Using student feedback to construct an assessment rubric for a concept map in physiology

American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 197-203

  Moni, Roger W ^a   Beswick, Eileen ^a   Moni, Karen B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cardiovascular; Criteria; Dentistry; Standards

Indexed keywords

EID: 28244488551     PISSN: 10434046     EISSN: 15221229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/advan.00066.2004     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Ausubel DP, Novak JD, and Hanesian H. Educational Psychology: a Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1978.
2. Ballantyne R, Hughes K, and Mylonas A. Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assessment Evaluation Higher Educ 27: 427-441, 2002.
3. Besterfield-Sacre M, Gerchak J, Lyons M, Shuman LJ, and Wolfe H. Scoring concept maps: an integrated rubric for assessing engineering education. J Eng Educ 93: 105-116, 2004.
4. Biggs J. Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd ed.). Queensland, Australia: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open Univ. Press, 2003, p.16 -17.
5. Bogdan RC and Biklen SK. Qualitative Research for Education: an Introduction to Theory and Methods (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1992.
6. Goos M and Moni K. Modelling professional practice: a collaborative approach to developing criteria and standards based assessment in preservice teacher education courses. Assessment Evaluation Higher Educ 25: 73-78, 2001.
7. Gosling D. Using Habermas to evaluate two approaches to negotiated assessment. Assessment Evaluation Higher Educ 25: 293-304, 2000.
8. Howe KR. The interpretive turn and the new debate in education. Educational Researcher 27: 13-20, 1998.
9. Johnston L and Miles L. Assessing contributions to group assignments. Assessment Evaluation Higher Educ 29: 751-768, 2004.
10. Krathwohl DR. Methods of Educational and Social Science Research: an Integrated Approach. New York: Longman, 1998.
11. Lejk M, Wyvill M, and Farrow S. A survey of methods of deriving individual grades from group assessments. Assessment Evaluation Higher Educ 21: 267-280, 1996.
12. McCaghie WC, McCrimmon DR, Mitchell G, Thompson JA, and Ravitch MM. Quantitative concept mapping in pulmonary physiology: comparison of student and faculty knowledge structures. Adv Physiol Educ 23: 72-81, 2000.
13. McClure JR, Sonak B, and Suen HK. Concept map assessment of classroom learning: reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. J Res Sci Teaching 36: 475-492, 1999.
14. Orsmond P, Merry S, and Reiling K. The use of exemplars and formative feedback when using student derived grading criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment Evaluation Higher Educ 27: 309-323, 2002.
15. Ruiz-Primo MA, Schultz SE, Li M, and Shavelson RJ. Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. J Res Sci Teaching 38: 260-278, 2001.
16. Ruiz-Primo MA, Shavelson RJ, Li M, and Schultz SE. On the validity of cognitive interpretations of scores from alternative concept-mapping techniques. Educational Assessment 7: 99-141, 2001.
17. Rust C, Price M, and O'Donovan B. Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria. Assessment Evaluation Higher Educ 28: 147-164, 2003.
18. Rye JA and Rubba PA. Scoring concept maps: an expert map-based scheme weighted for relationships. School Sci Math 102: 33-45, 2002.
19. Sadler DR. Evaluation and the improvement of academic learning. J Higher Educ 13: 191-209, 1983.
20. Sadler DR. Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Rev Educ 54: 60-79, 1987.
21. Woolf H. Assessment criteria: reflections on current practices. Assessment Evaluation Higher Educ 29: 479-493, 2004.