Skip to content
2018
Volume 52, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 0007-8204
  • E-ISSN: 1943-2216

Abstract

An increased emphasis on writing standards has led many U.S. states to incorporate on-demand writing assessments into their test-based accountability system. We argue this creates political and pedagogical tensions for teachers to navigate. We discuss how rubric conceptualization (1) is a process wherein a teacher iteratively (co-)constructs meaning from a rubric’s design via classroom instruction; (2) is informed by implicit theories of learning; and (3) often requires a teacher to negotiate the competing pedagogical and political meanings of a rubric. While test-based accountability frameworks promote rubric use that equates learning with student achievement, rubric conceptualization is a process where teachers have some agency to resist behaviorist approaches to instruction.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/ee202030769
2020-07-01
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Achinstein B. Ogawa R. T. (2006) (In)fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive education policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 30–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson G. Cohen M. I. (2015) Redesigning the identities of teachers and leaders: A framework for studying new professionalism and educator resistance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(85), 1–29 10.14507/epaa.v23.2086
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrade H. G. Boulay B. A. (2003) Role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in learning to write. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 21–34 10.2307/27542460
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Andrade H. L. (2006) The trouble with a narrow view of rubrics. English Journal, 95(6), 9.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Andrade H. L. Du Y. Wang X. (2008) Putting rubrics to the test: The effect of a model, criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-assessment on elementary school students’ writing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(2), 3–13 10.1111/j.1745‑3992.2008.00118.x
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Au W. (2007) High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267 10.3102/0013189X07306523
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Au W. (2009) Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Au W. (2011) Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45 10.1080/00220272.2010.521261
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Au W. (2016) Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39–62 10.1177/0895904815614916
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Baird J. A. Andrich D. Hopfenbeck T. N. Stobart G. (2017) Assessment and learning: Fields apart?Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(3), 317–350 10.1080/0969594X.2017.1319337
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Barnes N. Fives H. Dacey C. M. (2017) U.S. teachers’ conceptions of the purposes of assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 107–116 10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.017
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Behizadeh N. (2014) Mitigating the dangers of a single story: Creating large-scale writing assessments aligned with sociocultural theory. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 125–136 10.3102/0013189X14529604
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Behizadeh N. Pang M. E. (2016) Awaiting a new wave: The status of state writing assessment in the United States. Assessing Writing, 25(41), 25–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ben-Porath S. (2013) Deferring virtue: The new management of students and the civic role of schools. Theory and Research in Education, 11(2), 111–128 10.1177/1477878513485172
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bennett R. E. (2011) Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25 10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Broad B. (2003) What we really value: Beyond rubrics in teaching and assessing writing. Utah State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brookhart S. M. Chen F. (2015) The quality and effectiveness of descriptive rubrics. Educational Review, 67(3), 343–368 10.1080/00131911.2014.929565
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Correnti R. Matsumura L. C. Hamilton L. Wang E. (2013) Assessing students’ skills at writing analytically in response to texts. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 142–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gatti L. (2016) Toward a framework of resources for learning to teach: Rethinking US teacher preparation. Springer Nature.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Greeno J. G. Collins A. M. Resnick L. B. (1997) Cognition and learning. InBerliner D. C. Caltee R. C. (Eds.) Handbook of educational psychology (pp.15–46). Simon & Schuster Macmillan 10.1007/s13398‑014‑0173‑7.2
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gresalfi M. S. (2009) Taking up opportunities to learn: Constructing dispositions in mathematics classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 327–369 10.1080/10508400903013470
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hamilton L. (2003) Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Educational Research, 27, 25–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Harris L. R. Brown G. T. L. (2009) The complexity of teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Tensions between the needs of schools and students. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 365–381 10.1080/09695940903319745
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Honig M. I. Hatch T. C. (2004) Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Horsford S. D. (2017) A race to the top from the bottom of the well? The paradox of race and U.S. education reform. The Educational Forum, 81, 136–147.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Jennings J. L. Bearak J. M. (2014) “Teaching to the Test” in the NCLB Era. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 381–389 10.3102/0013189x14554449
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jonsson A. Svingby G. (2007) The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144 10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kane M. Crooks T. Cohen A. (1999) Validating measures of performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(2), 5–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kinloch V. (2010) Harlem on our minds: Place, race, and the literacies of urban youth. Teachers College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kohn A. (2006) The trouble with rubrics. English Journal, 95(4), 12–15 10.1192/pb.33.10.396a
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ladson-Billings G. (2014) Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee C. D. (2008) Cultural modeling as opportunity to learn. InMoss P. A. Pullin D. Gee J. P. Haertel E. H. Jones Young L. (Eds.) Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp.136–167). Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9780511802157
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mabry L. (1999) Writing to the rubric: Lingering effects of traditional standardized testing on direct writing assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 673–674.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Messick S. (1980) Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35(11), 1012–1027.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Newell G. E. Beach R. Smith J. VanDerHeide J. (2011) Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273–304 doi.org/10/1598/RRQ.46.3.4
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Paris D. (2012) Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97 10.3102/0013189X12441244
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Remesal A. (2011) Primary and secondary teachers’ conceptions of assessment: A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 472–482 10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.017
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Reznitskaya A. Kuo L. J. Glina M. Anderson R. C. (2009) Measuring argumentative reasoning: What’s behind the numbers?Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 219–224 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.001
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Saddler B. Andrade H. (2004) The writing rubric. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 48–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Shepard L. A. (2000) The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Shepard L. A. (2013) Validity for what purpose?Teachers College Record, 115(9), 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Shepard L. A. Penuel W. R. Pellegrino J. W. (2018) Using learning and motivation theories to coherently link formative assessment, grading practices, and large-scale assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37(1), 21–34 10.1111/emip.12189
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Smit R. Birri T. (2014) Assuring the quality of standards-oriented classroom assessment with rubrics for complex competencies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43, 5–13 10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.02.002
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Star S. L. Griesemer J. R. (1989) Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Tuck E. (2012) Urban youth and school pushout: Gateway, get-aways, and the GED. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Tuck E. Gorlewski J. (2016) Racist ordering, settler colonialism, and edTPA: A participatory policy analysis. Educational Policy, 30(1), 197–217 10.1177/0895904815616483
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Turley E. D. Gallagher C. W. (2008) On the “uses” of rubrics: Reframing the great rubric debate. English Journal, 97(4), 87–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Welner K. G. (2013) Consequential validity and the transformation of rests from measurement tools to policy tools. Teachers College Record, 115(9), 1–6 10.1002/jhet.5570060305
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Wilson M. (2007) Why I won’t be using rubrics to respond to students’ writing. English Journal, 96(4), 62–66.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/ee202030769
Loading
/content/journals/10.58680/ee202030769
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error