rubric for research presentation high school

• Grades 6-12
• School Leaders

FREE Poetry Worksheet Bundle! Perfect for National Poetry Month.

15 Helpful Scoring Rubric Examples for All Grades and Subjects

In the end, they actually make grading easier.

When it comes to student assessment and evaluation, there are a lot of methods to consider. In some cases, testing is the best way to assess a student’s knowledge, and the answers are either right or wrong. But often, assessing a student’s performance is much less clear-cut. In these situations, a scoring rubric is often the way to go, especially if you’re using standards-based grading . Here’s what you need to know about this useful tool, along with lots of rubric examples to get you started.

What is a scoring rubric?

In the United States, a rubric is a guide that lays out the performance expectations for an assignment. It helps students understand what’s required of them, and guides teachers through the evaluation process. (Note that in other countries, the term “rubric” may instead refer to the set of instructions at the beginning of an exam. To avoid confusion, some people use the term “scoring rubric” instead.)

A rubric generally has three parts:

• Performance criteria: These are the various aspects on which the assignment will be evaluated. They should align with the desired learning outcomes for the assignment.
• Rating scale: This could be a number system (often 1 to 4) or words like “exceeds expectations, meets expectations, below expectations,” etc.
• Indicators: These describe the qualities needed to earn a specific rating for each of the performance criteria. The level of detail may vary depending on the assignment and the purpose of the rubric itself.

Rubrics take more time to develop up front, but they help ensure more consistent assessment, especially when the skills being assessed are more subjective. A well-developed rubric can actually save teachers a lot of time when it comes to grading. What’s more, sharing your scoring rubric with students in advance often helps improve performance . This way, students have a clear picture of what’s expected of them and what they need to do to achieve a specific grade or performance rating.

Learn more about why and how to use a rubric here.

Types of Rubric

There are three basic rubric categories, each with its own purpose.

Holistic Rubric

Source: Cambrian College

This type of rubric combines all the scoring criteria in a single scale. They’re quick to create and use, but they have drawbacks. If a student’s work spans different levels, it can be difficult to decide which score to assign. They also make it harder to provide feedback on specific aspects.

Traditional letter grades are a type of holistic rubric. So are the popular “hamburger rubric” and “ cupcake rubric ” examples. Learn more about holistic rubrics here.

Analytic Rubric

Source: University of Nebraska

Analytic rubrics are much more complex and generally take a great deal more time up front to design. They include specific details of the expected learning outcomes, and descriptions of what criteria are required to meet various performance ratings in each. Each rating is assigned a point value, and the total number of points earned determines the overall grade for the assignment.

Though they’re more time-intensive to create, analytic rubrics actually save time while grading. Teachers can simply circle or highlight any relevant phrases in each rating, and add a comment or two if needed. They also help ensure consistency in grading, and make it much easier for students to understand what’s expected of them.

Learn more about analytic rubrics here.

Developmental Rubric

Source: Deb’s Data Digest

A developmental rubric is a type of analytic rubric, but it’s used to assess progress along the way rather than determining a final score on an assignment. The details in these rubrics help students understand their achievements, as well as highlight the specific skills they still need to improve.

Developmental rubrics are essentially a subset of analytic rubrics. They leave off the point values, though, and focus instead on giving feedback using the criteria and indicators of performance.

Learn how to use developmental rubrics here.

Ready to create your own rubrics? Find general tips on designing rubrics here. Then, check out these examples across all grades and subjects to inspire you.

Elementary School Rubric Examples

These elementary school rubric examples come from real teachers who use them with their students. Adapt them to fit your needs and grade level.

Reading Fluency Rubric

You can use this one as an analytic rubric by counting up points to earn a final score, or just to provide developmental feedback. There’s a second rubric page available specifically to assess prosody (reading with expression).

Learn more: Teacher Thrive

Reading Comprehension Rubric

The nice thing about this rubric is that you can use it at any grade level, for any text. If you like this style, you can get a reading fluency rubric here too.

Learn more: Pawprints Resource Center

Written Response Rubric

Rubrics aren’t just for huge projects. They can also help kids work on very specific skills, like this one for improving written responses on assessments.

