Week Five--Grading With Rubrics

I. Chapter 6 (Grading With Rubrics) is the GMIT 660 reading this week from our text Introduction to Rubrics. Following are highlights from this chapter:

• Rubrics make grading easier and faster in several ways: 1) Establishing performance anchors; 2) Providing detailed, formative feedback (three-to-five level rubrics); 3) Supporting individualized, flexible, formative feedback (scoring guide rubrics); 4) Conveying summative feedback (grade).
• Three-to-five level rubrics allow us to provide detailed, formative feedback very rapidly by simply checking and circling prewritten criteria, wheras scoring guide rubrics allow us to do the same thing more flexibly and in a more individualized fashion, albeit at the cost of speed.
• Metarubrics are rubrics we have developed over the years to grade our own courses, to evaluate how effective our texts, lectures, and other teaching strategies really are.
• With rubrics, we focus our attention on what we expect in the best and worst papers, and we do it the same way--in the same order--for each every paper.
• The degree to which rubrics facilitate grading by avoiding repetition is in direct inverse ratio to how long it took us to create the rubric.
• Three-to-five level rubrics with check boxes are the most time consuming to create but the fastest and easiest to use.
• In the long run, scoring guide rubrics save less time than three-to-five level rubrics.
• Scoring guide rubrics do not take much longer to use than three-to-five level rubrics when the work being graded is so strong.
• Even in cases where we are seriously disappointed in a student performance, however, the scoring guide rubric. like the three-to-five level rubrics, also saves us time simply by keeping us focused on what we are looking for as we grade and, of course, it also assures greater consistency.
• Rubrics are adaptable grading tools that become better and better the more times we use them.
• Methods of using rubrics can and do vary, but on the whole, the checking, circling, and commenting methods described are the most commonly used.

II. Fellow cohort, Francine Oran, took her second turn at leading a seminar on this week's topic. Below are two of her provided questions and my take on how the seminar discussion transpired:

Question #1:

Some teachers "grade" their own teaching as they grade their students, some go one step further and write notes to themselves, and some use a rubric (p. 89).

I think that it is important to self-assess. The book has a version of a self-assessment rubric on page 92, Figure 6.8. I have attached a rubrics from SCC for evaluating an on-line course, a self-assessment tool. In addition, I included a couple of websites that Doug was so kind as to find (thanks Doug), regarding rubrics to assess on-line courses. Look at the different rubrics and compare and comment. Is the SCC rubric on track? Do any of the dimensions need some work?

There was heavy discussion for Fran's question on self-assessment. Participants shared their different thoughts and ideas on the provided SCC rubric. Most didn't know it existed, including me. Most thought the SCC rubric was good for the most part.

Question #2:

In the textbook, there are several examples of 3- 5 level rubrics (see Figure 6.1, Figure 6.2, and Figure 6.3).

Compare and contrast the different examples provided with what you have employed as a student or a teacher or both. What do you like or dislike about each type, and why.

Cohorts shared their different thoughts on Fran's question about 3-5 level rubrics supplied in the textbook. Opinions varied on the three different rubrics and how they related to the participant's experiences and preferences.

Francine also provided us with two scholarly articles to ponder; she also provided some good internet website resources which made for some good discussion.

III. Below are my overall thoughts on Fran's seminar:

• I felt engaged by Fran's provided questions, articles, and website resources. She did some good research to provide the seminar participants good discussion material.
• Fran provided some keeper material to refer back to as an instructor.
• I was surprised at the different types of rubrics formats and how they work better with different assignment applications.
• I think that I participated at a graduate level in this seminar, and helped move the discussions forward.
• Again, the seminar format was a good educational tool for us during this course.

Week Five--The Life Course as a Social Construct

I. Chapter 5 (The Life Course as a Social Construct) was our GMIT 650 reading this week from the text Learning and Change in the Adult Years. Following are highlights from the chapter:

• We live in an age-graded society where much of social life is organized around socially standardized age categories.
• Age structuring is influenced by history and culture.
• Age structures, like other social structures such as gender and class, become embedded in the psychology of individuals.
• Socially constructed age categories change over time, as do the patterns of individual lives.
• In different cultures and historical periods, there are different conceptions of the stages of life and their boundaries, dimensions, and divisions.
• Although progress and achievement are highly valued in Western societies, elderly people have relatively few--and minor--roles to play in the family and in society at large.
• Within Western culture, there are historical differences in the way the life course is viewed.
• In different historical periods there are different views about the stages of life.
• There are five key elements in how social organization influences the social status of the old: 1) Extent of state protection; 2) Strength of the oral tradition; 3) Valorization of physical beauty; 4) Extended family; 5) Creation of movable wealth.
• The physiological and biological factors associated with aging are not sufficient to support existing conceptions of age-appropriate behavior.
• It is interacting with others, and reacting to or participating in social institutions--most importantly through symbolic processes--that we come to constitute ourselves as social beings.
• Because age category is a continuum, the boundaries of appropriate behavior have a measure of uncertainty or ambiguity.
• Adult educators who seek to make their work of individual change and transformation fit into a wider agenda of social change and transformation need to acknowledge the social and historical dimension of adult development.
• Arin-Krupp (1990): "In the first half of life, men are generally more assertive than women and women are more nurturing than men, while in the second half of life men become more nurturing and women become more assertive." Adult educators could respond to this developmental trend toward reversing assertiveness roles by introducing appropriate courses, methodologies, and materials to enhance and support it.
• Focault (1988): "There are three major types of self-examination: how our thoughts relate to reality, how our thoughts relate to rules, and finally, how our thoughts relate to--and reveal--our inner selves."

II. Fellow cohort, Rex Coleman led another student-directed seminar on this week's topic--here are a couple of questions he proposed and my overall view of the seminar discussion:

Question #1:

"Please define in your own words the phrase "technology of the self" found on page 117."

The discussion was not very extensive here. Participants gave their own definitions of "technology of the self," and pretty much agreed that we all have something within us to make adjustments to how we act toward others in our social environment.

Question #2;

"Do you agree with Minois statement, 'there has never been a golden age for the old?' Please list why or why not."

The discussion on this question was more lively; there were mixed thoughts and emotions on the "golden age" issue. I think the majority disagreed with Minios, thinking that most people use their older years to their benefit and make the most of it by sharing with loving family, friends and former colleagues.

Rex also provided us with a very in-depth scholarly article and some great website resources relevant to this week's topic; there was good discussion and participation, but not as heavy as past weeks. I think it is common to have ups and downs in discussion intensity.

III. In response to the reflection questions on the seminar provided in "Participating in Seminars" document provided by our instructor:

I felt very engaged by good resources and questions provided by Rex. I felt he did a good job of leading the seminar and keeping it going with good responses! I learned a lot about this week's topic; the text provided some very interesting material and the seminar was again very effective in meeting the weekly objectives.

When I find more time I would like to read and learn more about Life Course and Social Construct. Social interaction is probably one of the more written about and studied subjects, and I could use more training in this area.

I do feel that my participation in the seminar helped lead to a better experience for everyone involved. This week could have been better, but again, I feel that ups and downs are common in discussion forums. The seminar format worked very well as an educational method for this topic.