AAC&U VALUES Rubric Assessment
13
AAC&U VALUES Rubric Assessment Day of Dialogue on ePortfolios San Francisco State University February 25, 2009 Susan Inouye Kapi‘olani Community College
description
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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of AAC&U VALUES Rubric Assessment
AAC&U VALUES Rubric Assessment
Day of Dialogue on ePortfoliosSan Francisco State University
February 25, 2009
Susan InouyeKapi‘olani Community College
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
AAC&U Critical Thinking Rubric
Tanya Renner’s Critical Thinking Rubric
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
FSHE 110 Fundamentals of Cookery
PSYCH 260 Psychology of Personality
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)
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.)
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”
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
