Hello everyone,
Yesterday I mentioned the "strictness" of my rubrics, and I thought it would be useful to clarify that somewhat.
Rubrics can be both subjective and objective.
An objective rubric is a simple grade scale. I varied my objective grade scale a few times experimentally, and sometimes I graded on the curve when I was a newer teacher, but I have been pretty firm in my standards in later years. A+ represented a grade higher than 100%. 90-100%=A, 80-89=B, 70-79=C, 60-69=D, and 0-59=Fail. That left a lot of room for failure, it's true, but it demanded that my students do a minimum amount or know a minimum amount. I used objective rubrics on tests and quizzes, and, because I value subjective assessment more than objective (I'm an English teacher, what can I say?), I gave the objectively graded assignments a value in my overall grading scheme such that students who failed them could still get Cs in the class without having to do extra credit.
I used various subjective rubrics adapted to different situations when I taught.
For major writing assignments, I constructed my subjective rubrics on a 6-level scale: A-F and zero, repeated for content and mechanics.
Let me explain my philosophy of grades first, then I'll tell you how I use them.
I feel that an A should be hard to get. I have always felt that an A represented high achievement in both quality and quantity, and I tried to prevent myself from getting into "grade drift," giving higher than a deserved grade. "A" is truly outstanding, not just very good.
I gave Bs for very good work. Most of my students who made a conscientious effort and did a very good job got Bs.
I consider Cs to be average.
Ds are not good, but not bad enough to be fails. Ds barely fulfill the assignment.
Fails are not zeros, but do not fulfill the assignment. A student who made the effort to do something, but did not do what s/he was supposed to got a Fail.
I gave zeros for anything plagiarized, undone, or not handed in.
On essays, students would expect two grades, one in content and one in mechanics. (This is a useful way to grade; separate content from execution and give each an independent grade.)
This is the way I worded my rubric:
"An A in content requires a brilliant essay, exceptionally well written, very thorough, and very well organized. An A in mechanics has no serious errors, and no more than one or two minor errors in complicated construction.
A B in content is a very good essay, well written, somewhat thorough, and well organized, with few lapses. A B in mechanics has no serious errors, and may have some minor errors.
A C in content fulfills the assignment, but shows only occasional brilliance in writing and may have organization problems. C papers lack thoroughness. An essay written as one long paragraph, or one that rambles or fails to connect points never gets higher than a C. A C in mechanics might have a few serious problems or a larger number of minor problems. A C paper may be occasionally sloppy.
A D in content barely fulfills the assignment. D papers ramble or are off the point and are superficial. A D is mechanics will have serious errors and many other errors, but less than twenty errors of any kind. Ds are sloppy or sometimes illegible or hard to read.
A Fail does not fulfill the assignment but has some content. A Fail in mechanics has twenty or more errors of any kind.
A plagiarized paper gets a zero and a possible phone call home or referral to the counselor."
Notice that I use language like "may" or "possible" to give me leeway for exceptions and to avoid binding myself too completely to any sort of legalistic requirements. Still, I used the rubric to define the grades, and my students, within a few weeks, were able to recognize exactly what their grades would be.
I would write the grades on the students' papers like this: "B/Fail," "A-/C," "C/D", and so on. Students tended to focus on the more positive grade. "I got a B," a student with a B/Fail might say. This was useful for their woundable psyches, and much more accurate than the D the paper received overall. They knew that they had good ideas but needed to work on the mechanics and there were rarely arguments.
Tomorrow, I'll write about the rubrics I used for performances.
No comments:
Post a Comment