Grading rubrics: hoopla or help?

References

• Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2006). Rubrics: Tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria explicit for both teachers and learners. Life Sciences Education, 5, 197–203.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anderson, R. (2008). Modern methods for robust regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Arensen, K. W. (2006, February 9). Panel explores standard tests for colleges. NewYork Times. Retrieved June 27, 2011, from http://www.nytimes.com
   Google Scholar
• Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2009). Setting and monitoring academic standards for Australian higher education. Melbourne: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Bissell, A. N., & Lemons, P. P. (2006). A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom. Bioscience, 56, 66–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bring, J. (1994). How to standardize regression coefficients. The American Statistician, 48, 209–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, G., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing student learning in higher education. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, G. T., Glasswell, K., & Harland, D. (2004). Accuracy in the scoring of writing: Studies of reliability and validity using a New Zealand writing assessment system. Assessing Writing, 9, 105–121.
   Google Scholar
• Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 219–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cejda, B. D., Kaylor, A. J., & Rewey, K. L. (1998). Transfer shock in an academic discipline: The relationship between students’ major and their academic performance. Community College Review, 26, 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, M. D., & Richlin, L. (1993). Emerging trends in college teaching for the 21st Century: A message from the Editors. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 4, 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Crooks, T. J. (2002). Educational assessment in New Zealand schools. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 9, 237–253.
   Google Scholar
• Dahm, K. D., Newell, J. A., & Newell, H. L. (2004). Rubric development for assessment of undergraduate research: Evaluating multidisciplinary team projects. Chemical Engineering Education, 38, 68–73.
   Google Scholar
• Dearing, R. (1997). Higher education in a learning society. London: National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Dochy, F., Gijbels, D., & Segers, M. (2006). Learning and the emerging new assessment culture. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present, and future trends (pp. 191–206). Oxford: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Ecclestone, K. (2001). I know a 2:1 when I see it: Understanding criteria for degree classifications in franchised university programmes. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25, 301–313.
   Google Scholar
• Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18, 27–32.
   Google Scholar
• George, D., & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS® for Windows® step by step: A simple guide and reference (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Good, R., & Fletcher, H. J. (2006). Reporting explained variance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Hafner, J. C., & Hafner, P. M. (2003). Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: An empirical study of student peer-group rating. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1509–1528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043–1055.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, K. L. (2009). International trends in establishing standards of academic achievement in higher education. Melbourne: Australian Universities Quality Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Hensen, R. K., Hull, D. M., & Williams, C. S. (2010). Methodology in our education research culture: Toward a stronger collective quantitative proficiency. Educational Researcher, 39, 229–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornby, W. (2003). Assessing using grade-related criteria: A single currency for universities? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 435–453.
   Google Scholar
• Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, R. (2003). Academic standards and the assessment of student learning: Some current issues in Australian higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 9, 187–198.
   Google Scholar
• James, R., & McInnis, C. (2001). Standards oil tertiary debate. The Australian Higher Education, 15, 28.
   Google Scholar
• Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2, 130–144.
   Google Scholar
• Kleijn, W., Ploeg, H., & Topman, R. (1994). Cognition, study habits, test anxiety, and academic performance. Psychological Reports, 75, 1219–1226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krause, K., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Kuisma, R. (1999). Criteria referenced marking of written assignments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 27–39.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, H., & Lee, G. (2001). The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA): ‘Fragile-handle with care’. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 10, 5–38.
   Google Scholar
• Moriarty, L. J. (2006). Investing in quality: The current state of assessment in criminal justice programs. Justice Quarterly, 20, 409–427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norton, L., Harrington, K., Elander, J., Sinfield, S., Reddy, P., Pitt, E., & Aiyegbayo, O. (2004, September). Supporting diversity and inclusivity through writing workshops. Paper presented at the International Improving Student Learning Symposium, Birmingham, England.
   Google Scholar
• Nusche, D. (2008). Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education: A comparative review of selected practices. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• O’Donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9, 325–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2009). International assessment of higher education learning outcomes (AHELO) feasibility study. Paris: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Ozer, D. J. (1985). Correlation and the coefficient of determination. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 307–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, E. M., Altermatt, E. R., & Saxon, J. L. (2002). Making the grade but feeling distressed: Gender differences in academic performance and internal distress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 396–404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potolsky, A., Cohen, J., & Saylor, C. (2003). Academic performance of nursing students: Do prerequisite grades and tutoring make a difference? Nursing Education Perspectives, 24, 246–250.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Price, M. (2005). Assessment standards: The role of communities of practice and the scholarship of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 215–230.
   Google Scholar
• Rodgers, J. L., & Nicewander, A. (1988). Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. The American Statistician, 42, 59–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing students: How shall we know them? (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 159–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11, 1–31.
   Google Scholar
• Sansgiry, S., Bhosle, M., & Sail, K. (2006). Factors that affect academic performance among pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmacy Education, 70, 104–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schafer, W. D., Swanson, G., Bene, N., & Newberry, G. (2001). Effects of teacher knowledge of rubrics on student achievement in four content areas. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 151–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, E., & Coombe, K. (2006). Quality and qualms in the marking of university assignments by sessional staff: An exploratory study. Higher Education, 51, 45–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stemmack, M. A., Konheim-Kalkstein, Y. L., Manor, J. E., Massey, A. R., & Schmitz, J. P. (2009). An assessment of reliability and validity of a rubric for grading APA-style introductions. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 102–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suda, K., Franks, A., McKibbin, T., Wang, J., & Smith, E. (2008, July). Differences in student performance based on student and lecture location when using distance learning technology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Thaler, N., Kazemi, E., & Huscher, C. (2009). Developing a rubric to assess student learning outcomes using a class assignment. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 113–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wellman, J. V. (2001). Assessing state accountability systems. Change, 33, 46–52.
   Google Scholar
• Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Woodward, W. (2002, May 20). Universities in crisis. The Guardian, pp. 4–5.
   Google Scholar
• Yorke, M. (1999). Benchmarking academic standards in the UK. Tertiary Education and Management, 5, 79–94.
   Google Scholar
• Yorke, M. P., Bridges, P., & Woolf, H. (2000). Mark distributions and marking practices in UK higher education: Some challenging issues. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1, 7–27.
   Google Scholar