What Is Your Teacher Rubric? Extracting Teachers' Assessment Constructs.

Q2 Social Sciences Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation Pub Date : 2015-03-01 DOI:10.7275/M3SA-P692
Heejeong Jeong
{"title":"What Is Your Teacher Rubric? Extracting Teachers' Assessment Constructs.","authors":"Heejeong Jeong","doi":"10.7275/M3SA-P692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rubrics not only document the scales and criteria of what is assessed, but can also represent the assessment construct of the developer. Rubrics display the key assessment criteria, and the simplicity or complexity of the rubric can illustrate the meaning associated with the score. For this study, five experienced teachers developed a rubric for an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) descriptive writing task. Results show that even for the same task, teachers developed different formats and styles of rubric with both similar and different criteria. The teacher rubrics were analyzed for assessment criteria, rubric type and scale type. Findings illustrate that in terms of criteria, all teacher rubrics had five areas in common: comprehension, paragraph structure, sentence structure, vocabulary, and grammar. The criteria that varied were mechanics, length, task completion, and selfcorrection. Rubric style and scales also were different among teachers. Teachers who valued global concerns (i.e., comprehension) in writing designed more general holistic rubrics, while teachers who focused more on sentence-level concerns (i.e., grammar) developed analytic rubrics with more details. The assessment construct of the teacher was shown in the rubric through assessment criteria, rubric style, and scale.","PeriodicalId":20361,"journal":{"name":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7275/M3SA-P692","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Rubrics not only document the scales and criteria of what is assessed, but can also represent the assessment construct of the developer. Rubrics display the key assessment criteria, and the simplicity or complexity of the rubric can illustrate the meaning associated with the score. For this study, five experienced teachers developed a rubric for an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) descriptive writing task. Results show that even for the same task, teachers developed different formats and styles of rubric with both similar and different criteria. The teacher rubrics were analyzed for assessment criteria, rubric type and scale type. Findings illustrate that in terms of criteria, all teacher rubrics had five areas in common: comprehension, paragraph structure, sentence structure, vocabulary, and grammar. The criteria that varied were mechanics, length, task completion, and selfcorrection. Rubric style and scales also were different among teachers. Teachers who valued global concerns (i.e., comprehension) in writing designed more general holistic rubrics, while teachers who focused more on sentence-level concerns (i.e., grammar) developed analytic rubrics with more details. The assessment construct of the teacher was shown in the rubric through assessment criteria, rubric style, and scale.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
你的教师准则是什么?教师评价构念的提取。
规则不仅记录了评估的尺度和标准,而且还可以表示开发人员的评估结构。指标显示了关键的评估标准,指标的简单性或复杂性可以说明与分数相关的含义。在这项研究中,五位经验丰富的教师为EFL(英语作为外语)描述性写作任务制定了一个标准。结果表明,即使是同一任务,教师也会在相似和不同的标准下制定不同的格式和风格的标题。对教师评语进行了评价标准、评语类型和量表类型的分析。研究结果表明,就标准而言,所有教师的标准有五个共同的方面:理解,段落结构,句子结构,词汇和语法。不同的标准是机制、长度、任务完成情况和自我纠正。教师之间的评语风格和尺度也存在差异。在写作中重视全局关注(即理解)的教师设计了更一般的整体规则,而更关注句子层面关注(即语法)的教师开发了更详细的分析规则。教师的评价结构通过评价标准、评价风格、评价量表在评价量表中表现出来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Feedback is a gift: Do Video-enhanced rubrics result in providing better peer feedback than textual rubrics? Do Loss Aversion and the Ownership Effect Bias Content Validation Procedures Flipping the Feedback: Formative Assessment in a Flipped Freshman Circuits Class Eight issues to consider when developing animated videos for the assessment of complex constructs Variability In The Accuracy Of Self-Assessments Among Low, Moderate, And High Performing Students In University Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1