Essay rubrics. Venture rubrics. Oral presentation rubrics. As being a social constructivist, I’ve always disliked them. But we can’t escape them.
We instructors are now wedged between rubrics on both edges. We make use of them on our students work that is’ to try to streamline the complex and demanding cognitive process of assessment. And our administrators enforce them on us, on our class room environment, our concept planning — for the reasons that are same. Evaluation is complex, demanding, hard to streamline.
Whenever I worked at a sizable, local general public college ( with a 40-strong English Department), the administrators adopted the Charlotte Danielson rubric.
Instantly most of us discovered ourselves looking to make a mark of “4.” The greatest score, awarded to teachers whoever classes appeared to run by themselves — teachers who knew how exactly to form clear goals and motivate student-driven discussion and inquiry.
We knew how exactly 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, teachers I’d learned from — got lackluster dissertation writing help “3s.” These were told “excellence” (as defined by Danielson), “was destination we often see, but no body lives here.”