So, I’ll admit it. I have Olympic fever! Since I was a pre-teenager, I’ve loved staying up to watch coverage of men’s volleyball, women’s gymnastics, platform diving, and track events. I cheer on the American’s I’ve never heard of whether they’re favorites, underdogs, or unknowns. Sure, Mary Lou Retton made it easier to watch consistently at 14…but that’s another blog. So, I was interested in a conversation I overheard at dinner the other night regarding the “good” versus the “bad” Olympic sports. (I know mom…it’s not polite to eavesdrop – but it’s often quite entertaining!) What this man was explaining to his three children was that a sport with a quantitative measurement, final score, or objective calculation is a good sport, worthy of our time as fans. However, those sports requiring a judge to subjectively suggest that an athlete has won or lost is “silly” (at least according to this all-knowing father).
I must admit, I get what he’s saying. While watching the women’s gymnastics tonight, Tim Daggett, an expert in his own right, mentioned that one of the US athletes was ‘robbed’ on her balance beam routine. He said that the judging wasn’t completely fair based on the criteria as he understood it.
The battle between subjective and objective measures has always been an important educational question. For decades, experts have claimed that their ability to evaluate others within the category of their expertise should not be questioned. However, at the same time, finite objectives have always been desired by someone in the process, be it the student, the regulator, or any number of other stakeholders (hiring committees, managers, Academic Deans, etc.).
As a teacher of a “subjective” discipline, I understand this debate. A lot of students over the years have asked how communication can be effectively evaluated fairly. It’s a legitimate question that can have a reasonable answer. The answer is this: It’s possible to have a fair, unbiased rubric that includes both objective and subjective assessment. Let me try to explain.
How about optics? (That’s eye contact to most of the world.) As a communication professor, I have to remark on student eye contact during a presentation. Sure, I’ve seen rubrics that are simply: good, fair, and poor. (Yikes) But it’s actually possible to measure successful eye contact. Researchers tell us that mass audiences (groups of 15+) desire a specified amount of eye contact with “the group” to achieve credibility, likeability, and success. That measure is ~80%. 60-80% is strong, but not quite what an audience prefers. And so on. Can I, as a speech teacher measure this in my students? Absolutely I can! Anyone can, actually. While I don’t feel it’s necessary to get out a stop watch (although one certainly could), I feel that I can gauge an approximation of 80% within a few percentage points.
90 out of 100 points on my grading rubric are just like that. I can give a number to credibility (source types, number, and usage) just like I can give a number to paralanguage (rate, volume, and pitch). But I choose not to make 100% of my rubric objective. Why?
I have my students watch Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s, “I Have A Dream” speech every semester. I have them rate the speech using the grading rubric for class. (In fairness, audiences today demand different things than those 40 years ago.) But the average score for Dr. King in the objective, 90 point section is about an 82. So, why do I save 10 points for a subjective? Because Dr. King’s speech is great. It’s truly one of the top speeches our country has ever seen. 137 of our country’s speech and rhetoric experts not only agree, they rank it as the number one speech of our nation - see www.americanrhetoric.com for more info. So, within context, it deserves an ‘A’ don’t you think? I do. So, with my extra 10 points, I have no problem making that happen.
So, as you create your own objectives, criteria, and rubrics, decide how important complete objectivity is. Do you have an expert who deserves the ability to give subjective scoring to the event? (Keep in mind that not all teachers should be given this capacity. It’s not a right.) Or, is it imperative to have completely objective numbers? I hope my doctor was scored based on the latter. Although I hope my daughter, for the majority of her schooling, is based on the former. Of course that would require NCLB to be fixed, changed, or removed…
If someone tells me that a measurement has to be subjective, I will reply that you aren’t trying hard enough. However, if someone tells me that an event requires a completely objective measure, I’ll argue that point too. But either can be done in a way that is authentic, fair, and appropriate. Whether in organizational training, educational assessment, or Olympic measurement, objectives do not have to be completely quantifiable to be worthy.
(One last note…did you see the finish of the men’s 1X400 freestyle relay? Talk about an objective win! GO USA!!!!)
Want to learn more about outcomes, authentic assessment, or rubrics? Need to find out how to create subjective versus objective measures? Contact jborden@jeffpresents.com for more information!
