- -

Teachers as designers of formative e-rubrics: a case study on the introduction and validation of go/no-go criteria

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

Teachers as designers of formative e-rubrics: a case study on the introduction and validation of go/no-go criteria

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Nombre: Company;Otey;Agost ...
Tamaño: 1.165Mb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión del Autor.
Abrir
[Cerrado]
Nombre: Company2019_Artic ...
Tamaño: 3.301Mb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión editorial
Solicitar una copia al autor
dc.contributor.author Company, P. es_ES
dc.contributor.author Otey, J. es_ES
dc.contributor.author Agost, M.J. es_ES
dc.contributor.author Contero, Manuel es_ES
dc.contributor.author Camba, J.D. es_ES
dc.date.accessioned 2021-02-05T04:31:19Z
dc.date.available 2021-02-05T04:31:19Z
dc.date.issued 2019-08 es_ES
dc.identifier.issn 1615-5289 es_ES
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10251/160760
dc.description.abstract [EN] Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) offer new roles to teachers to improve learning processes. In this regard, learning rubrics are commonplace. However, the design of these rubrics has focused mainly on scoring (summative rubrics), whereas formative rubrics have received significantly less attention. ICTs make possible electronic rubrics (e-rubrics) that enable dynamic and interactive functionalities that facilitate the adaptable and adaptive delivery of content. In this paper, we present a case study that examines three characteristics to make formative rubrics more adaptable and adaptive: criteria dichotomization, weighted evaluation criteria, and go/no-go criteria. A new approach to the design of formative rubrics is introduced, taking advantage of ICTs, where dichotomization and weighted criteria are combined with the use of go/no-go criteria. The approach is discussed as a method to better guide the learner while adjusting to the student's assimilation pace. Two types of go/no-go criteria (hard and soft) are studied and experimentally validated in a computer-aided design assessment context. Bland-Altman plots are constructed as discussed to further illuminate this topic. es_ES
dc.description.sponsorship This work was partially supported by Grant DPI2017-84526-R (MINECO/AEI/FEDER, UE), Project "CAL-MBE, Implementation and validation of a theoretical CAD quality model in a Model-Based Enterprise (MBE) context." es_ES
dc.language Inglés es_ES
dc.publisher Springer Verlag es_ES
dc.relation.ispartof Universal Access in the Information Society es_ES
dc.rights Reserva de todos los derechos es_ES
dc.subject Formative rubrics es_ES
dc.subject Adaptable and adaptive rubrics es_ES
dc.subject E-rubrics es_ES
dc.subject Go es_ES
dc.subject No-go criteria es_ES
dc.subject.classification EXPRESION GRAFICA EN LA INGENIERIA es_ES
dc.title Teachers as designers of formative e-rubrics: a case study on the introduction and validation of go/no-go criteria es_ES
dc.type Artículo es_ES
dc.identifier.doi 10.1007/s10209-019-00686-7 es_ES
dc.relation.projectID info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/AEI/Plan Estatal de Investigación Científica y Técnica y de Innovación 2013-2016/DPI2017-84526-R/ES/IMPLEMENTACION Y VALIDACION DE UN MODELO TEORICO DE LA CALIDAD DE LOS MODELOS CAD EN UN CONTEXTO MBE (MODEL-BASED ENTERPRISE)/ es_ES
dc.rights.accessRights Abierto es_ES
dc.contributor.affiliation Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Ingeniería Gráfica - Departament d'Enginyeria Gràfica es_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitation Company, P.; Otey, J.; Agost, M.; Contero, M.; Camba, J. (2019). Teachers as designers of formative e-rubrics: a case study on the introduction and validation of go/no-go criteria. Universal Access in the Information Society. 18(3):675-688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-019-00686-7 es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethod S es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversion https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-019-00686-7 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio 675 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin 688 es_ES
dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion es_ES
dc.description.volume 18 es_ES
dc.description.issue 3 es_ES
dc.relation.pasarela S\408784 es_ES
dc.contributor.funder European Regional Development Fund es_ES
dc.contributor.funder Agencia Estatal de Investigación es_ES
dc.description.references Popham, W.J.: What’s wrong—and what’s right—with rubrics. Educ. Leadersh 55(2), 72–75 (1997) es_ES
dc.description.references Educational Research Service: Focus on: Developing and using instructional rubrics. Educational Research Service (2004) es_ES
