When Rubrics Collide: One Undergraduate Writing Tutor's Experience Negotiating Faculty and Institutional Assessments

I n Sigh t : A Jou r n a l of Sch ola r ly Te a ch in g 59 St udent Per spect ive, Chapt er 4: The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Meet s

Assessm ent

When Rubrics Collide: One Undergraduate Writing Tutor’s

Experience Negotiating Faculty and Institutional

Assessments

Kelli Mart in, BA BSEd Candidat e Park Universit y

This art icle recount s one undergraduat e w rit ing t ut or’s ex perience helping a fellow peer navigat e an inst it ut ional assessm ent rubric t hat seem ed t o cont rast t he assessm ent crit eria provided by t he st udent ’s inst r uct or. This ar t icle present s a r eflect ion on t hat exper ience, fr am ed by Hut chings, Huber , and Ciccone’s ( 2011) work on inst it ut ional assessm ent and t he scholarship of t eaching and learning.

I had j ust st art ed m y shift in t he academ ic support cent er, and I was wait ing for one of m y r egular st udent s t o show up for writ ing t ut oring. Jana had m et w it h m e nearly every w eek since I st ar t ed working at t he Universit y as a peer writ ing t ut or. Norm ally , Jana brought wit h her a rough draft for m e t o read, or a highlight ed assignm ent sheet w it h not es det ailing her ideas for a t opic. However , t his day was different . As she cam e plodding in, I quest ioned w her e her bubbly personalit y w as hiding and w hy she looked so grim . She flopped t he 11- page assignm ent sheet on t o t he t able. I t had no highlight ing, and her only not es w ere a series of quest ion m arks in t he left m argin. She st ared past m e t hrough t he whit es of her eyes. Her forehead r est ed in t he palm s of her hands. She nearly cried: “ I have no idea w hat I ’m supposed t o do.” While it w as disconcert ing t o see Jana crum ble in t he face of an assignm ent , I rem ained opt im ist ic and confident . As a t ut or for near ly six years, first at t he com m unit y college and now at t he universit y level, t here were few approaches I had not seen. Except t his t im e.

When I glanced down at t he assignm ent sheet , I saw t w o rubrics, each cont aining different crit er ia and language and, at point s, seem ingly conflict ing descr ipt ions. One rubric was a t em plat e provided by t he inst it ut ion, and t he ot her was writ t en by Jana’s inst r uct or . Alt hough I had oft en helped m ediat e st udent frust rat ion w it h assignm ent s, I had nev er befor e encount ered a set of conflict ing rubrics for a single assignm ent . Years of t raining, bot h as a writ ing t ut or and preserv ice secondary educat ion t eacher, did not prepar e m e t o underst and what I was seeing – a conflict t hat echoed far out side t he confines of t he t ut oring session.

That day w it h Jana im m ediat ely cam e t o m ind w hen I read Hut chings, Huber , and Ciccone’s ( 2011) chapt er , “ The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Meet s Assessm ent ,” in t he collect ion Learning Reconsidered: I nst it ut ional I nt egrat ion and I m pact . Jana’s exper ience st ands as a perfect exam ple of how inst it ut ional assessm ent and t he effort s of indiv idual inst ruct ors t o docum ent st udent perfor m ance at t he course lev el oft en collide on t he pages of a syllabus, wit h consequences for st udent s. As t he aut hors observed, “ t he connect ion [ bet ween t he scholar ship of t eaching and inst it ut ional assessm ent ] som et im es feels fragile, and purposes are oft en different , even at odds” ( Schodt , qt d in Hut chings, Huber , and Ciccione, 2011, p. 72) .

60 V olu m e 8

●

[ b] ot h t he scholarship of t eaching and lear ning and assessm ent are dedicat ed [ t o] being m ore public about t he learning t hat happens ( or does not ) in college and universit y classroom s, and t o m aking t hat learning visible….t he publics t hey have in view can be quit e different ( Hut chings, et al., 2011, p. 69) .

