A Rubric, a Wheelchair, an IEP, and Two Raters
Thirty students in a mixed-grade dance elective complete a summative composition project worth 30 percent of the semester grade. Your four-criterion, four-point rubric scores motif clarity, development, spatial design, and performance presence. A colleague has agreed to double-score 10 randomly selected videos so you can check reliability; her scores are consistently one point higher than yours on "performance presence." One group of five includes a student who uses a wheelchair; the spatial-design descriptors reward "level changes, floor work, and full-body extension." A student with an anxiety disorder has asked not to perform live in front of the class and has offered a video instead. In another group, one student choreographed roughly 80 percent of the material while two members mostly performed. One video arrived three days after the deadline because the student's home internet failed.
1. Rewrite the spatial-design criterion for access, and explain why this does not lower the standard.
Read the worked answer
Problem. "Level changes, floor work, and full-body extension" describes one kind of body, not the student's compositional thinking about space. A wheelchair user can design rich spatial interest - pathways, formations, facings, proximity and distance, and the chair itself as a compositional element - and the rubric should ask for that.
Revised criterion (4 = proficient).
- 4: Spatial choices are deliberate and varied; the group uses pathways, formations, facings, proximity, and levels in ways that serve the motif, and the stage picture changes at least three times with intention.
- 3: Several deliberate spatial choices; some repetition without apparent purpose.
- 2: Limited spatial range; the group mostly stays in place or in one formation.
- 1: Little attention to space; dancers crowd, collide, or use the space arbitrarily.
Why rigor is preserved. The criterion now measures compositional decision-making, which is the actual standard. Access is not lower expectations; it is a criterion that measures the construct instead of a proxy for it. A student who makes three purposeful spatial choices scores 4 whether or not those choices include floor work.
Do the same audit on the other criteria. Replace "extension through the limbs" and "rise and fall" with "clear, repeatable shape" and "the motif changes in a way the audience can track." Add a standing note: accommodations - video evidence, alternate casting, modified staging - do not change the criteria. Send the revised rubric to the colleague before scoring, which also narrows the reliability gap.
2. How would you grade the group of five so that individual grades are defensible, given that one student choreographed about 80 percent?
Read the worked answer
Principle. The grade must survive a conversation with the student, the parent, and the department, and it must reward both the shared product and the individual's contribution without punishing anyone for having less prior training.
Three evidence sources.
- Group product score: the rubric applied to the group's performance or video - the shared outcome everyone owns.
- Contribution record: a rehearsal log the group submits (who generated, taught, refined, documented) plus my own notes from the four rehearsals I attend. I do not rely on self-report alone.
- Individual viva or one-page rationale: each student explains one compositional choice they made and answers "what did you change and why?" This lets a student who mostly performed demonstrate understanding, and it catches a student who choreographed 80 percent but cannot articulate the reasoning.
The 80/20 group. I would not mechanically hand out 80 and 20. The product score is shared; the individual component uses a documented-contribution multiplier of roughly 0.9 to 1.1. If two members genuinely authored nothing, that is a conversation to have during the project, not at grading, and the individual rationale is where it shows. The heavy contributor gets specific written recognition rather than a punitive adjustment to anyone else.
Transparency. Publish the method and the log template at the start of the project so contribution is recorded while it happens and no one is surprised by the arithmetic.
3. How would you handle the anxiety-driven video request, the late submission, and the systematic one-point gap on "performance presence"?
Read the worked answer
The video. A recorded performance is not a lesser assessment when the standard is performance quality for an audience; a video made for at least one live viewer meets it. I would accept it, require a single continuous take with a fixed camera wide enough to show spatial design, set a date, and ask that the student perform for one person - a peer, a family member, a teacher - so observation is still part of the task. I would not require a doctor's note for a routine accommodation, but I would document the request and the arrangement. If the anxiety is severe, the counselor's involvement is appropriate; that is a health matter, not a grading matter. I would also offer the same option to the whole class rather than treating it as an exception.
The late video. Apply the written late policy after checking the submission or log-in record. Three days with a documented home-internet failure is a plausible, verifiable circumstance; if it verifies, waive it. The point is consistency, not leniency - the same standard applied to every student, with the same evidence requirement.
The one-point gap. A systematic gap on one criterion means the descriptor is ambiguous, not that my colleague is wrong. Pull five double-scored videos, watch separately, compare, and rewrite "performance presence" with observable anchors: eye focus, commitment to the shape, responsiveness to the group, recovery from error. Rescore the ten together. Until the anchors are agreed, neither score is automatically correct.