Al Byers	Sue Darnell Ellis	Sue Drummer
Harold Pratt	Marci Hickman	Joe Exline
Mary Ann Fitzgerald	Kip Bollinger	Jean Dughi
Art Mitchell	Page Keeley

Teleconference summary:

Decisions Agreed Upon:

The group agreed to use the current format and structure of this latest rubric for Langley and the existing ìScience as Inquiryî definition. We will allow CSSS members in attendance to edit/make comments on the entire rubric, but have them ìpilotî only those polished sections (still allowing editorial comments). Also, all seemed to agree that there should be a content threshold barrier portion on the rubric. If the material in question does not highly align to appropriate content then alignment to the rest of the rubric is futile.

The executive leadership committee at the consultation from Mary Ann Fitzgerald, agreed to use 4 "levels" consistently throughout the entire rubric. Mary Ann cited three reasons for this convention:

1. Analytically correlating the data from different levels of a rubric would be extremely difficult, but statistically possible.

2. One strong reason for using consistent levels is that this will reduce the cognitive load the user has to exert to effectively score a rubric with varying levels. In simpler terms, using different numbers of levels throughout the rubric will make it a more difficult tool to use.

3. When an odd number of choices is given (three or five) users have a tendency to check the "middle" level. This tendency makes it difficult to differentiate the alignment of different materials for given areas of the rubric.

The committee agreed that several more teleconferences were needed to continue the rubric edit process. Page Keeley also submitted a new layout and content that will be discussed during the next two telecons.

Back to Top of Page