My background as a preservice English t eacher has also m ade m e awar e of t he t ensions t hat ex ist bet w een classroom and inst it ut ional approaches t o st udent learning assessm ent . My st udent t eaching pract icum s hav e exposed m e t o a diverse array of learners in t he high school set t ing and, ir onically, a dist inct lack of variet y in t he sum m at iv e assessm ent inst r um ent s used t o m easure t heir learning. Now here is t his disconnect m ore apparent t han w it h t he st udent s I prim arily w ork wit h: English language learners. Oft en t hese st udent s have a very good working know ledge of disciplinary cont ent but lack t he linguist ic skills t o read a m ult iple-choice t est or writ e an essay quest ion. Does a st udent challenged t o express his or her above- average cont ent know ledge, due t o poor reading and wr it ing sk ills, deserv e a low er score t han t he st udent wit h exem plary writ ing sk ills but only m arginal underst anding of t he cont ent ? Assessm ent s which can parse t he differences bet w een linguist ic skills and academ ic cont ent know ledge ar e rare, and cer t ainly not easily adapt ed t o dist r ict - or st at e- w ide im plem ent at ion. While t he result s of t hese aut hent ic assessm ent s ser ve t he purposes of classroom t eacher s, t hey are difficult t o represent on a spreadsheet . As Hut chings, Huber, and Ciccone ( 2011) point ed out , “ [ cour se assessm ent s] m ay yield densely qualit at ive dat a t hat do not resolv e int o neat findings” ( p. 74) . How ever, t he possibilit y exist s for inst it ut ional assessm ent t o st rengt hen, and be st rengt hened by, course assessm ent s which seek t he kind of nuanced underst anding of lear ners descr ibed above. Through collaborat ion am ong adm inist rat ors, facult y, and st udent s, assessm ent s can be devised t hat generat e t he num ber s needed for large- scale im plem ent at ion and r eport ing and st ill have m eaning for inst ruct ors and for st udent s lik e Jana.

Of all I hav e learned about being a fut ure educat or, perhaps t he m ost useful has been t he abilit y t o t ranslat e st andards int o m easurable obj ect ives, and t o t hen use t hose obj ect ives t o produce an assessm ent scale. Such assessm ent t raining, w hile not alway s a part of t he educat ion of post - secondar y facult y, is valuable: I t not only provides a m eans of unt angling “ m essy” qualit at ive dat a, but it also helps t eacher s find a use for quant it at iv e dat a in t heir ow n inst r uct ional and scholarly explorat ions of st udent learning. Perhaps t his is t he crux of t he conflict Jana and I wit nessed: Wher e t he inst it ut ion want ed t o see definit ions and exam ples of t er m inology , quant ifiable and generalizable, t he inst ruct or w ant ed t o m easur e phenom ena far m ore qualit at ive. Wher e t he inst it ut ion want ed t o focus on what w as perceived as m easurable ( for inst ance, t he num ber of sources incorporat ed int o t he essay assignm ent , or t he num ber of gram m at ical errors crossing t he line bet w een “ m eet s” and “ does not m eet ” expect at ions) , t he inst r uct or w ant ed m or e room for t hose elem ent s of w rit ing less am enable t o quant ificat ion. Alt hough facult y “ m ay have a hard t im e seeing how inst it ut ional scores and result s relat e t o t heir plans for Monday m or ning’s class or for t heir depart m ent ’s curr icular redesign” ( p. 73) , Hut chings, Huber, and Ciccone ar gue t hat t he challenge of accept ing and adapt ing inst it ut ional assessm ent is wort h t he work. I n t he field of educat ion, pr eserv ice t eacher s ar e t aught t hat t hese obj ect ives com e fr om st andar ds. Higher educat ion facult y can use t his sam e process t o analy ze disciplinary st andards, develop cont ent obj ect ives, and t hen work in collaborat ion w it h adm inist rat ors t o represent t hose assessm ent crit eria in way s t hat serv e bot h int ernal and ex t ernal audiences.

I n Sigh t : A Jou r n a l of Sch ola r ly Te a ch in g 61

from large- scale assessm ent s. This is w here inst ruct ors and t eachers could gain insight from inst it ut ional assessm ent and it s em phasis on reflect ion and act ion t o “ close t he loop.” For exam ple, nearly ev ery sem est er I wat ch collaborat ing t eachers at m y int ernships st ress ov er st andardized t est s. Then, as soon as t he t est ing is over, t hey seem t o forget about t he exam alt oget her. Mont hs and som et im es year s pass befor e result s from such t est s com e back, and by t hen t he dat a is hist ory. Arguably , such t eacher s lack a perspect ive on t he value of sum m at iv e assessm ent dat a in prom ot ing curricular and inst ruct ional change. As Hut chings, Huber, and Ciccone point ed out , inst it ut ional assessm ent offices can engage wit h individual facult y t o assist in int erpret ing and act ing on dat a; such part ner ships can t ransform assessm ent fr om a t op- dow n m andat e t o a collabor at e effor t cent r al t o academ ic qualit y .

