Performance-based data in the study of STEM Ph.D. education

Science

Volumn 329, Issue 5989, 2010, Pages 282-283

  Feidon, David F ^a   Maher, Michelle A ^b   Timmerman, Briana E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION ANALYSIS; EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; STUDENT; THEORETICAL STUDY;

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; CURRICULUM; DECISION MAKING; DOCTORAL EDUCATION; EDUCATION PROGRAM; ENGINEERING; MATHEMATICS; PERFORMANCE; POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; RESEARCH; REVIEW; SCIENCE; SKILL; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 77954782859     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1191269     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. B. E. Lovitts,;. Higher Educ. 79, 296 (2008).
2. S. Gardner, ASHE High. Educ. Rep. 34,1 (2009).
3. R. Gilbert, J. Balatti, P. Turner, H. Whitehouse, High. Educ. Res. Dev. 23,375 (2004).
4. C. M. Golde, G. Walker, Eds., Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2006).
5. A. Austin, J. Higher Educ. 73, 94 (2002).
6. B. Lovitts, Leaving the Ivory Tower: The Causes and Consequences of Departure from Doctoral Study (Rowman& Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 2001).
7. C. M. Golde, T. M. Dore, At Cross Purposes: What the Experiences of Doctoral Students Reveal about Doctoral Education (Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, PA, 2001).
8. D. Dunning, K. Johnson, J. Ehrlinger, J. Kruger, Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 12, 83 (2003).
9. N. Bowman, Am. Educ. Res. J. 47,466 (2010).
10. P. J. Hinds J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 5, 205 (1999).
11. C. Pole, Res. Pap. Educ. 15, 95 (2000).
12. L. L. Paglis, S. G. Green, T. N. Bauer, Res, Higher Educ. 47,451(2006).
13. J. P. Ostriker, C. V. Kuh, Eds., Assessing Research-Doctorate Programs: A Methodology Study (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2003).
14. B. Lovitts, Making the Implicit Explicit: Creating Performance Expectations for the Dissertation (Stylus, Sterling, VA, 2007).
15. P. D. Isaac, S. V. Quinlan, M. M. Walker,;. Higher Educ. 63,241(1992).
16. G. Anaya, Res. Higher Educ. 40,499 (1999).
17. A. J. Onwuegbuzie, Educ. Psychol. Meas. 63,1020 (2003).
18. S. P. Lajoie, Educ. Res. 32, 21 (2003).
19. B. H. Kam, High. Educ. 34, 81 (1997).
20. V. B. Sweitzer,;. Higher Educ. 80,1 (2009).
21. D. F. Feldon, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 19,91 (2007).
22. M. Pearson, A. Brew, Stud. High. Educ. 27,135 (2002).
23. T. W. Banta, E. A. Jones, K. E. Black, Designing Effective Assessment: Principles and Profiles of Good Practice (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2009).
24. A rubric identifies essential dimensions of performance for a task (e.g., research proposal or dissertation) and describes the criteria that delineate multiple (usually three to five) levels of performance for each. Validation requires consensus among disciplinary experts and stakeholders (e.g., faculty mentors, research supervisors, and instructors) for performance criteria, strong interrater reliability when used with diverse instances of the target performance, and convergent evidence with other indicators that target skills are accurately measured. Extended discussions are available in (24) and 127).
25. National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2007).
26. D. K. Simonton, Psychol. Bull 129,475 (2003).
27. B. E. Timmerman, D. C. Strickland, R. L Johnson, J. R. Payne, Assess. Eval. High. Educ, in press (available 10.1080/02602930903540991).
28. This work is supported by a grant from the NSF to the authors (NSF-0723686). The views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the supporting funding agency.