Learn more: Dianna Radcliffe: Teaching Upper Elementary and More

Interactive Notebook Rubric

If you use interactive notebooks as a learning tool , this rubric can help kids stay on track and meet your expectations.

Learn more: Classroom Nook

Project Rubric

Use this simple rubric as it is, or tweak it to include more specific indicators for the project you have in mind.

Learn more: Tales of a Title One Teacher

Behavior Rubric

Developmental rubrics are perfect for assessing behavior and helping students identify opportunities for improvement. Send these home regularly to keep parents in the loop.

Learn more: Teachers.net Gazette

Middle School Rubric Examples

In middle school, use rubrics to offer detailed feedback on projects, presentations, and more. Be sure to share them with students in advance, and encourage them to use them as they work so they’ll know if they’re meeting expectations.

Argumentative Writing Rubric

Argumentative writing is a part of language arts, social studies, science, and more. That makes this rubric especially useful.

Learn more: Dr. Caitlyn Tucker

Role-Play Rubric

Role-plays can be really useful when teaching social and critical thinking skills, but it’s hard to assess them. Try a rubric like this one to evaluate and provide useful feedback.

Learn more: A Question of Influence

Art Project Rubric

Art is one of those subjects where grading can feel very subjective. Bring some objectivity to the process with a rubric like this.

Source: Art Ed Guru

Diorama Project Rubric

You can use diorama projects in almost any subject, and they’re a great chance to encourage creativity. Simplify the grading process and help kids know how to make their projects shine with this scoring rubric.

Learn more: Historyourstory.com

Oral Presentation Rubric

Rubrics are terrific for grading presentations, since you can include a variety of skills and other criteria. Consider letting students use a rubric like this to offer peer feedback too.

Learn more: Bright Hub Education

High School Rubric Examples

In high school, it’s important to include your grading rubrics when you give assignments like presentations, research projects, or essays. Kids who go on to college will definitely encounter rubrics, so helping them become familiar with them now will help in the future.

Presentation Rubric

Analyze a student’s presentation both for content and communication skills with a rubric like this one. If needed, create a separate one for content knowledge with even more criteria and indicators.

Learn more: Michael A. Pena Jr.

Debate Rubric

Debate is a valuable learning tool that encourages critical thinking and oral communication skills. This rubric can help you assess those skills objectively.

Learn more: Education World

Project-Based Learning Rubric

Implementing project-based learning can be time-intensive, but the payoffs are worth it. Try this rubric to make student expectations clear and end-of-project assessment easier.

Learn more: Free Technology for Teachers

100-Point Essay Rubric

Need an easy way to convert a scoring rubric to a letter grade? This example for essay writing earns students a final score out of 100 points.

Learn more: Learn for Your Life

Drama Performance Rubric

If you’re unsure how to grade a student’s participation and performance in drama class, consider this example. It offers lots of objective criteria and indicators to evaluate.

Learn more: Chase March

How do you use rubrics in your classroom? Come share your thoughts and exchange ideas in the WeAreTeachers HELPLINE group on Facebook .

Plus, 25 of the best alternative assessment ideas ..

You Might Also Like

You’ve Heard of Attendance Questions. Now Meet Attendance Brackets!

Let the engagement begin! Continue Reading

Copyright © 2023. All rights reserved. 5335 Gate Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32256

• help_outline help

iRubric: High School Research Paper rubric

• Research paper - emphasis on relevance of research
• Presentation

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Pharm Educ
• v.74(9); 2010 Nov 10

A Standardized Rubric to Evaluate Student Presentations

Michael j. peeters.

a University of Toledo College of Pharmacy

Eric G. Sahloff

Gregory e. stone.

b University of Toledo College of Education

To design, implement, and assess a rubric to evaluate student presentations in a capstone doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) course.

A 20-item rubric was designed and used to evaluate student presentations in a capstone fourth-year course in 2007-2008, and then revised and expanded to 25 items and used to evaluate student presentations for the same course in 2008-2009. Two faculty members evaluated each presentation.

The Many-Facets Rasch Model (MFRM) was used to determine the rubric's reliability, quantify the contribution of evaluator harshness/leniency in scoring, and assess grading validity by comparing the current grading method with a criterion-referenced grading scheme. In 2007-2008, rubric reliability was 0.98, with a separation of 7.1 and 4 rating scale categories. In 2008-2009, MFRM analysis suggested 2 of 98 grades be adjusted to eliminate evaluator leniency, while a further criterion-referenced MFRM analysis suggested 10 of 98 grades should be adjusted.