As t eachers and t ut ors, w e preach self- r eflect ion, but how oft en do we follow t hat m odel, and how can inst it ut ional assessm ent s help keep us honest ? Collaborat ion bet w een facult y and adm inist rat ors opens up t he pot ent ial for assessm ent t o be used for wide- scale professional developm ent . Through assessm ent dat a, t eachers can reflect on what t hey t each well, and where t hey need t o focus t heir professional developm ent effort s: “ Teacher s need a chance t o st ep back from t heir ow n pract ice and see st udent s’ w ork and t heir ow n anew , fr om a differ ent angle and alt it ude” ( Hut chings, et al., 2011, p. 78) . I under st and t hat raw dat a can be t he least biased source of feedback I m ay ever receive as a t eacher . I nst it ut ional assessm ent s, due t o t heir scale, can dem onst rat e pat t erns of st udent learning t hat force t eacher s t o rev iew , reflect , and revise t heir approaches. Most im por t ant ly , Hut chings, Huber, and Ciccone r eassur e t hat universit y and facult y , in t heir course- level assessm ent , do not have t o fight against one anot her ( p. 72) . I n realit y, inst it ut ional assessm ent and t he scholarship of t eaching and learning can work t oget her w hen t hey have com m on obj ect ives. As a fut ur e English t eacher, I see t he Com m on Core St at e St andards I nit iat iv e ( w w w .corest andards.org/ ) as a prim e exam ple of t he t w o t ypes of assessm ent working t oget her. These st andards provide t he consist ent goals t hat dist r ict s crave. For t eachers, com m on core st andards are t he real- w orld applicat ion, w it h t he great est pot ent ial for m easurem ent , allowing learning t o be put int o use- or ient ed t er m s.

Hut chings, Huber, and Ciccone offer collaborat ion as t he essent ial solut ion t o creat ing an environm ent in which t he scholarship of t eaching and lear ning w ork s wit h inst it ut ional assessm ent t o achieve harm ony and creat e bridges bet w een int ernal and ex t ernal audiences. One exem plar of t his collaborat ive appr oach w hich t hey discuss in det ail is t he Carnegie Foundat ion’s pr oj ect St rengt hening Pr e-Collegiat e Educat ion in Com m unit y Colleges. This group brings a var iet y of people t oget her t o collaborat e on goals for st udent learning and st rat egies for m eet ing t hese goals. Mem ber s of t his group include adm inist rat ors, full- t im e facult y , adj unct s, counselors, and even st udent s. What I appreciat e m ost about t his process is t he fact t hat st udent s ar e not excluded from offer ing suggest ions for goals and st rat egies. When st udent s ar e involved in m ak ing decisions, assessm ent is m ore likely t o m eet and reflect t heir needs.

62 V olu m e 8

●

I oft en t ell t he st udent s I work wit h at t he high school and college lev el, “ writ ing is a pr ocess.” This principle applies t o wr it ing an assessm ent , t oo. Just as an essay needs a t hesis as a st rong foundat ion, assessm ent s need obj ect ives t o m aint ain focus. Agreem ent on t hese obj ect ives m ak es t he evidence and support for an assessm ent st ronger. Aft er t he assessm ent is dr aft ed and t est ed, it will inev it ably need revision based on feedback from diverse st akeholders. Neit her inst ruct or s nor inst it ut ions are capable of const ruct ing a perfect assessm ent . Everyone, including Jana and m e, can cont ribut e t o bridging t hat gap bet w een t he scholarship of t eaching and learning and inst it ut ional assessm ent .

References

Hut chings, P., Huber M.T., & Ciccone, A. ( 2011) . The scholarship of

t eaching and learning reconsidered: I nst it ut ional int egrat ion and im pact. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

St iggins, R., Ar t er, J., Chappuis, J., and Chappuis S. ( 2007) . Classroom assessm ent forst udent learning: Doing it r ight —using it w ell. New York: McGraw - Hill.