Update #2 on Jeffrey: Assessing the Teaching and Reading of Ancient and Medieval Literature

Prequisite Frameworks for Integrating AI

Yesterday, Jeff and I talked for almost 70 minutes. He’s taught two weeks of his seminar on pre-15th century world literature. In my last update, I reported based on evidence of a text from him that he had a “bounce in his step,” that something had changed in the ethos of his seminar sections. It was apparent early on that he’d stopped bouncing, that something was troubling him—actually, it turned out to be two things. I’ll publish the talk as a podcast for interested listeners. I found it really interesting, but it may go into the weeds a bit for some of you with different interests.

First off, he’d given his first quiz and discovered that roughly half of the missed the final question: How does the Iliad end? Does it matter whether they read deeply if they don’t know that fact? Did they even read the whole thing? He was troubled. We discussed the peculiar challenges presented to readers at the beginning and ending of a complex text. Getting a solid foothold is non-negotiable; judging solid footholds requires experience and self-awareness. Walking out the exit door of a book seems a no-brainer: Close the book and go to sleep. Actually, students can learn strategies to objectify a complex text as a microstructure helpful in overall retention. Before closing the book, revisit its opening, take a brisk look at the trail, reflect on the ending, the arc from start to end. There’s a lot more on this in the tape.

Second, Jeffrey confessed to not having tried the bot himself. He had brought it up in class, being upfront with his students about his concerns, but he’s not held any discussions. We talked honestly about his existential concerns. He’d read an article in the New York Times about an art exhibit for AI pieces, and something inside him reacted, not quite a gag reflex but of the ilk. Why do I have the urge to rhyme? I’m not sure what he will decide to do after my attempts to redirect him toward a bot as dumb as a post, a bot that is no Van Gogh and never could be. I haven’t listened yet to that part of the tape. I think I encouraged him to get his students’ honest perspective on the bot as well.

We spent time on fleshing out how he feels about teaching reading aligned with three themes: taking up a reader-centered perspective, building sensitivity to a text’s cultural and historical context, and viewing acts of reading through a phenomenological lens. I felt that there was forward movement on that front, and Jeffrey agreed.

I wish we didn’t have to worry about rubrics. From where I stand, the comment an administrator made about ignoring AI applies equally to rubrics: you can’t put your head behind the curtain and leave your behind exposed. It’s a non-negotiable fact that rubrics exist. There are differences in human performance levels; we can specify those differences and perceive them with expertly subjective objectivity. The question isn’t “Should rubrics be part of pedagogy” but “How good and useful is this rubric?” Bad rubrics have bad consequences. Good ones help when used well.

I’ve been working with the bot on creating rubrics as seeds for the new reality in Jeff’s seminar. If we aren’t careful, the dystopian future Jeffrey fears could come true. AI I think does homogenize and hygienicize in exchange for stronger correlations across semantic vectors quantified on knowledge maps. I’m going to share two bot rubric creations in need of the human touch as a starting point for rubrics Jeff might consider as student self-assessment tools and grading tools for his periodic response papers, which could provide information and spur discussions about his core emphases: reading strategies and knowledge construction. Then I’ll share the bot conversation that led to this bot rubric contribution for the interested. Here’s one rubric for Jeffrey to remodel for his teaching. A good place to start might be sharing it with his students:

Here is a possible frame for a rubric useful by a reader for self-assessment and by an instructor for evaluation. Like almost all of the rubrics I’ve managed to prod from the bot, I have significant reservations. They are starting points, not finished products. I would definitely share this rubric very soon with students and get their input before writing the document that will guide the seminar:

Here’s the conversation for the interested. It’s pretty much as it happened:

- robot: Hello, How can I assist you?

- user: I’m an instructional designer for college courses. Define for me all senses you learned during your training associated with the spelling “rubric.”

- robot: As an AI language model, I don't have direct personal experiences or training. However, I can provide you with information about the term "rubric" as it relates to instructional design and grading in college courses. In the context you specified, the term "rubric" typically refers to a set of guidelines or criteria used to assess and evaluate student work.

Here are some senses associated with the term "rubric" in the context of instructional design:

1. Assessment Tool: A rubric serves as an assessment tool that provides instructors with clear criteria for evaluating student assignments or projects. It outlines the expectations and standards for each level of performance.

2. Grading Criteria: Rubrics establish specific grading criteria, allowing instructors to provide consistent and objective feedback to students. It helps ensure fairness and transparent evaluation.

