[etni] suggested changes - current rubric for writing
- From: ask@xxxxxxxx
- To: etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:59:37 -0700
From: Sharon Tzur <sharontzu5@xxxxxxx>
Subject: suggested changes - current rubric for writing
Dear Etniers:
I'm sending a copy of a letter that I sent to
Judy Steiner with suggestions for changes in the
current rubric for writing.
First of all, I'm very pleased that changes have been
made in the rubric based on past feedback; I'm referring
specifically to the changes in deduction for length.
The more gradual reduction system introduced this
year is a great improvement over the past (where one
word under par lead to a deduction of 8 points).
There are still problems, to my way of thinking,
with the rubric. First, I think that some points should
be moved from the "Language" category to the "Vocabulary"
category. Vocabulary is certainly no less important to
good writing that grammar. Furthermore, there is too
great a spread of points today in the Language category
and too little spread in vocabulary. I would suggest that
each category be worth 12 points.
Another problem is the criteria for Content. It seems to
me that in writing, the whole is more than the sum of its
parts - or, in other words - good writing is not just a
matter of good mechanics - vocabulary, grammar, and spelling.
Writing is about getting a message across to a reader
effectively, and that should be related to the rubric.
The way the rubric stands today, "getting the message
across effectively" - which should be covered somehow in
the category of content, is simply absent from the assessment
- and that is absurd. We are rewarding students points on
content simply for writing on the subject and for writing
in their own words!
Now I imagine that there are two objections that might
be raised to putting more "meat" into the rubric of content.
One is that it is difficult to reduce "getting the message
across effectively" into measurable and objective terms.
Well, I think it can be done and I have some suggestions.
Secondly, one might argue that vocabulary and grammar
taken together already take care of assessing "getting
the message across effectively" and that trying to assess
content in terms of anything other than the most minimal
demands would just be punishing students twice for weak
vocabulary and grammar. I disagree and will address this issue below.
First, my suggestions for an objective measure of "getting
the message across effectively". I tried to think of what I
teach my students when I want to teach them how to do a good
piece of writing, and I came up with the following criteria,
which divide nicely into 8 points (although it might be a
good idea to give more points to this category again at the
expense of the currently over bloated language category.)
Content - Getting the message across effectively
* writing is clear and comprehensible, easy to follow (2 pts)
* writing has a relevant introduction/lead-in and closure (2 pts)
* writing is organized into paragraphs (one idea per paragraph - topic
sentences) with smooth transitions/connectors between paragraphs (2 pts)
* writer presents logical arguments / gives relevant and clear
examples/explanations/descriptions (2 pts)
These four elements could be organized into rubric style, In
rubric style, the above would be the top category, worth 6-8 points.
The middle category, 3-4 points would be the "half-way" of each element.
(writing is fairly easy to follow, writing is missing introduction
or closure, paragraphing and connectors are somewhat faulty,
writer sometimes provides relevant and clear explanations...you'd
have to work on the wording of the middle category). The low
category - 0-1 would be the absence of all the elements.
[Despite the rubric style, it would be just easier to just
kind of "check off" each category - giving 1-2 points for each,
and add up the points. - the result would be the same.]
I think that the elements are objective and easily measured.
Perhaps the only somewhat problematic one is the last one - it
would need to be flexible enough to cover different types of
writing - opinion, description, etc.
I would suggest that students lose points GLOBALLY for writing
off the topic, for not writing in his/her words, and also
for excessive repetition - just like students today lose points
globally for not using letter form or not writing enough.
Students should not be awarded points simply for writing on
the topic or writing in their own words! (I would love to
see a global bonus of 2 points for essays that are extremely
creative.. but no doubt that idea will be shot down).
Now, what about the second possible objection - i.e. that
content should not be related to vocabulary or grammar. Well,
it seems to me that there is only one of the four elements that
has anything to do with vocabulary and grammar - and that is
the first of the four - clear and comprehensible and easy to follow.
(the very category that was absent from this summer's rubric)
- the other three present no problem because they are not
related to vocabulary or grammar (well - perhaps connectors
are related to vocabulary - though they appear on the present
rubric under "language" - but I think they are an integral
part of organization, which is related to content).
So what about comprehensibility? In my experience, a student
might use very simple vocabulary and even make many mistakes in
grammar and yet the writing may still be clear and comprehensible.
On the other hand, a student with advanced vocabulary and structures
might produce writing which is hard to understand. - so I don't
think the student is being punished twice for poor vocabulary and
grammar. It is true that a student who makes a lot of MISTAKES
in vocabulary (as opposed to just using simple words) will produce
writing that is not comprehensible - but such a student deserves
to lose points in both categories. If the reader can't understand
the message, then the writer should lose points on content.
What does have to be make clear is that spelling is a separate
issue, and even is spelling is so poor as to make it extremely
difficult to read, the student should not be penalized in the
content category of "comprehensibility". The examiner should plow
through and grade the student for comprehensibility as if all
the words had been spelled correctly and deduct only from the
spelling category.
Yours,
Sharon Tzur
-----------------------------------------------
Write for "The Etni Rag" - http://www.etni.org/etni_rag.htm
Add yourself / Update your entry to "Who's Who on Etni"
http://www.boker.org.il/etni/whoswho.htm
-----------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
- » [etni] suggested changes - current rubric for writing