AAC&U VALUES Rubric Assessment Day of Dialogue on ePortfolios San Francisco State University February 25, 2009 Susan Inouye Kapi‘olani Community College
Jan 15, 2016
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