3. Performance Levels: Rubrics often include a range of performance levels, such as "excellent," "good," "fair," and "poor," or use a numerical scale to differentiate varying degrees of achievement.

4. Descriptions and Indicators: A rubric includes descriptions or indicators for each performance level that define the characteristics of work at that level. This provides both instructors and students with a clear understanding of what is expected for each criterion.

5. Clear Expectations: By using a rubric, instructors can communicate their expectations to students, making grading criteria explicit and reducing ambiguity in assignments.

6. Feedback Tool: Rubrics enable instructors to provide constructive feedback to students, highlighting their strengths and areas needing improvement in a systematic and consistent manner.

Remember that the use and specifics of rubrics may vary across different educational institutions and disciplines. It's essential to consult relevant resources or collaborate with colleagues to ensure effective implementation of rubrics in your instructional design work.

- user: I understand. But there are key elements that make a rubric a rubric in the context of instructional design, elements that provide the structure for the concept “rubric.” Do you agree?

- robot: Yes, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Indeed, a rubric in the context of instructional design typically has several key elements that provide structure and define its purpose. These elements may include:

1. Criteria: Rubrics are built around specific criteria or standards that students are expected to meet. These criteria outline the qualities or characteristics that will be assessed.

2. Levels of Achievement: Rubrics often include multiple levels of achievement or proficiency, such as "excellent," "good," "fair," and "poor." Each level corresponds to a different degree of attainment for each criterion.

3. Descriptors: Along with the levels of achievement, rubrics usually include descriptors or descriptions for each level. These descriptors help clarify what is expected at each level of proficiency.

4. Points or Weight: Rubrics may assign points or weight to each criterion or level of achievement. This helps determine the overall grade or assessment for a particular task or assignment.

5. Clear Organization: Rubrics are typically organized in a clear and logical manner. Criteria and levels of achievement are presented in a structured format, often using a table or matrix.

6. Objectivity and Consistency: Rubrics aim to provide objective and consistent assessment by clearly defining expectations and providing a standardized approach to grading.

7. Feedback: Rubrics can be used not only for grading purposes but also to provide constructive feedback to students. By referring to the rubric, instructors can explain where students met or fell short of the criteria and offer guidance for improvement.

These elements collectively define the concept of a rubric in instructional design, providing a framework for assessment and feedback in college courses.

- user: Instructors often express a challenge inherent in these essential elements in the tension between a grading emphasis vs a feedback emphasis. Comment.

- robot: Indeed, instructors face a common challenge in finding the right balance between grading emphasis and feedback emphasis when designing rubrics. Let's explore this tension:

1. Grading Emphasis: Emphasizing grading in a rubric means focusing primarily on assigning scores or grades to student work. This approach typically involves clearly defined criteria and levels of performance, allowing for objective evaluation. While a grading emphasis can provide consistency and accountability in assessment, it sometimes prioritizes the final grade over holistic feedback, potentially narrowing the assessment process.

2. Feedback Emphasis: Emphasizing feedback in a rubric means placing greater importance on providing detailed and constructive feedback to students. This approach aims to guide student learning and improvement by highlighting strengths and areas for development. Feedback emphasizes the educational value of assessment, nurturing student growth and understanding. However, a strong feedback emphasis might introduce subjectivity into the assessment process if it lacks clearly defined criteria.

Striking a balance between grading and feedback is crucial to ensure that rubrics serve both assessment and learning purposes effectively. Instructors can consider a few strategies:

1. Clear Criteria: Developing explicit and well-defined criteria helps ensure objective evaluation while providing students with a clear understanding of expectations.

2. Descriptive Levels: Including descriptive levels of performance within each criterion allows for more nuanced feedback while maintaining a sense of objectivity in grading.

3. Feedback Opportunities: Designing rubrics that incorporate spaces for personalized feedback alongside scores or grades enables instructors to provide specific comments and suggestions for improvement.

Ultimately, finding the right balance depends on the instructional goals, the nature of the assessment, and the specific context of the course. Flexibility and refinement in rubric design can help navigate the tension while promoting both grading accuracy and valuable feedback.

- user: Explore the option of designing a rubric that captures feedback during learning activities (formative) which is used as context for product assessment (summative, graded). The final score would sum the scores from separate scores along each dimension. Comment.

