Marking (or grading) diminishing the pain ::

Whatever you call it the process of assessing student work is a pain for teachers, and for students. For teachers there's the hard graft of reading and evaluating and providing sensible comment, which for a big class is a lot of work! For students there is the fear of failure (to match one's own ideas of what one is worth, at least) and the problem of not understanding why one was marked down... Christopher Heard on Higgaion has a post "Grade my rubric" which includes the finely logical flowchart that he uses. It looks really complex, though I suspect that in use it is much simpler than it looks, and I think would work well as a scheme for the more objective grading of an essay-style assignment.

My own approach has been different, NZQA requirements have lead to a grid which tries to identify different levels of achievement for several key qualities that the assignment is meant to be testing. The grade is determined by the mix of columns that I can identify in a student's work. Something like this for an assignment that requires the student to select an article and both present and critique it:

MB731>

Prophets in Context

Name: Date:

Your work will be marked on the qualities listed in the left column. It should reach the standard listed in one of the next three columns. Five out of five at the "acceptable" level are required for a passing grade. The standards for merit and excellence include those for the lower levels.

If you achieve mainly the “acceptable” column then you will get a grade in the C range (C‑, C or C+). If you achieve mainly in the “merit” column then you will get a grade in the B range, while several in the excellence column with one or two in the merit column will get an A range grade.

Quality	Acceptable	Merit	Excellence	Comment
Exegesis	Presentation attempts to reveal author’s underlying exegesis	Underlying exegesis summarised and presented critically	Critique is appropriate and effective
Contexts	Social context of text related to author’s work	Relationship critically examined	Explanation is clear and comprehensible
Literary features	Literary features discussed in relation to the author’s interpretation.	Author’s position critiqued in the light of these features	Offers alternative interpretation
Critique	Attempts both positive and negative criticism	Critique appropriate to author’s goals	Critique helpful for audience’s approach to subject of criticism
Presentation	Presentation is clear and appropriate	Presentation is well organised and uses language effectively	Presentation engages interest and stimulates further thought

Consistent referencing, appropriate form and contents of bibliography and appropriate use of formal written language are requirements for satisfactory work at this level.

¶ 10:56 AM http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/2006/04/grade-my-rubric.html [to Del.icio.us]

Post a Comment