The evaluation rubric was reliable and evaluator leniency appeared minimal. However, a criterion-referenced re-analysis suggested a need for further revisions to the rubric and evaluation process.

INTRODUCTION

Evaluations are important in the process of teaching and learning. In health professions education, performance-based evaluations are identified as having “an emphasis on testing complex, ‘higher-order’ knowledge and skills in the real-world context in which they are actually used.” 1 Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) are a common, notable example. 2 On Miller's pyramid, a framework used in medical education for measuring learner outcomes, “knows” is placed at the base of the pyramid, followed by “knows how,” then “shows how,” and finally, “does” is placed at the top. 3 Based on Miller's pyramid, evaluation formats that use multiple-choice testing focus on “knows” while an OSCE focuses on “shows how.” Just as performance evaluations remain highly valued in medical education, 4 authentic task evaluations in pharmacy education may be better indicators of future pharmacist performance. 5 Much attention in medical education has been focused on reducing the unreliability of high-stakes evaluations. 6 Regardless of educational discipline, high-stakes performance-based evaluations should meet educational standards for reliability and validity. 7

PharmD students at University of Toledo College of Pharmacy (UTCP) were required to complete a course on presentations during their final year of pharmacy school and then give a presentation that served as both a capstone experience and a performance-based evaluation for the course. Pharmacists attending the presentations were given Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE)-approved continuing education credits. An evaluation rubric for grading the presentations was designed to allow multiple faculty evaluators to objectively score student performances in the domains of presentation delivery and content. Given the pass/fail grading procedure used in advanced pharmacy practice experiences, passing this presentation-based course and subsequently graduating from pharmacy school were contingent upon this high-stakes evaluation. As a result, the reliability and validity of the rubric used and the evaluation process needed to be closely scrutinized.

Each year, about 100 students completed presentations and at least 40 faculty members served as evaluators. With the use of multiple evaluators, a question of evaluator leniency often arose (ie, whether evaluators used the same criteria for evaluating performances or whether some evaluators graded easier or more harshly than others). At UTCP, opinions among some faculty evaluators and many PharmD students implied that evaluator leniency in judging the students' presentations significantly affected specific students' grades and ultimately their graduation from pharmacy school. While it was plausible that evaluator leniency was occurring, the magnitude of the effect was unknown. Thus, this study was initiated partly to address this concern over grading consistency and scoring variability among evaluators.

Because both students' presentation style and content were deemed important, each item of the rubric was weighted the same across delivery and content. However, because there were more categories related to delivery than content, an additional faculty concern was that students feasibly could present poor content but have an effective presentation delivery and pass the course.

The objectives for this investigation were: (1) to describe and optimize the reliability of the evaluation rubric used in this high-stakes evaluation; (2) to identify the contribution and significance of evaluator leniency to evaluation reliability; and (3) to assess the validity of this evaluation rubric within a criterion-referenced grading paradigm focused on both presentation delivery and content.

The University of Toledo's Institutional Review Board approved this investigation. This study investigated performance evaluation data for an oral presentation course for final-year PharmD students from 2 consecutive academic years (2007-2008 and 2008-2009). The course was taken during the fourth year (P4) of the PharmD program and was a high-stakes, performance-based evaluation. The goal of the course was to serve as a capstone experience, enabling students to demonstrate advanced drug literature evaluation and verbal presentations skills through the development and delivery of a 1-hour presentation. These presentations were to be on a current pharmacy practice topic and of sufficient quality for ACPE-approved continuing education. This experience allowed students to demonstrate their competencies in literature searching, literature evaluation, and application of evidence-based medicine, as well as their oral presentation skills. Students worked closely with a faculty advisor to develop their presentation. Each class (2007-2008 and 2008-2009) was randomly divided, with half of the students taking the course and completing their presentation and evaluation in the fall semester and the other half in the spring semester. To accommodate such a large number of students presenting for 1 hour each, it was necessary to use multiple rooms with presentations taking place concurrently over 2.5 days for both the fall and spring sessions of the course. Two faculty members independently evaluated each student presentation using the provided evaluation rubric. The 2007-2008 presentations involved 104 PharmD students and 40 faculty evaluators, while the 2008-2009 presentations involved 98 students and 46 faculty evaluators.

