Here's a question I've been thinking about: if I am assessing students on a series of objectives, how much credit do I give them if they don't accomplish a certain objective. For example, say that a student does not use habitually use specific evidence to prove her point in her essay. Evidence as a criteria in my rubric is worth 10 points. Does she earn (a) zero points or (b) partial points? And if the answer is (b), how do I justify the point deduction? It seems like an "all or nothing" rubric would be easier to justify.
Perhaps I could have something like a grid explaining what type of evidence earns an A, what earns a B, and so forth. And then the explanation that best fits with what she's done in her paper corresponds with the grade that she earns in that part of her essay. Maybe this is what I can do; to me, it seems more fair than what I've been doing, which is to give either full credit, half credit, or no credit at all. Perhaps I need more gradations in my rubric--and not just more gradations, but more explanations.
Any thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment