NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ831064
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2009
Pages: 1
Abstractor: ERIC
Reference Count: 0
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: ISSN-1041-6099
Response to Arend Flick
RiCharde, R. Stephen
Assessment Update, v21 n1 p3 Jan-Feb 2009
This article presents the author's response to Arend Flick. The author states that Flick is correct that the issue of rubrics is broader than interrater reliability, though it is the assessment practitioner's primary armament against what the author has heard dubbed "refried bean counting" (insinuating that assessment statistics are not just bean counting but rather an effort to count the beans in a mashed-up mess of bean paste). Although Flick says rubrics are as valuable in the humanities as they are anywhere else when used judiciously, RiCharde contends that in practice, rubrics are not always used judiciously. Often, rubrics are a means of circumventing standardized or in-house multiple-choice tests, which are sometimes borrowed from another institution and taken at face value. While Flick is right on target in stating that rubrics do not automatically translate into homogenized teaching, they do often lock faculty into a common, overly simplified view of the construct they are charged with measuring. Here, RiCharde asserts that the typical rubric is inadequate for the task of measuring critical thinking.
Jossey-Bass. Available from John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774. Tel: 800-825-7550; Tel: 201-748-6645; Fax: 201-748-6021; e-mail: subinfo@wiley.com; Web site: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/86511121
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Opinion Papers
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A