One of the readings we were assigned to read this week is a PowerPoint document that was presented by researcher Susan Webb at a TESL conference in 2017. The presentation is called "Creating Effective Rubrics." It discusses the differences between formative and summative assessments, the importance and usefulness of rubrics, the elements of the Canadian Language Benchmarks that should be integrated into rubrics, types of scales that can be used to measure skill levels, types of assessment tools, the analytical and holistic aspects of rubrics and their criteria, and how to create a rubric based on a task and the elements of the Canadian Language Benchmarks that it corresponds with.

One of the concepts that resonated with me was the use of the Canadian Language Benchmarks in the creation of rubrics. Webb (2017) explains that tasks that are used in the classroom can be compared to the sample tasks in the Canadian Language Benchmarks for a chosen language skill and competency. From there, specific features and criteria can be identified to be used an a rubric for assessing language usage and the completion of tasks. This helps to ensure the validity of assessments in that they are actually assessing the skills and proficiency that they are claiming to assess (Webb, 2017).

This concept resonated with me because it helped me understand what makes a good assessment. Since there is a common aversion to test-taking and evaluations, it is helpful to examine and understand their purpose and how teachers can demonstrate that they can be effective tools for measuring progress and identifying areas for improvement. I think that the way that the Canadian Language Benchmarks break down the elements of skills and how they are used learning tasks aid in this understanding. In addition, the explanations provided by Webb have connected the language elements outlined in the Canadian Language Benchmarks in ways that I had not noticed previously. I was familiar with the framework, as I have used it in most of my classes. I had looked at its profiles of ability and examples of tasks and skill usage. However, my understanding was constrained to these elements and I did not see the big picture.

In my own teaching, I want to ensure that the assessments that I conduct are valid and meaningful. While the use of graded scales and marks for including specified language features (e.g. specific tenses and punctuation) are easier to measure, they do not necessarily measure things like fluency. As a result, I want to use rubrics that actually assess what I want to assess. This means that if I want to assess students' fluency, I should first clarify what fluency is and then use a rubric that fits that criteria, rather than measuring other language features. Clarification also improves the transparency of assessments as students can understand what their teacher is actually looking for and measuring beyond the task itself.


References