After vetting through the pharmacy practice faculty, the initial rubric used in 2007-2008 focused on describing explicit, specific evaluation criteria such as amounts of eye contact, voice pitch/volume, and descriptions of study methods. The evaluation rubric used in 2008-2009 was similar to the initial rubric, but with 5 items added (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). The evaluators rated each item (eg, eye contact) based on their perception of the student's performance. The 25 rubric items had equal weight (ie, 4 points each), but each item received a rating from the evaluator of 1 to 4 points. Thus, only 4 rating categories were included as has been recommended in the literature. 8 However, some evaluators created an additional 3 rating categories by marking lines in between the 4 ratings to signify half points ie, 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5. For example, for the “notecards/notes” item in Figure ​ Figure1, 1 , a student looked at her notes sporadically during her presentation, but not distractingly nor enough to warrant a score of 3 in the faculty evaluator's opinion, so a 3.5 was given. Thus, a 7-category rating scale (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5. 3, 3.5, and 4) was analyzed. Each independent evaluator's ratings for the 25 items were summed to form a score (0-100%). The 2 evaluators' scores then were averaged and a letter grade was assigned based on the following scale: >90% = A, 80%-89% = B, 70%-79% = C, <70% = F.

Rubric used to evaluate student presentations given in a 2008-2009 capstone PharmD course.

EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT

Rubric reliability.

To measure rubric reliability, iterative analyses were performed on the evaluations using the Many-Facets Rasch Model (MFRM) following the 2007-2008 data collection period. While Cronbach's alpha is the most commonly reported coefficient of reliability, its single number reporting without supplementary information can provide incomplete information about reliability. 9 - 11 Due to its formula, Cronbach's alpha can be increased by simply adding more repetitive rubric items or having more rating scale categories, even when no further useful information has been added. The MFRM reports separation , which is calculated differently than Cronbach's alpha, is another source of reliability information. Unlike Cronbach's alpha, separation does not appear enhanced by adding further redundant items. From a measurement perspective, a higher separation value is better than a lower one because students are being divided into meaningful groups after measurement error has been accounted for. Separation can be thought of as the number of units on a ruler where the more units the ruler has, the larger the range of performance levels that can be measured among students. For example, a separation of 4.0 suggests 4 graduations such that a grade of A is distinctly different from a grade of B, which in turn is different from a grade of C or of F. In measuring performances, a separation of 9.0 is better than 5.5, just as a separation of 7.0 is better than a 6.5; a higher separation coefficient suggests that student performance potentially could be divided into a larger number of meaningfully separate groups.

The rating scale can have substantial effects on reliability, 8 while description of how a rating scale functions is a unique aspect of the MFRM. With analysis iterations of the 2007-2008 data, the number of rating scale categories were collapsed consecutively until improvements in reliability and/or separation were no longer found. The last positive iteration that led to positive improvements in reliability or separation was deemed an optimal rating scale for this evaluation rubric.

In the 2007-2008 analysis, iterations of the data where run through the MFRM. While only 4 rating scale categories had been included on the rubric, because some faculty members inserted 3 in-between categories, 7 categories had to be included in the analysis. This initial analysis based on a 7-category rubric provided a reliability coefficient (similar to Cronbach's alpha) of 0.98, while the separation coefficient was 6.31. The separation coefficient denoted 6 distinctly separate groups of students based on the items. Rating scale categories were collapsed, with “in-between” categories included in adjacent full-point categories. Table ​ Table1 1 shows the reliability and separation for the iterations as the rating scale was collapsed. As shown, the optimal evaluation rubric maintained a reliability of 0.98, but separation improved the reliability to 7.10 or 7 distinctly separate groups of students based on the items. Another distinctly separate group was added through a reduction in the rating scale while no change was seen to Cronbach's alpha, even though the number of rating scale categories was reduced. Table ​ Table1 1 describes the stepwise, sequential pattern across the final 4 rating scale categories analyzed. Informed by the 2007-2008 results, the 2008-2009 evaluation rubric (Figure ​ (Figure1) 1 ) used 4 rating scale categories and reliability remained high.

