Rubrics for Teacher Education in Community College
Rubrics for Teacher Education in Community College
复制标题
社区学院教师教育细则
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
F. J. Schneider
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
F. J. Schneider
传统的评估方法可能无法为所有学生提供展示其知识和技能的机会。标题可以帮助学生达到作业的目标。在这项研究中，两个rubrics介绍了55个社区学院的学生在本科教育类的两个部分。第一个题目是用来在项目完成后给作业打分的。第二个题目是在学生完成作业之前发给他们的。学生的反应的经验进行了调查。大多数学生更喜欢提前得到题目，并报告说题目有助于澄清作业。三位导师用这个题目重新给匿名学期论文打分。评分员间的信度模式似乎表明，评分标准可能会增加客观性。对替代性评估的需求已有大量文献记载（Wiggins，1992年; Brualdi，1998年; Browder，Spooner和Algozzine，2003年; Byrnes，2004年）。1983年，国家卓越委员会发表了具有里程碑意义的出版物《一个处于危险中的国家》，不久之后，人们认识到“......我们目前的大多数测试程序是改进或维持标准的拙劣工具”（Resnick & Resnick，1985，第17页）。刘易斯（1997）发现，评估的变化导致课程的变化。标准化测验因其可靠性和有效性问题而受到严厉批评（Popham，1999; Worthen，白色，Fan & Sudweeks，1999;和Steeves，Hodgson & Peterson，2002）。关于高风险决策的标准化措施的使用，一直存在争议（Kleinhart & Kennedy，1999; Sacks，2000; Nezavdal，2003; Baines & Stanley，2004）。使用绩效任务已被提议作为替代或补充评估。我们必须尽可能地将标准化和评分标准化（O 'Neil，1992）。为此，教育工作者已经开始使用标题作为课堂，学校，地区，城市，甚至全州范围的工具。有人建议，未来的教师需要动手的经验，作为他们的培训的一部分，与标题。目前的研究提出了几个问题：教师教育的学生和教师会发现标题有用，有帮助，清晰，易于使用？教师教育的学生和教师将来会对使用标题感兴趣吗？使用评分标准时，教师的评分是否相似？背景和文献综述明尼苏达大学学习障碍研究所于20世纪80年代在Stanley L.德诺和菲利斯·米尔金目标是提高CBM程序的可靠性和有效性（Deno，1987）。“然而，建立信任措施被描绘成不仅仅是一个衡量系统，而是一种致力于解决教育挑战的解决问题模式”（Shinn、Nolet和Knutson，1990年）。一般认为，表演任务有助于教育工作者获得有关英语作为第二语言学习者的能力和知识的信息（Warren & Goodwin，1990）。采用了替代评估技术，以适应日益增加的文化和语言多样化的学校人口。一种常见的说法是，标准化考试，就其性质而言，包括文化偏见（威尔逊和马丁，2000年;索拉诺-弗洛雷斯和特朗布尔，2003年）。随着美国学校系统中多元文化代表性的增长，教育工作者需要更多的反思性评估方法和教学策略。这些理论也适用于残疾学生的教育（Meltzer，1992年）。Fuchs和Fuchs（1995）指出，CBM可以用于低，中，高成就的学生，但对于学习障碍的学生，CBM需要关注个人。目前，国家的趋势是提高学校的学术标准，同时将有特殊需要的学生纳入普通教育班级，这体现在最近的立法中，即2001年《不让一个孩子掉队法》和2004年《残疾人教育改进法》。…
Traditional assessment techniques may not afford all students the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. Rubrics may help students reach the objectives of an assignment. In this study, two rubrics were introduced to 55 community college students in two sections of an undergraduate education class. The first rubric was used to grade an assignment after completion of the project. The second rubric was distributed to the students before they completed an assignment. Student response to the experience is surveyed. Most students preferred to have the rubric in advance and reported that the rubric helped clarify the assignment. Three instructors used the rubric to re-grade anonymous term papers. Inter-rater reliability patterns seem to indicate that rubrics may increase objectivity in grading. Introduction The need for alternative assessments has been well documented (Wiggins, 1992; Brualdi, 1998; Browder, Spooner & Algozzine, 2003; and Byrnes, 2004). Soon after the 1983 landmark publication by the National Commission on Excellence, A Nation at Risk, it was recognized that " ... most of our present testing programs are poor instruments for improvement or maintenance of standards" (Resnick & Resnick, 1985, p.17). Lewis (1997) found that changes in assessment lead to changes in curriculum. Standardized tests are severely criticized for their questionable reliability and validity (Popham, 1999; Worthen, White, Fan & Sudweeks, 1999; and Steeves, Hodgson & Peterson, 2002). There is an ongoing debate over the use of standardized measures for high stakes decisions (Kleinhart & Kennedy, 1999; Sacks, 2000, Nezavdal, 2003; and Baines & Stanley, 2004). Using performance tasks has been proposed as either an alternative or a supplemental assessment. It is imperative that we attempt to standardize criteria and scoring as much as possible (O'Neil, 1992). To this end, educators have begun using rubrics as an in-class, school, district, city, and even statewide tool. It is suggested that future teachers need hands-on experience with rubrics as part of their training. The current research asks several questions: Will teacher education students and faculty find rubrics useful, helpful, clear, and easy to use? Will teacher education students and faculty be interested in using rubrics in the future? Will instructors' grades be similar when using rubrics? Background and literature review The University of Minnesota Institute for Learning Disabilities introduced curriculum-based measurement (CBM) in the 1980s under the direction of Stanley L. Deno and Phyllis Mirkin. Increasing the reliability and validity of CBM procedures was the goal (Deno, 1987). "CBM has been portrayed as more than a measurement system, however, and as a commitment to a problem-solving model of resolving educational challenges" (Shinn, Nolet and Knutson, 1990). It is believed that performance tasks help educators gain information about the abilities and knowledge of learners of English as a second language (Warren & Goodwin, 1990). Alternative assessment techniques were introduced to be used with the increasing culturally and linguistically diverse school population. A common claim is that standardized tests, by their nature, include cultural bias (Wilson & Martin, 2000; Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003). As multi-cultural representation in American school systems grows, educators need more reflective methods of assessment, as well as teaching strategies. These theories extend to the education of students with disabilities (Meltzer, 1992). Fuchs and Fuchs (1995) state that CBM can be used with a class-wide orientation for low, average, and high achieving students; but for students with learning disabilities, CBM needs to focus on individuals. Currently, the trend in the nation to raise academic standards in schools, while including students with special needs in general education classes, is evidenced by recent legislation in the No Child Left Behind Act, 2001, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004. …