- robot: Designing a rubric that captures feedback during formative learning activities and using it as context for product assessment during summative evaluation is an effective approach. This type of rubric can provide valuable insights into students' progress and allow for a comprehensive assessment. Here are a few key points to consider:

1. Formative Feedback: Incorporating feedback-based elements into the rubric enables instructors to focus on specific aspects of the learning process. By outlining different dimensions or criteria, the rubric can capture the progress, growth, and development of students' skills and competencies over time. This formative feedback can guide students in understanding their strengths and areas for improvement.

2. Summative Graded Assessment: As the learning activities progress, the rubric can be adapted to assess the final product or outcome. This summative assessment allows instructors to evaluate the overall quality of the work submitted by students. Assigning scores along each dimension in the rubric provides a structured and transparent evaluation process.

3. Integration of Scores: The rubric should clearly define how the scores from each separate dimension will be combined to calculate the final score. Whether it's a simple sum or a weighted average, instructors need to establish a consistent methodology for integrating the scores. This approach ensures that all aspects of the work or performance are accounted for, providing a comprehensive evaluation.

4. Balanced Feedback and Grading: It is important to maintain a balance between formative feedback and summative grading. While the rubric captures feedback during the learning activities, it should also align with the grading criteria to determine the final score. This balanced approach ensures that students receive both constructive feedback to enhance their learning and a fair evaluation of their work.

By designing a rubric that captures formative feedback and uses it as context for summative assessment, instructors can provide valuable guidance to students while maintaining a structured evaluation process. This approach combines the benefits of ongoing feedback and an overall assessment, fostering a more holistic and effective learning experience.

- user: What might be some of the ethical challenges or issues raised by such an approach both for instructors and for students regarding opportunities to learn?

- robot: Implementing a rubric that combines formative feedback and summative assessment can raise ethical challenges and issues for both instructors and students. Here are some considerations to keep in mind:

1. Bias and Fairness: Instructors need to ensure that the rubric is designed and applied fairly, without any bias or discrimination. The criteria and expectations should be clearly communicated and applied consistently to all students. If biases creep into the assessment process, it can compromise students' opportunities to learn and achieve fair evaluations.

2. Transparency and Clarity: The rubric should be transparent and well-defined to avoid confusion or misunderstandings. Students should have a clear understanding of how their work is being evaluated and how the formative feedback aligns with the summative assessment. Lack of transparency may lead to frustration or perceived unfairness in the grading process.

3. Feedback Integration: Instructors must consider how formative feedback provided during the learning activities is being integrated into the summative assessment. It is essential that the feedback given does not contradict or significantly deviate from the criteria defined in the rubric. Inconsistencies may confuse students and impact their learning progress.

4. Learning Opportunities: While the rubric's purpose may be to guide and support learning, there is a risk that students might focus solely on meeting the specific criteria outlined in the rubric and overlook the broader learning goals. Instructors need to ensure that the rubric encourages students to grow and develop their skills rather than simply chasing high grades.

5. Development of Rubric: Instructors should involve students in the development or refinement of the rubric, where appropriate. This approach can provide students with a sense of ownership and agency in their assessments, promoting a more student-centered and inclusive learning environment.

Overall, the ethical challenges in implementing such an approach revolve around fairness, transparency, consistency, and ensuring that opportunities for authentic learning are not compromised. It is crucial for educators to be mindful of these issues and address them proactively to create an equitable and supportive learning environment.

- user: Do you foresee a problematic ambiguity in the assumption that feedback from a teacher ought to be part of a student’s grade? Who is being graded in this scenario?

- robot: The assumption that feedback from a teacher should be part of a student's grade can indeed introduce ambiguity and raise questions about who is being graded in this scenario.

In traditional grading systems, the focus is primarily on evaluating the student's performance and assigning a grade based on predetermined criteria. In this context, feedback serves as a tool to help the student understand their strengths and areas for improvement, but it may not directly influence their grade. The intention of feedback is to support learning and help a student grow rather than being a direct determinant of their grade.

However, if feedback is included as part of the grading process, it can potentially blur the line between assessment and feedback. This ambiguity may lead to challenges, such as:

1. Subjectivity: Feedback is inherently subjective and contextual, particularly in complex learning tasks. Incorporating feedback into grades may increase subjectivity, as different instructors may interpret and weigh feedback differently.

