(Part 3 is here.)
I wasn’t really sure how to build the rubric. My real goal in the forum is to be able to detect when the students have “got” the concept or not. I am relying on my ability to prompt them further as the discussion proceeds. That doesn’t help the students know how I will grade them, though, and that is what will drive how they organize their own learning.
So I guess what I want students to focus on is:
- Answer the first question, thoughtfully.
- Participate in the discussion afterwards.
- Give me a final summary of their understanding at the end.
It seems to me that these three things reflect what the student is doing rather than what I am hoping the student will learn. Because the assessment and the objectives are at least fairly well aligned, there is not that big a difference, but I think of the rubric as being a checklist for the students to consult as well as a standard that ensures my grading is as fair and consistent as possible.
Anyway, the rubric I provided had categories for each of the three steps I mentioned above.
I chose the Yes / Yes, but / No, but / No format simply because I’m partial to it.
I am a little confused by the objectives / range / degree distinction, and how they connect with the 3 x 4 matrix. In my case, is the objective that they answer the forum questions, and then the three rows (initial response, discussion, final summary) the range? Or are there three objectives — initial response, discussion, final summary – each of which has its own range and degree? Are the range / performance tasks supposed to be two alternative second components, or is range a synonym for performance tasks?
Another question: if a rubric is based on 3/2/1/0 then averaging 2 is already down to a D. Right? That seems harsh, but it also seems in the nature of rubrics. Am I supposed to think about that differently?
That’s all folks. That’s the last part. 🙂