Presenting, Analyzing, and Using Date for Improvement of Student

Report
Essential Practices for Effective Rubric
Implementation:
Tips on Training and Using Data for
Improvement
Ashley Finley, Ph.D
Senior Dir. of Assessment & Research, AAC&U
National Evaluator, Bringing Theory to Practice
Linda Siefert, Ed.D
Director of Assessment
University of North Carolina-Wilmington
General Education & Assessment Conference
Portland, OR
February 27, 2014
Capturing What Matters:
VALUE Rubrics Initiative

Rubric Development
16 rubrics
 Created primarily by
teams of faculty
 Inter-disciplinary, interinstitutional
 Three rounds of testing and
revision on campuses with
samples of student work
 Intended to be modified at
campus-level


Utility
Assessment of students’
demonstrated performance
and capacity for
improvement
 Faculty-owned and
institutionally shared
 Used for students’ selfassessment of learning
 Increase transparency of
what matters to institutions
for student learning

VALUE Rubrics
(www.aacu.org/value)

Knowledge of Human
Cultures & the Physical &
Natural Worlds
Personal & Social
Responsibility

Content Areas No Rubrics

Intellectual and Practical
Skills














Inquiry & Analysis
Critical Thinking
Creative Thinking
Written Communication
Oral Communication
Reading
Quantitative Literacy
Information Literacy
Teamwork
Problem-solving



Civic Knowledge & Engagement
Intercultural Knowledge &
Competence
Ethical Reasoning
Foundations & Skills for Lifelong
Learning
Global Learning
Integrative & Applied
Learning

Integrative & Applied Learning
The Anatomy of a VALUE Rubric
Criteria
Levels
Performance
Descriptors
The Role of Calibration





Essential training through collaboration and
discussion
Transparency of standards (without
standardization)
Building shared, inter-disciplinary knowledge
around skills assessment and application of the
rubric
Shared stake in data collection and discussion for
improvement
Building intentionality of assignment development
The Calibration Training Process

Scoring Steps:
Review rubric to familiarize yourself with structure, language,
performance levels
 Ask questions about the rubric for clarification or to get input
from others regarding interpretation
 Read student work sample
 Connect specific points of evidence in work sample with each
criterion at the appropriate performance level (if
applicable)


Calibration Steps:
Review scores
 Discuss scoring rationale
 Opportunity to change scores

The Ground Rules







We are not changing the rubric (today).
This is not grading.
Think globally about student work and about the
learning skill. Think beyond specific disciplinary lenses
or content.
Start with 4 and work backwards.
Connect evidence in work sample with language in
performance cell.
Pick one performance benchmark per criterion. Do not
use “.5”.
Zero and NA do exist but are distinct. Assign “0” if
work does not meet benchmark (cell one) performance
level. Assign “not applicable” if the student work is not
intended to meet a particular criterion.
How Have Campuses Used Rubrics to Improve
Learning?



Using the VALUE
Rubrics for
Improvement of
Learning and Authentic
Assessment
12 Case Studies
Frequently asked
questions
http://www.aacu.org/value/casestudies/
When presenting assessment results…
Consider the Type of Raw Data




Rubrics describe categories.
These categories are generally ordered. (4 reflects
higher quality performance than 3.)
But they are likely not equally distributed on a
number line. ( 1 is not the same distance from 2 as 2
is from 3. 4 is not twice a “good” as 2.)
Therefore, summary presentations and statistical
procedures should be appropriate for ordinal
numbers.
Consider the Readers



Disciplines have commonly used styles of presenting
data.
Individuals have personal learning styles.
Consider presenting the data in multiple forms that
will resonate with different styles.
 Charts
 Graphs
 Verbally,
qualitatively (rubrics provide quality
descriptions for each level)
Chart
The percent of students meeting the adopted
benchmark for lower-division courses.
Dimension
% of Work Products
Scored Two or Higher
CT 1 Explanation of Issues
83.4%
CT2 Evidence
77.0%
CT3 Influence of Context and
Assumptions
58.6%
CT4 Student’s Position
70.1%
CT5 Conclusions and Related
Outcomes
56.7%
Example Combination Chart and
Graph
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
4
3
2
1
0
CT1
10.3%
41.6%
31.5%
14.9%
1.7%
CT2
9.1%
37.2%
30.7%
21.1%
1.9%
CT3
4.6%
27.5%
26.5%
32.1%
9.3%
CT4
7.5%
33.9%
28.7%
26.2%
3.7%
CT5
3.1%
26.3%
27.3%
33.2%
10.1%
Example Verbal Description
CT4 Student’s Position
Less than one in twenty work products contained no statement
of student position (scores of 0). One fourth of the work
products provided a simplistic or obvious position (scores of 1).
Three in ten work products provided a specific position that
acknowledged different sides of an issue (scores of 2). One
third of the work products took into account the complexities of
the issue and acknowledged the points of view of others (scores
of 3). And less than one in ten work products provided an
imaginative position that took into account the complexities of
the issue, synthesized others’ viewpoints into the position, and
acknowledged the limits of the position taken (scores of 4)
Scenario
You will work in table groups to analyze
and then discuss recent assessment findings
and how they might be used to improve
student learning.
Share Out

similar documents