The last Nutshell
introduced the nature of rubrics and an example at the level of
an individual classroom assignment. Rubrics are not required for
any convergent problem with right-wrong kinds of answers, but they
are particularly appropriate when teaching students how to use evidence
as a basis for reason and decision making. Using evidence to deal
well with open-ended problems is an ideal goal for a baccalaureate
graduate. At their best, rubrics become a means to help students
recognize when their own conclusions or arguments are strong, even
when an authority figure may not agree with them. Rubrics are useful
at scales beyond single classroom lessons. More examples follow.
Example
at the level of disciplinary major. Consider the following open-ended
challenge in a science course: Is indoor radon gas found at common
levels in houses dangerous to homeowners? The rubric for the assignment
follows.
(1)
Clearly separate testable hypotheses from advocacy of proponents
as a basis for evidence. (40 pts.)
(2) Classify evidence as derived from either the method of repeated
experiments or the historical method. (20 pts.)
(3) Use the definition of science as a basis to evaluate this evidence
and state an informed decision about the risks posed to you. (40
pts.)
The
first thing that this rubric does is to slam the door on any appeal
to authority. The student engaged in "right answer mode"
will be prone to go to a web source and answer: "Yes, radon
gas is dangerous to homeowners because the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency says that it is" and feel quite satisfied. To a layperson,
it may sound like this challenge has a right-wrong answer, but once
one gets past the advocacy into the primary literature, one finds
not convergent resolution, but conflicting evidence. Although the
content lesson is about radon, the content is merely a vehicle to
provide understanding about how science tests hypotheses both from
experiments and field evidence, what is needed to constitute a proof,
and how one must evaluate current evidence, imperfect though it
may be, to make the best possible decision for oneself. This is
not just a constructed problem-based exercise. Rather, it carries
a mega-cognitive lesson: one can distinguish reasonable from unreasonable
by conscious use of central frameworks of reasoning that every academic
discipline possesses. “Good science” is good for particular
reasons: it adheres to a framework of reasoning based upon formulating
testable hypotheses about physical phenomena. Likewise, however,
“good art” or "good theatre" are not simply
“good” because one likes them; they are judged “good”
because criteria exist that an educated person can learn, and a
framework of reasoning exists through which one can evaluate a piece
of art or a theatre production against these criteria. If desired
educational outcomes include any ability to reason at higher levels,
students must engage the frameworks of reasoning within disciplines
through exercises and assignments that help them grapple with problems
by consciously using the frameworks as a way to assess others' arguments
and one's own reasoning.
Example
at the institutional level. The "Framework for Self Assessment"
provided as a fold-out in Self Assessment at Alverno College
(G. Loacker, editor, 2000) is an institutional rubric designed to
mentor students to high level thinking as the signature trait of
that institution's degree. The components of observing, interpreting/analyzing,
judging and planning each have detailed criteria that disclose when
a student has mastered each component at the beginning, intermediate
and advanced levels. Those familiar with the well-established adult
models of thinking (Nutshell Notes n10 n5 & NTLF v11 n1 pp.
5-8—All ISU folks have on-campus access to National Teaching
and Learning Forum through http://www.ntlf.com/restricted/.)
will recognize the deliberate development of high level thinking
in accord with the models of Perry and others as the plan behind
this rubric. It provides ways for lessons, courses and curricula
to contribute at all scales to this global institutional outcome.
Example
in Educational Practice. The article "An Ethical Framework
for Practical Reasons" (NTLF V10 N5 pp. 7-9) conveys a rubric.
Ethical decisions we make as teachers and administrators don't have
right-wrong solutions, but they have reasonable and unreasonable
ones. Consider what occurs when one must act in a difficult situation
with a student or employee and asks, "What are the implications
of autonomy in this problem; where is justice; where is nonmaleficence
involved and where is beneficence?" In asking these questions,
a teacher or administrator has touched on the key points of a rubric
based upon the four established basic principles of ethics. Thus,
a decision based upon such a sophisticated and durable framework
will yield a conclusion far more substantial than one derived from
relying only on one's recollected experiences and feelings.
Just
as content learning outcomes inform a careful choice of pedagogy
to aid that learning, a carefully crafted rubric derives from awareness
of characteristics associated with the development of the appropriate
level of thinking.
