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