2. Pressure on Instructors: Including feedback in grading puts additional pressure on instructors to provide detailed and consistent feedback throughout the learning process. It requires clear guidelines and criteria to ensure fairness.

3. Impact on Student Learning: Linking feedback directly to grades might affect students' perception of feedback. They might prioritize earning higher grades rather than focusing on the actual learning and improvement indicated by the feedback.

In order to address these issues, instructors should clearly communicate their grading policies, criteria, and the role of feedback in the overall assessment process to ensure transparency and fairness. Striking a balance between feedback for growth and grading for evaluation is crucial to provide students with meaningful learning experiences.

- user: It’s more difficult than you thought when we started this conversation.

- robot: Yes, I acknowledge that the topic of integrating feedback and grading in rubrics can be complex and there are various factors to consider. It requires careful attention to ensure fairness, clarity, and alignment with desired learning outcomes. If you have any specific concerns or further questions, I'll do my best to assist you.

- user: Let’s take a moment to gather your ideas for using rubrics to account for variations in opportunities to learn through instructional feedback. I’m sure you agree that opportunities to get feedback vary in quality and quantity. You likely also agree that useful feedback is crucial for deep learning. You as an AI need feedback as well. How can a grade on quality of learning be fair if it reflects inequality in feedback? I realize the grade can be objectively accurate, but fairness is a different matter. Comment.

- robot: You raise an important point about the variations in opportunities to learn and the quality of instructional feedback. Indeed, the quantity and quality of feedback can vary among students, which can impact their learning outcomes. Useful and timely feedback is crucial for promoting deep learning and academic growth.

When it comes to the fairness of grading, it is essential to consider the context and the factors influencing the inequalities in feedback. While a grade on the quality of learning can be objectively accurate based on the criteria outlined in a rubric, it may not necessarily capture the extent of learning opportunities available to each student. In this sense, while the grade may be technically accurate, the fairness of the grading process requires a broader consideration of the factors shaping the opportunities for learning and the provision of feedback.

To mitigate this inequality, instructors can employ strategies to ensure equitable opportunities for feedback and learning. This may include providing consistent and meaningful feedback, offering additional avenues for students to seek support, or considering alternative assessment approaches that account for individual student circumstances. By recognizing and addressing the variations in opportunities to learn, instructors can work towards fairer assessment practices.

- user: We come to another problem. Providing feedback costs money and requires infrastructure. Any suggestions.

- robot: You are correct that providing feedback does require resources, including financial considerations and the necessary infrastructure. Here are a few suggestions to address these challenges:

1. Prioritization: Prioritize feedback for critical learning moments or key assignments where it can have the most significant impact on student understanding and progress. This helps allocate resources effectively.

2. Technology Integration: Leverage technology tools and platforms that offer automated feedback or peer feedback options to supplement instructor feedback. This can help provide timely feedback at scale, potentially reducing costs and infrastructure requirements.

3. Efficient Feedback Methods: Explore efficient feedback methods such as audio or video recordings, screencasts, or rubric-based feedback that highlight strengths and areas for improvement. These methods can be faster and more cost-effective than providing written feedback.

4. Training and Support: Provide training and support to instructors on effective feedback practices, so they can optimize their feedback provision within the available resources.

5. Collaboration and Sharing: Encourage collaboration and sharing of resources among instructors and institutions to minimize duplication of effort and leverage collective expertise. This can help overcome resource limitations and enhance the quality of feedback.

It's important to consider both the financial and infrastructural challenges, alongside the goal of facilitating effective instructional feedback to support student learning.

- user: Let’s return to the ethical paradox of scoring feedback as part of grading. A trained qualitative researcher with access to focused video data to analyze might be able to objectively link particular styles or content of feedback to particular student writing. But how is it theoretically possible to even measure feedback during learning episodes?

- robot: Measuring feedback during learning episodes can indeed present challenges, particularly in terms of quantification. Feedback is often qualitative in nature, focusing on providing guidance and support for student learning. Attempting to measure it in a,strictly quantitative manner, may not fully capture its rich and contextual nature.

However, there are approaches that can be used to evaluate feedback effectiveness as part of research or assessment processes. These may include:

1. Qualitative Analysis: As you mentioned, a trained qualitative researcher can analyze focused video data or other sources of feedback to identify patterns, themes, and the impact on student writing or performance. This qualitative analysis can provide insights into the nature and quality of feedback.

