Creating more equitable rubrics to reduce discrimination and inequities in public-speaking courses

ABSTRACT

Recent analyses of common public-speaking rubrics, grading practices, and course content have found widespread bias and inequities. This article contributes to the efforts to remedy some of the causes of these biases. It begins with a discussion of the disciplinary biases and institutional pressures that reinforce discriminatory assessment practices. It then details principles and methods for creating more inclusive, equitable, and accessible rubrics and demonstrates how they can be implemented. Shifting how we create and use rubrics for public-speaking courses can contribute to the discipline’s broader move toward inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility.

Acknowledgments

I am deeply indebted to Megan Foley for their contributions to this article. Some of the ideas presented here are based on a webinar we co-created in 2023 for W.W. Norton.

Notes

1 I use the term “standpoint” to refer to a student’s awareness of their social location, particularly how their own background, experiences, and identities inform their communication, learning, and knowledge making. This understanding of “standpoint” is drawn from intersectional feminist standpoint theory. The full scope and complexity of standpoint theory is beyond the scope of this essay, but for readers interested in an accessible introduction, see Bowell (n.d.). For a more detailed discussion and applications of standpoint theory to communication studies, see Hallstein (2000) and other essays in that special issue of Women’s Studies in Communication.

2 This is how I was originally trained to grade student speeches and did so for many years—using these kinds of specific behavioral markers. It was not until relatively recently that I made the shift to more equitable grading practices. Thus, I include my past self in the objects of my critique and recognize that some colleagues cited here may have already likewise made a similar transition. I include these citations as evidence of the broader discourses that dominate the discipline and not as condemnations of any specific author or colleague.

3 The examples in this section are taken from rubrics used in the University of South Carolina’s course in online public speaking (SPCH 145), created in collaboration with students and instructors. Since 2016, I have been responsible for the creation of the content and supporting materials for that course, trained and supported teachers of the course across the USC system, and taught the course myself every year. The examples here are drawn from the latest iteration of the standard course rubrics, created in early 2024. At the time of writing, this latest iteration has been piloted in two sections and is in the process of being finalized for implementation in the fall of 2024. Discussion with students and instructors is ongoing. So, the examples here represent our current best efforts of what will always be a work in progress.

4 This course uses a custom textbook based on Contemporary Public Speaking by Pat Gehrke and Megan Foley (W.W. Norton, 2023). The page ranges in the sample rubric have been modified to match those found in the publisher’s stock version of the book.