But they’re
not for me. There are lots of reasons why, but I discovered another one. The
various gradations in a category, say argument, for example, are too similar.
They read like bad paraphrases of one another where one or two adjectives are
swapped out. If one of my students gave me a paraphrase with only two
adjectives changed for slight synonyms plucked from a thesaurus, the student
would technically be guilty of plagiarism.
More to the
point, such changes ultimately convey nothing to the students. There’s no
perceptible difference between a “well-developed claim” and a “fairly developed
claim.” The descriptive phrases ultimately convey less than the raw point value
associated with it, so why bother with the description.
I think
these descriptions make instructors feel better by giving them something to
point to as justification for what ultimately is a gut instinct. Instead of
simply saying that a given argument is 8/10, the rubric’s description gives
cover or what is a teacher’s learned reaction and evaluation. Half of essay
grading is instinctive, something that comes with practice, and ends up more
art than science.
A skilled chef can take a slight
taste of a dish, and know to add a whole range of ingredients in measurements that
seem arbitrary until the finished dish is tasted. The chef had no way to
articulate knowing how or why it needed X amount of an ingredient, just that it
did. So many recipes actually have the insruction “season to taste,” based on
experience and instinct.
I feel my time is much more wisely
spent giving personal feedback to my students that apply directly to their
work, hopefully giving them the experience and instinct needed to understand
the grade I assign to them, rather than the generic comments associated with
rubrics.