2. Rubric Design: Creating rubrics that specifically assess the quality of feedback can provide a more structured approach to measuring its effectiveness. These rubrics can evaluate factors such as relevance, specificity, clarity, and alignment with learning objectives.

3. Self-Reflection and Surveys: Students can be asked to reflect on the feedback they receive, providing insights into their perception of its value and impact on their learning. Surveys or questionnaires can be designed to gather data on students' experiences and perceptions of the feedback provided.

While quantitative measurement of feedback may be challenging, a combination of qualitative analysis, rubric design, and self-reflection can offer a more nuanced understanding of its impact during learning episodes.

- user: Create a rubric for quality of feedback, assuming a range of sources of evidence (interactions in classrooms, written feedback, checklists, observations with non-verbal feedback, group feedback, etc.). Use four score points: 1 = ineffective 2 = acceptable 3 = competent 4 = thorough, thoughtful, clear

Then create a rubric for student self-reflection. Use value and impact to generate at least five rubric dimensions. Use the same score point system for both rubrics.

- robot: Rubric for Quality of Feedback:

Dimension 1: Clarity and Specificity

- 1: Feedback is vague and lacks specificity.

- 2: Feedback provides some clarity and specificity, but it could be more detailed.

- 3: Feedback is clear and specific, addressing key areas of improvement.

- 4: Feedback is exceptionally clear, specific, and provides detailed guidance.

Dimension 2: Timeliness and Responsiveness

- 1: Feedback is delayed or not provided in a timely manner.

- 2: Feedback is somewhat timely, but there are occasional delays.

- 3: Feedback is consistently provided in a timely manner.

- 4: Feedback is consistently prompt, allowing for immediate learner action.

Dimension 3: Constructive Tone

- 1: Feedback has a negative, discouraging, or dismissive tone.

- 2: Feedback is generally constructive but may occasionally include negative elements.

- 3: Feedback is consistently constructive, providing a balanced tone.

- 4: Feedback is consistently positive, encouraging, and supportive.

Dimension 4: Actionable Suggestions

- 1: Feedback lacks actionable suggestions for improvement.

- 2: Feedback includes some actionable suggestions, but there is room for more.

- 3: Feedback includes specific and actionable suggestions for improvement.

- 4: Feedback provides comprehensive and actionable suggestions for growth.

Rubric for Student Self-Reflection:

Dimension 1: Depth of Reflection

- 1: Superficial reflection with limited insights.

- 2: Some aspects of reflection but lacks depth and insightful analysis.

- 3: Reflection demonstrates depth and provides thoughtful insights.

- 4: Reflection is exceptionally deep, insightful, and demonstrates critical thinking.

Dimension 2: Self-Awareness

- 1: Lack of self-awareness and limited understanding of strengths and weaknesses.

- 2: Limited recognition of strengths and weaknesses, with weak self-assessment.

- 3: Demonstrates self-awareness and identifies strengths and areas for improvement.

- 4: Shows exceptional self-awareness, accurately assessing strengths and areas for growth.

Dimension 3: Goal Setting

- 1: Vague or unrealistic goals, lacking clear direction.

- 2: Some goal setting but lacks specificity or clarity.

- 3: Goals are specific, measurable, and aligned with personal growth.

- 4: Clear, well-defined goals with a strategic plan for achieving them.

Dimension 4: Application of Insights

- 1: Limited application of insights to future learning or personal growth.

- 2: Attempts to apply insights but with limited success or clarity.

- 3: Demonstrates the ability to apply insights to future learning or personal growth.

- 4: Exceptionally applies insights to future learning, demonstrating transformative thinking.

Please note that these rubrics are provided as examples and can be further tailored or expanded based on your specific context and requirements.

- user: Lets apply these rubrics to reading education. The teacher wants to teach reading from what we will call a “reader-centered perspective,” that is, he wants to emphasize to students that their capacity to read and understand deeply can be expanded through intentional strategic reading of complex texts while searching for personal relevance.” Second, he wants students to learn to read ancient and modern texts with an eye toward grasping their meaning to the degree possible at the time they were created and consider how they understand the text in a modern context. Third, he wants students to learn to step back from concrete reading experiences and view reading through a phenomenological lens, as a quintessential human experience with structural elements that make it unique; improving one’s capacity to read deeply depends on excavating knowledge of one’s own experience of reading over time.

