Community

Hi, thank you so much! I will check out the video as a starting point and see where it leads me. Thanks again for taking the time to share that! --JT ... View more

Thanks again! Portfolios might be another way to go. I am investigating that.  --JT ... View more

Thanks for the answer! I appreciate it. Yes, it would be possible to create TAs or observers that have to hunt through the dozens of sections and thousands of students... but, no. That would be a nightmare. Better to go with one of the other workarounds I mentioned in the OP.  Unless someone else possibly has the secret key or yet-better workaround for me.  Very frustrating.  --JT ... View more

At the basic level, an outcome is something students should be able to do at the end of the class (given that "to do" can mean "know" in the sense of "demonstrate knowledge of"). That is, outcomes can be skill or knowledge based. Some fields find it useful to distinguish -- so one outcome might be "correctly define key terms related to the structure of an argument" whereas another is "write an analysis of an argument that makes use of the key terms."  Outcomes can have different levels of granularity, or detail, depending on your needs as a teacher. Using your example, your outcome might be as simple as "build a brick house." Can students build a house by the end of the class? Great! They succeeded in meeting the outcome. You didn't care if they bought the bricks, made the bricks, found the bricks at a construction site and stole them, or whatever. You didn't care if the bricks they used were of particular quality in and of themselves, or if they were all the same color, or whatever -- just -- is there a house now?  -- if so, they succeeded in meeting the outcome. Or you can write outcomes at any level of detail you want, so that you can then measure their success with various stages or sub-routines, so to speak. You identified five areas to measure or assess in your example. It really just depends on what data you want to capture for purposes of feedback and assessment.  However, I must complicate this explanation by saying that sometimes outcome is used functionally -- operationally -- in a different, more restricted sense, to refer only to those outcomes designed and implemented at levels higher than the individual instructor or assignment. For instance, it's common in some environments to use "outcome" only to refer to an outcome that has been assigned to a class or program or assignment by a higher authority -- a program, a dean, an institution, a national accrediting body.  A rubric is essentially a scale, usually expressed as a grid,  for measuring the degree of success a student achieves in meeting an outcome or set of related outcomes. The rubric can be a simple as three cells : the name of the outcome and a binary assessment: fail / succeed. Or it can be as huge and complicated as you want, say measuring 50 outcomes with 100 degrees of partial success and partial failure.  The main use of a rubric is to clearly express assessment expectations and standards.  Criteria is a technical term within the world of rubric design and discussion, and it overlaps to a great degree with "outcome." A criterion is the thing measured. Any outcome measured in a rubric is also a criterion.  If I have an unmeasured outcome, or I'm simply discussing outcomes out of the context of rubrics, I don't refer to it as a criterion.  Conceivably, I could also have a criterion that isn't an outcome, depending on how I operationalize the term (see above). For instance, I might be tasked with measuring certain outcomes by my program (e.g. "build a brick house" and the five sub-outcomes you listed above), but I, as a teacher, might add "the house should be beautiful" or "the house should be energy efficient" or something like that because I think it's important even though it's not in the list of "outcomes" I was handed by my department.   In that case, when discussing my rubric, I might refer to the criteria that I was handed by the program as the outcomes and the outcomers I made up for myself and my students as criteria, in a distinction that would make sense in the context but be confusing in the abstract.  For instance, imagine a metal sphere. If I use it as a ball bearing, I would call it a ball bearing, not a metal sphere, even though it is a metal sphere. If I encountered it out of context, I would probably just refer to it as a metal sphere, even though used in a specific way it would take on that extra label.  I hope that makes sense. In my experience, assessing student work is a constant tug-of-war between two equally valid but mutually exclusive goals: granularity, or level of detail, and ease of use, both for the faculty member and the student. If you're thinking hard about assessment, you're thinking hard about the best place to land on that scale, the best way to balance those two goals.  --JT ... View more

I just wanted to say I agree. Another English professor here and I don't use points, I don't like points, I don't want points, and I deeply resent the prescriptive and limited structure Canvas forces us into for grading. It's very frustrating.  While it is possible to "translate" anything into numbers and then back again, it's yet another stupid, stupid, wasteful example of the tail wagging the dog to force us to do so.  Ugh. --JT ... View more