Essay rubrics. Venture rubrics. Oral presentation rubrics. As a social constructivist, I’ve always disliked them. But we can’t escape them.
We instructors are in reality wedged between rubrics on both edges. We make use of them on our students’ work, in an attempt to streamline the complex and demanding cognitive process of assessment. And our administrators enforce them on us, on our class environment, our concept planning — for the exact same reasons. Evaluation is complex, demanding, hard to streamline.
Whenever I worked at a big, local school that is public by having a 40-strong English Department), the administrators adopted the Charlotte Danielson rubric.
Instantly most of us discovered ourselves hoping to make a mark of “4.” The greatest score, awarded to teachers whoever classes did actually run on their own — teachers who knew how exactly to form clear goals and motivate student-driven discussion and inquiry.
We knew just how to play towards the rubric, and so I regularly scored “4.” We didn’t develop as an instructor. I was left by them to my products.
But my peers — teachers we respected, instructors I'd learned from — got lackluster “3s.” These people were told “excellence” (as defined by Danielson), “was destination we often see, but no body lives here.”
We instructors don’t like being examined by rubrics. We don’t get anything from the jawhorse. We don’t grasp training. But we turn around and impose rubrics on our pupils. And now we tell ourselves the pupils are meant to make use of this “feedback” to obtain better at writing. Or tasks, critical reasoning, or any.Leggi ancora