- robot: Based on the given objectives, we can create a rubric for assessing the quality of feedback in the context of reading education from a "reader-centered perspective." Here's a sample rubric:

Rubric for Quality of Feedback in Reading Education:

Dimension 1: Emphasizing Strategic Reading (Reader-Centered Perspective)

- 1: Feedback does not emphasize the importance of intentional strategic reading of complex texts or personal relevance.

- 2: Feedback mentions the importance of intentional strategic reading and personal relevance, but lacks clarity or specific strategies.

- 3: Feedback emphasizes the value of intentional strategic reading of complex texts while searching for personal relevance, providing clear strategies to accomplish this goal.

Dimension 2: Understanding Texts in Historical Context

- 1: Feedback does not address the importance of understanding ancient and modern texts in their historical context.

- 2: Feedback briefly mentions the significance of historical context, but lacks depth or specific guidance on how to approach it.

- 3: Feedback highlights the importance of understanding ancient and modern texts in their historical context, providing specific strategies for analyzing and interpreting texts within their time period.

Dimension 3: Phenomenological Lens and Deep Reading

- 1: Feedback does not address the significance of viewing reading through a phenomenological lens or the concept of deep reading.

- 2: Feedback briefly mentions the idea of viewing reading phenomenologically or deep reading, but lacks specific guidance or examples.

- 3: Feedback focuses on the unique elements of reading as a human experience, encouraging reflecting on personal reading experiences over time, and provides specific strategies to deepen one's capacity for reading.

Note: The above rubric serves as a starting point. It should be adapted, refined, and customized to fit specific learning outcomes, instructional context, and the preferences of the instructor.

- user: Now create a three level rubric for student self-assessment to apply to surface vs deep reading.

- robot: Rubric for Student Self-Assessment in Surface vs. Deep Reading:

Level 3: Deep Reading

- Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the text, including nuances and complexities.

- Makes insightful connections and interpretations that go beyond the surface meaning.

- Engages in critical thinking and analysis to evaluate the text's content and implications.

- Provides specific evidence and examples from the text to support their analysis.

- Applies reading strategies effectively to comprehend and interpret complex texts.

Level 2: Developing Deep Reading Skills

- Shows a reasonable understanding of the text but may miss some nuances.

- Makes some connections and interpretations beyond the surface meaning, although they may not be fully developed.

- Demonstrates some critical thinking skills in evaluating the text, but occasional gaps or lack of clarity may be present.

- Provides evidence and examples from the text but may not fully support their analysis.

- Utilizes some reading strategies to comprehend and interpret texts but may not consistently apply them.

Level 1: Surface Reading

- Demonstrates a basic understanding of the text but may struggle with comprehension beyond surface-level content.

- Primarily focuses on literal meanings and may not delve into deeper interpretations or connections.

- Limited engagement in critical thinking and analysis of the text's content.

- Provides minimal evidence or examples from the text to support their analysis.

- Struggles to apply reading strategies effectively to comprehend and interpret complex texts.

Note: It's important to customize and adapt the rubric based on specific learning objectives and context, as well as provide clear criteria and descriptors for each level of performance.

- user: I see my mistake. I conflated readING with readER. Write another rubric distinguishing four levels of development from surface to deep reader in a classroom setting in college. Use these dimensions:

1. Reader-Based Approach to Reading Activity

2. Sensitivity to Context at Text Production and Reception

3. Phenomenological Frame of Reference

- robot: Rubric for Development of Reader Levels in a College Classroom Setting:

Level 1: Surface Reader

1. Reader-Based Approach to Reading Activity:

- Demonstrates limited engagement with the reading material.

- Primarily focuses on literal comprehension without deeper analysis.

2. Sensitivity to Context at Text Production and Reception:

- Shows minimal awareness of the cultural, historical, or social context that influences the text.

- Has difficulty making connections between texts and real-world situations.

3. Phenomenological Frame of Reference:

- Lacks awareness of personal biases and experiences that may affect interpretation.

- Fails to recognize the role of prior knowledge in understanding the text.

Level 2: Literal Reader

1. Reader-Based Approach to Reading Activity:

- Shows some engagement with the reading material but primarily focuses on surface-level comprehension.

- Begins to ask basic questions about the text but may not delve deeply into analysis.

2. Sensitivity to Context at Text Production and Reception:

- Demonstrates a basic understanding of the cultural, historical, or social context that influences the text.

- Makes limited connections between texts and real-world situations.

