• Agreed marking criteria means there can be little confusion about assignment outcomes and expectations.

• Additional briefing time can increase a lecturer’s workload

“The difference between self-assessment and giving the teacher what he or she wants was a recurring theme

They also recommend that teachers share expectations for assignments and define quality.

There are ways of framing and then using self-assessment

A second important part of the definition is its unequivocal requirement that the formative assessment process involve both teachers and students.

Descriptive Feedback: Students should be provided with evidence-based feedback that is linked to the intended instructional outcomes and criteria for success.

5. Collaboration: A classroom culture in which teachers and students are partners in learning should be established.

According to Thomas Newkirk, an English professor at the University of New Hampshire, “rubrics promote ‘mechanical instruction in writing’ that bypasses ‘the human act of composing and the human gesture of response’” (Mathews). This overly scientific view of writing, Newkirk and others argue, stunts the learning process. Moreover, Judith Halden-Sullivan sees a disconnect between the learning goals of Writing Across the Curriculum programs and the rubrics often designed to assess that learning. Assessment of this sort seems at odds with such concepts as “deep learning,” which implies a kind of learning that is beyond measurement, an elusive hard to describe enlightenment, but identifiable in the same way good art is: teachers know deep learning when they see it. Rubrics, Halden-Sullivan contends, reduce “deep learning” to “checksheets.”

According to Thomas Newkirk, an English professor at the University of New Hampshire, “rubrics promote ‘mechanical instruction in writing’ that bypasses ‘the human act of composing and the human gesture of response’” (Mathews). This overly scientific view of writing, Newkirk and others argue, stunts the learning process. Moreover, Judith Halden-Sullivan sees a disconnect between the learning goals of Writing Across the Curriculum programs and the rubrics often designed to assess that learning. Assessment of this sort seems at odds with such concepts as “deep learning,” which implies a kind of learning that is beyond measurement, an elusive hard to describe enlightenment, but identifiable in the same way good art is: teachers know deep learning when they see it. Rubrics, Halden-Sullivan contends, reduce “deep learning” to “checksheets.”

According to Thomas Newkirk, an English professor at the University of New Hampshire, “rubrics promote ‘mechanical instruction in writing’ that bypasses ‘the human act of composing and the human gesture of response’” (Mathews). This overly scientific view of writing, Newkirk and others argue, stunts the learning process. Moreover, Judith Halden-Sullivan sees a disconnect between the learning goals of Writing Across the Curriculum programs and the rubrics often designed to assess that learning. Assessment of this sort seems at odds with such concepts as “deep learning,” which implies a kind of learning that is beyond measurement, an elusive hard to describe enlightenment, but identifiable in the same way good art is: teachers know deep learning when they see it. Rubrics, Halden-Sullivan contends, reduce “deep learning” to “checksheets.”

, “rubrics promote ‘mechanical instruction in writing’ that bypasses ‘the human act of composing and the human gesture of response’”

Does the rubric relate to the outcome(s) being measured? Does it address anything extraneous? […] Does it cover important dimensions of student performance? Do the criteria reflect current conceptions of excellence in the field? […] Are the dimensions and scales well defined? […] Is there a clear basis for assigning scores at each scale point? […] Can different scorers consistently apply the rubric? […] Can students and parents understand the rubric? […] Is the rubric developmentally appropriate? […] Can the rubric be applied to a variety of tasks? […] Is the rubric fair and free from bias? Does it reflect teachable skills or does it address variables over which students and educators have no control, such as the student’s culture, gender or home resources? […] Is the rubric useful, feasible, manageable and practical? […] Will it provide the kind of information you need and can use effectively?

What decisions will the assessment inform?