Assessing by Standards in the Secondary ELA Classroom

Back in September, I blogged about “Constructing Standards-Based Rubrics in the Secondary ELA Classroom.” I traced my assessment journey across three stages:

1. Analytic Rubric
2. Holistic Rubric
3. Standards-Based Scoring Rubric

Back in January 2019, I shifted my rubric yet again. With a clearer focus of my standards, by that time (and after having taught for another full Fall semester), I knew I needed another shift. I liked scoring on an A, B, C, and F (as bands of grades rather than raw scores or percentages) but differentiating between each level was getting challenging and cumbersome. I turned more fully to Jennifer Gonzalez’s (@cultofpedagogy) post “Holistic, Analytic, and Single-Point Rubrics.” More in line with Gonzalez’s listing of success criteria (which also fits with learning targets), my current rubrics focus on what we are asking students to do. Then, I make a professional judgment call on whether it is an A, B, C, or F.

THE RUBRIC:

I CAN/CANNOT YET:

Rather than create a checklist of grammar concepts that I included in my former holistic rubric, I have left space for me to type comments. Sometimes I just leave an X in one of the two columns. My general rule is an X or comment in the “I can” column suggests an A or a B, where a check or comment/suggestion/reminder in the “I cannot yet” column suggests a C or F.

Ideally, I would eventually like to film instructional videos (inspired by Andre Easton’s—@EastonA1—2017 NCTE session) of the concepts we teach so we can link those to the “I cannot yet” column for students to review (as we encourage students to revise work).While this rubric may not offer so many specific details students should address, that is reserved more for conferences during workshop. Rather than leave so many grammar edits (I am no longer a copy-editor!) or lengthy notes, I can now discuss those with students as they work (or revise). Thus, this rubric allows me to more directly assess.

LOOK-FORS:

This column lists what students should know and be able to do. These are rather consistent each time they appear on a rubric. And, these rubrics are located directly in the Google Docs that students receive to type their work in. I need to do a better job at centering these rubrics for every assignment to draw student attention to them, but their inclusion and consistency is a huge step forward for me (see “Communicating Standards to Students” near the middle of this blog-post). I am still uncertain if each assignment is asking for too much (the rubric above is for a larger research piece, but even a paragraph-length analysis will assess three standards). I appreciate subdividing each standard by one, two, or three learning targets and look-fors, but I am still working on the appropriate number for each assignment. Students have responded favorably to knowing how they score in each standard, so some students have begun utilizing the different categories: I need to assist the other students to this reflection.

SCORE:

In the score category, I type an A, B, C, or F and color-code that cell (blue for A, green for B, yellow for C, and red for F). I normally reserve an F for a failure to demonstrate learning (which could mean missing). I know a score for no work is arguably not a strong choice on my end, but students can always revise, and sometimes seeing the F notifies them that they did not submit an assignment. I do not have a hard-and-fast rule for what each letter grade truly means (which we see in the 1-4 proficiency scoring: what is a 4?). I usually work within the following guidelines:

• A: The work meets the look-fors and demonstrates a strong practice of the standard.
• B: The work meet the look-fors and the student has demonstrated understanding (and allows for some errors).
• C: The work is approaching proficiency with some demonstration or attempt at the standard. However, the student’s work fails to successfully meet the look-fors.
• F: The work is missing or incomplete. Perhaps there is not enough work to confirm proficiency of the look-fors.

There is subjectivity here, but perhaps no more than the arbitrariness of any grading scale.  I have not have students claim that our scoring is unfair. Through conferencing during workshops, students and I can clarify confusions and address stumbling blocks.

CONCLUSIONS (FOR NOW):

I will be continuing with this rubric formatting moving into next school year. I like the division by standard (and it will be categorized in the gradebook as such—one score for each standard), as well as the breakdown of one, two, or three look-fors per standard.

This rubric (with some of its subjectivity) further shows the interconnectedness of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The assessment scoring tool is derived from the standards of the curriculum, and the instruction within a workshop model allows for a more direct assessment process (rather than leaving lines and lines of written feedback that students may ignore). The integration of curriculum, instruction, and assessment here is empowering for me as an educator—it provides a sense that I am on the right track!