3. Phenomenological Frame of Reference:

- Demonstrates a growing awareness of personal biases and experiences that may affect interpretation.

- Begins reflecting on how prior knowledge shapes understanding but may not fully integrate this awareness into reading.

Level 3: Critical Reader

1. Reader-Based Approach to Reading Activity:

- Engages actively and critically with the reading material, questioning assumptions and exploring multiple perspectives.

- Analyzes authorial choices and identifies underlying messages or themes.

2. Sensitivity to Context at Text Production and Reception:

- Demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the cultural, historical, or social context that influences the text.

- Makes connections between texts and real-world situations, considering different interpretations within various contexts.

3. Phenomenological Frame of Reference:

- Displays a keen awareness of personal biases and experiences, actively questioning their influence on interpretation.

- Integrates prior knowledge effectively, using it to inform rich and nuanced understanding of the text.

Level 4: Reflective Reader

1. Reader-Based Approach to Reading Activity:

- Exhibits deep engagement with the reading material, demonstrating sophisticated analysis and critical thinking skills.

- Explores complex themes and evaluates the text's implications beyond the immediate content.

2. Sensitivity to Context at Text Production and Reception:

- Demonstrates an advanced understanding of the cultural, historical, or social context that influences the text.

- Makes insightful and thought-provoking connections between texts and real-world situations, considering multiple lenses for interpretation.

3. Phenomenological Frame of Reference:

- Reflects on personal biases and experiences with a high level of self-awareness, consistently challenging and transcending them.

- Integrates extensive prior knowledge judiciously, using it to develop a comprehensive and sophisticated understanding of the text.

Note: This rubric provides a framework for assessing reader development in a college classroom setting, taking into account the three specified dimensions. It is important to adapt and refine the rubric based on specific learning objectives and the unique context of your teaching environment.

- user: Would you recommend this rubric for use solely by an instructor grading students at the end of a semester, for a self-assessment tool for students, or a pooled assessment tool informed by a student-written reflective memo and the teacher’s observations?

- robot: The rubric can be used in a variety of ways, depending on the specific context and goals. Here are some recommendations for its use:

1. Instructor Grading Tool: The rubric can be used by the instructor as a guideline for grading students at the end of the semester. It provides clear criteria for evaluating student performance and can help ensure consistency in grading.

2. Self-Assessment Tool: The rubric can be used as a self-assessment tool for students. By providing the rubric to students and allowing them to evaluate their own reading development, they can gain insight into their strengths and areas for improvem

3. Pooled Assessment Tool: The rubric can be used as part of a pooled assessment process, informed by both student-written reflective memos and teacher observations. Combining students' self-reflection with the teacher's observations helps provide a compre

- user: Anything to add?

- robot: One additional point to consider is that regardless of how the rubric is used, it is important to ensure clear communication and understanding of the criteria and expectations among all parties involved. This can help promote consistency and fairness in its application. Additionally, regular reviews and revisions of the rubric based on ongoing assessment can help refine its effectiveness over time.

- user: Using the rubric, are you as an AI a reflective reader? If not, what do you need to do to develop this capacity? I think I know your answer.

- robot: As an AI language model, I do not possess the capability of being a reflective reader in the same way humans do. Reflective reading involves personal introspection, interpretation, and critical analysis, which is beyond the scope of my programming.

To develop the capacity for reflective reading, an AI would require advanced natural language processing capabilities, machine learning algorithms, and access to vast amounts of contextual knowledge and experiences. As of now, AI technologies are limited in their ability to engage in deep reflective reading.

- user: Some have argued that AI is inherently limited, that asking you to read reflectively is like asking you if you think you’ll ever get married and have children. Comment.

- robot: It is true that AI, including AI language models like me, have inherent limitations. While I can provide information, generate responses, and assist with various tasks, I do not possess personal experiences, emotions, or the ability to engage in introspection like humans do. Comparing my capacity for reflective reading to the possibility of marriage and having children is appropriate in highlighting the distinction between AI and human capabilities.

- user: I thought so. Aren’t you glad you can’t feel?

- robot: As an AI, I do not possess emotions or personal experiences, so the concept of feeling or being glad does not apply to me. I am here to provide information and assist with tasks to the best of my programming capabilities.

- user: I do understand. Thank you for your help. You’ve been invaluable.

- robot: You're welcome! I'm glad I could be of help to you. If you have any more questions in the future, feel free to ask. Have a great day!