sd-IklVLXI-M7F5QRGaeWYwsMv5J_4RlkWEc_-A
I appreciate that there is an image of what a quality outcome looks like along with description for each step in the process of creating the project.
If I’m looking at the right document, I wouldn’t classify this as a rubric useful in assessment. Here’s what you need to convert this into a rubric. Get a cross section of people to create products based on this template. Then have experienced people examine the qualities of the most effective examples. Then look at examples of products that are not quite as effective. Then look at those that miss the mark. Finally, write descriptive, objective statements that characterize the substance of these performances at different levels. This template is the starting point for creating a rubric in that it specifies the task. The rubric is a collection of empirical statements that inform either a learner or an assessor about what you would see in a novice, apprentice, or expert performance. Good rubrics are difficult to create but valuable once well made. Just saying you need these parts doesn’t afford an observer an anchor for differentiating qualitative differences in performances. You need a clear task, a field test to generate a collection of performances, and an analysis of the collection before you have a potentially useful rubric.
Interesting distinction, Terry. I can see what I shared as a starting point. Based on what you are sharing here, I can also see why good rubrics are difficult to develop, especially with the somewhat subjective nature of assessing creative expression such as writing. I'm the worst judge of my own writing, proven time and again when I post something on my newsletter with lots of hope and see little resonance with readers (and vice versa). Maybe this is a primary reason why portfolio assessment is important.
I’ve been working on a rubric for judging the quality of a rubric. Some rubrics are quite valuable in teaching (score = 6). Others get in the way or introduce distortions (score = 1). The key is to discern details of a performance which others can also discern, students as well as parents, other teachers, and interested stakeholders; rubrics can establish joint attention on work processes and products and provide ground for discussing a piece of work dispassionately. It’s not enough to say that some work is weak, some is ok, some is beautiful. What makes it so? Because rubrics are by nature applied to qualitative data, they are a tool to quantify what is inherently non-quantifiable (e.g., creative expression). Because people can see objects in similar ways, they can learn to agree to value particular details or features more or less than others. By collaborating with others in making concrete statements that refer to visible and knowable aspects of a performance, we see how principals can learn to lead, teachers to teach, and kids to grow.