1887

Collaborative Creation of a Lab Rubric

    Authors: Carrie Miller-DeBoer1, Michele Eodice2,*
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Zoology University of Oklahoma and; 2: Learning, Teaching, & Writing University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Published 19 May 2011
    • Supplemental material available at http://jmbe.asm.org
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Learning, Teaching, & Writing, University of Oklahoma, 1005 Asp Avenue, Norman, OK 73019. Phone: (405) 325-2937. Fax: (405) 325-4928. E-mail: meodice@ou.edu.
    • Copyright © 2011, American Society for Microbiology
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2011 vol. 12 no. 1 67-68. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v12i1.271
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • PDF
    179.92 Kb
  • XML
  • HTML
    16.36 Kb

    Abstract:

    While there are a number of tested rubrics in circulation, our task was to intervene in a particular situation: the lead professor was concerned because her graduate teaching assistants held negative views about student performance on the lab reports. GTAs found poor products frustrating, and admitted that their grading was thus superficial and provided no feedback to students. Specifically, GTAs did not feel equipped to evaluate writing and, as a result, simply graded on steps completed in the lab process.

    We have a rubric now for an Introduction to Zoology lab that could be submitted here as a pretty darn good rubric for other instructors to use. But the intent of our “Tips and Tools” is to describe the actual creation of the rubric. We believe the active “real time” development of the rubric carried as much or more value than the finished product.

Key Concept Ranking

Lead
1.0
1.0

References & Citations

1. McKeachie W, Marilla S 2006 McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers Houghton Mifflin Boston, MA
jmbe.v12i1.271.citations
jmbe/12/1
content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v12i1.271
Loading

Citations loading...

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v12i1.271
2011-05-19
2017-11-18

Abstract:

While there are a number of tested rubrics in circulation, our task was to intervene in a particular situation: the lead professor was concerned because her graduate teaching assistants held negative views about student performance on the lab reports. GTAs found poor products frustrating, and admitted that their grading was thus superficial and provided no feedback to students. Specifically, GTAs did not feel equipped to evaluate writing and, as a result, simply graded on steps completed in the lab process.

We have a rubric now for an Introduction to Zoology lab that could be submitted here as a pretty darn good rubric for other instructors to use. But the intent of our “Tips and Tools” is to describe the actual creation of the rubric. We believe the active “real time” development of the rubric carried as much or more value than the finished product.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/12/1/jmbe-12-1-67.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v12i1.271&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error