dc.description.references Panadero, E., Jonsson, A.: The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: a review. Educ. Res. Rev. 9, 129–144 (2013) es_ES
dc.description.references Reddy, Y.M., Andrade, H.: A review of rubric use in higher education. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 35(4), 435–448 (2010) es_ES
dc.description.references Company, P., Contero, M., Otey, J., Plumed, R.: Approach for developing coordinated rubrics to convey quality criteria in MCAD training. Comput. Aided Des. 63, 101–117 (2015) es_ES
dc.description.references Company, P., Contero, M., Otey, J., Camba, J.D., Agost, M.J., Perez-Lopez, D.: Web-Based system for adaptable rubrics: case study on CAD assessment. Educ Technol Soc 20(3), 24–41 (2017) es_ES
dc.description.references Tierney, R., Simon M.: What’s still wrong with rubrics: Focusing on the consistency of performance criteria across scale levels. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 9(2) (2004). http://www.pareonline.net es_ES
dc.description.references Likert, R.: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 22(140), 55 (1932) es_ES
dc.description.references Rohrmann, B.: Verbal qualifiers for rating scales: Sociolinguistic considerations and psychometric data. Project Report, University of Melbourne/Australia (2007) es_ES
dc.description.references Fluckiger, J.: Single point rubric: a tool for responsible student self-assessment. Delta Kappa Gamma Bull. 76(4), 18–25 (2010) es_ES
dc.description.references Estell, J. K., Sapp, H. M., Reeping, D.: Work in progress: Developing single point rubrics for formative assessment. In: ASEE’s 123rd annual conference and exposition, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 26–29. Paper ID #14595 (2016) es_ES
dc.description.references Jonsson, A., Svingby, G.: The Use of scoring rubrics: reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educ. Res. Rev. 2, 130–144 (2007) es_ES
dc.description.references Georgiadou, E., Triantafillou, E., Economides, A.A.: Evaluation parameters for computer-adaptive testing. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 37(2), 261–278 (2006) es_ES
dc.description.references Company, P., Otey, J., Contero, M., Agost, M.J., Almiñana, A.: Implementation of adaptable rubrics for CAD model quality formative assessment purposes. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 32(2A), 749–761 (2016) es_ES
dc.description.references Otey, J.: A contribution to conveying quality criteria in mechanical CAD models and assemblies through rubrics and comprehensive design intent qualification. Ph.D. Thesis, Submitted to the Doctoral School of Universitat Politècnica de València (2017) es_ES
dc.description.references Watson, P.F., Petrie, A.: Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. Theriogenology 73(9), 1167–1179 (2010) es_ES
dc.description.references Kottner, J., Streiner, D.L.: The difference between reliability and agreement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64(6), 701–702 (2011) es_ES
dc.description.references McLaughlin, P.: Testing agreement between a new method and the gold standard—how do we test. J. Biomech. 46, 2757–2760 (2013) es_ES
dc.description.references Costa-Santos, C., Bernardes, J., Ayres-de-Campos, D., Costa, A., Costa, C.: The limits of agreement and the intraclass correlation coefficient may be inconsistent in the interpretation of agreement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64(3), 264–269 (2011) es_ES
dc.description.references Chen, C.C., Barnhart, H.X.: Assessing agreement with intraclass correlation coefficient and concordance correlation coefficient for data with repeated measures. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 60, 132–145 (2013) es_ES
dc.description.references Bland, J.M., Altman, D.: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet 327(8476), 307–310 (1986) es_ES
dc.description.references Van Stralen, K.J., Jager, K.J., Zoccali, C., Dekker, F.W.: Agreement between methods. Kidney Int. 74(9), 1116–1120 (2008) es_ES
dc.description.references Beckstead, J.W.: Agreement, reliability, and bias in measurement: commentary on Bland and Altman (1986:2010). Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 48, 134–135 (2011) es_ES
dc.description.references Bland, J.M., Altman, D.: Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 8, 135–160 (1999) es_ES
dc.description.references Giavarina, D.: Understanding Bland–Altman analysis. Biochem. Med. 25(2), 141–151 (2015) es_ES
dc.description.references GraphPad: Interpreting results: Bland–Altman. Retrieved from https://www.graphpad.com/guides/prism/7/statistics/bland-altman_results.htm?toc=0&printWindow (1995) es_ES


Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem