1 / 13

AAC&U VALUES Rubric Assessment

AAC&U VALUES Rubric Assessment. Day of Dialogue on ePortfolios San Francisco State University February 25, 2009 Susan Inouye Kapi‘olani Community College. Kapi‘olani CC’s Role. were invited to evaluate all rubrics, but we chose one we chose the Critical Thinking rubric

maille
Download Presentation

AAC&U VALUES Rubric Assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AAC&U VALUES Rubric Assessment Day of Dialogue on ePortfolios San Francisco State University February 25, 2009 Susan Inouye Kapi‘olani Community College

  2. Kapi‘olani CC’s Role • were invited to evaluate all rubrics, but we chose one • we chose the Critical Thinking rubric • used our own rubric and theirs on the same set of docs (artifacts) • compared results • sent in feedback on provided form • awaiting revised form

  3. AAC&U Critical Thinking Rubric

  4. Tanya Renner’s Critical Thinking Rubric

  5. Evaluation Teams Three Faculty from FSHE: Culinary (FL), Nutrition Science (GI), Hospitality (LB) Applied both rubrics to FSHE 110: Fundamentals of Cookery Portfolio Artifacts Three Faculty from Social Sciences: Psychology (TR), Human Development (VO), Education (BB) Applied both rubrics to Psych 260 Psychology of Personality

  6. FSHE 110 Fundamentals of Cookery

  7. PSYCH 260 Psychology of Personality

  8. Summary of Findings Feedback on Criteria Both rubrics “seem to be limited to the expression of critical thinking in a specific context” Difficult to apply across different kinds of assignments (e.g. research paper vs. reflective journals)

  9. Summary of Findings, cont’d Feedback on Levels • “too many levels” (culinary prof.) • “clear and cover a range of possibilities – especially the in-between categories” (education prof.)

  10. Summary of Findings, cont’d Feedback on Performance Descriptors • “they were mostly irrelevant to the papers I read. More focused on structure of a rhetorical argument than on developmental stages of critical thinking.” • “performance descriptors need clarity” • “performance descriptors left me unsure/searching for applications” • “use measurable and action-based terminology” • “some terminology may not be applicable to specific majors. Examples of actions which meet criteria would be helpful” • “There is definite incremental development”

  11. Implications & Conclusions • “I really think a good rubric should be applicable in a wide variety of disciplines and for a wide variety of assignments” • “Suggest making rubric more user friendly so all stakeholders can have clear understanding of descriptors & can be used across programs” • Some evaluators liked the specificity; others found it too specific

More Related