Rubric design and implementation of the review process

It is important to note that the GE Program Review is faculty driven and, as such, is a process in which faculty review faculty. Thus, it must be collegial in nature, sensitive, and unbiased while keeping student learning outcomes as the focus. As the process developed, it became clear that the demands of the review needed to be balanced with faculty workload that for many years had not included the collection of student and faculty data. In light of these issues, and prior to any data collection, GE Committee members developed guidelines and materials designed to capture the information needed in a sensitive and timely manner. These materials were first distributed to Area A Course Coordinators in Fall 2003-04. When the Area A Review Team began to read the course materials in the Spring, it became evident that an assessment rubric was needed. A rubric was then developed based on the guidelines and materials that had been distributed to the Course Coordinators in the Fall.

A question arose as to which kind of assessment rubric would be more beneficial to the review process-one with holistic ratings for each of the review sections, one with numerical ratings assigned for each component of each section, or a narrative worksheet with comments on each component? Two versions of the rubric were presented to the Review Team, one of which was holistic and the other that combined rating and narrative formats. Upon deliberation, use, and consensus, a model emerged which combines specific and holistic ratings with narrative (see Tables 1 and 2 in Discussion Review process). Based on an agreed upon 80% as the lower limit for acceptability of each item on the rubric, the descriptors in the holistic format vary in quality and quantity for each component across the ratings (see Table 1 in Discussion Review process). In Table 2 in Discussion Review process, the Lickert rating scale gives Review Team members the chance to rate each component of each section, and the narrative portion enables reviewers to elucidate specific concerns or highlight ways in which the teaching faculty are particularly responsive to course-level student learning objectives/outcomes and/or mastery of the University GE objectives.

Although not perfect, reviewers have generally agreed that the combination of formats provides a "reasonable guide" for the review process. While the rubrics are subject to modification by each review team, they have been used as is for Areas A, B, and C, and it is expected that modifications for future areas will be minor. The development of the rubric was critical in the process of conducting the Area reviews and it has encouraged both faculty and the reviewers to consistently focus on the essential components of the GE Program.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

متحف الكفيل يباشر صيانة منسوجات تراثية تابعة للعتبة العسكرية المقدسة

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تستذكر مظلومية الإمام الكاظم (عليه السلام) عبر مجلس عزاء

قسم العلاقات العامة يناقش مع منتدى شباب الإسكان إقامة مهرجان تكريم طالبات المدارس المرتديات العباءة في القادسية

سماحة السيد الصافي يدعو إلى توحيد الجهود في تحقيق التراث لضمان الرصانة والدقة وخدمة الساحة العلمية

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

6 فواكة تساعدك على الشعور بتحسّن عند المرض

حفاظا على صحة العين.. هذا أفضل وقت لتناول فيتامين أ

الاستخدام اليومي لسماعات الأذن.. أخطر مما تتصور !

هل توقيت نشاطك اليومي يؤثر على صحة دماغك؟.. العلماء يجيبون

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

ابتكار ألماني قد يغيّر مستقبل صناعة البلاستيك

تحديثات وأرباح عبر المشاهدات.. ما الذي تخطط له "لينكد إن"؟

"الكوكايين الوردي".. مخدر جديد يثير قلق السلطات الأميركية

دراسة: تغيّرات في أسلوب القيادة قد تكشف مبكرا عن الخرف !

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Parents with Learning Disabilities CONCLUSION

PROVISION OF SUPPORT

CARING FOR CHILDREN

EUGENICS AND ETHICAL ISSUES

PARENTING

DISCRIMINATION AND DIVERSITY

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Parents with Learning Disabilities

Legislation and Learning Disabilities CONCLUSION

LEGAL SAFEGUARDS

MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005

THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998