Evaluation Rubric Reliability and Separation with Iterations While Collapsing Rating Scale Categories.

a Reliability coefficient of variance in rater response that is reproducible (ie, Cronbach's alpha).

b Separation is a coefficient of item standard deviation divided by average measurement error and is an additional reliability coefficient.

c Optimal number of rating scale categories based on the highest reliability (0.98) and separation (7.1) values.

Evaluator Leniency

Described by Fleming and colleagues over half a century ago, 6 harsh raters (ie, hawks) or lenient raters (ie, doves) have also been demonstrated in more recent studies as an issue as well. 12 - 14 Shortly after 2008-2009 data were collected, those evaluations by multiple faculty evaluators were collated and analyzed in the MFRM to identify possible inconsistent scoring. While traditional interrater reliability does not deal with this issue, the MFRM had been used previously to illustrate evaluator leniency on licensing examinations for medical students and medical residents in the United Kingdom. 13 Thus, accounting for evaluator leniency may prove important to grading consistency (and reliability) in a course using multiple evaluators. Along with identifying evaluator leniency, the MFRM also corrected for this variability. For comparison, course grades were calculated by summing the evaluators' actual ratings (as discussed in the Design section) and compared with the MFRM-adjusted grades to quantify the degree of evaluator leniency occurring in this evaluation.

Measures created from the data analysis in the MFRM were converted to percentages using a common linear test-equating procedure involving the mean and standard deviation of the dataset. 15 To these percentages, student letter grades were assigned using the same traditional method used in 2007-2008 (ie, 90% = A, 80% - 89% = B, 70% - 79% = C, <70% = F). Letter grades calculated using the revised rubric and the MFRM then were compared to letter grades calculated using the previous rubric and course grading method.

In the analysis of the 2008-2009 data, the interrater reliability for the letter grades when comparing the 2 independent faculty evaluations for each presentation was 0.98 by Cohen's kappa. However, using the 3-facet MRFM revealed significant variation in grading. The interaction of evaluator leniency on student ability and item difficulty was significant, with a chi-square of p < 0.01. As well, the MFRM showed a reliability of 0.77, with a separation of 1.85 (ie, almost 2 groups of evaluators). The MFRM student ability measures were scaled to letter grades and compared with course letter grades. As a result, 2 B's became A's and so evaluator leniency accounted for a 2% change in letter grades (ie, 2 of 98 grades).

Validity and Grading

Explicit criterion-referenced standards for grading are recommended for higher evaluation validity. 3 , 16 - 18 The course coordinator completed 3 additional evaluations of a hypothetical student presentation rating the minimal criteria expected to describe each of an A, B, or C letter grade performance. These evaluations were placed with the other 196 evaluations (2 evaluators × 98 students) from 2008-2009 into the MFRM, with the resulting analysis report giving specific cutoff percentage scores for each letter grade. Unlike the traditional scoring method of assigning all items an equal weight, the MFRM ordered evaluation items from those more difficult for students (given more weight) to those less difficult for students (given less weight). These criterion-referenced letter grades were compared with the grades generated using the traditional grading process.

When the MFRM data were rerun with the criterion-referenced evaluations added into the dataset, a 10% change was seen with letter grades (ie, 10 of 98 grades). When the 10 letter grades were lowered, 1 was below a C, the minimum standard, and suggested a failing performance. Qualitative feedback from faculty evaluators agreed with this suggested criterion-referenced performance failure.

Measurement Model

Within modern test theory, the Rasch Measurement Model maps examinee ability with evaluation item difficulty. Items are not arbitrarily given the same value (ie, 1 point) but vary based on how difficult or easy the items were for examinees. The Rasch measurement model has been used frequently in educational research, 19 by numerous high-stakes testing professional bodies such as the National Board of Medical Examiners, 20 and also by various state-level departments of education for standardized secondary education examinations. 21 The Rasch measurement model itself has rigorous construct validity and reliability. 22 A 3-facet MFRM model allows an evaluator variable to be added to the student ability and item difficulty variables that are routine in other Rasch measurement analyses. Just as multiple regression accounts for additional variables in analysis compared to a simple bivariate regression, the MFRM is a multiple variable variant of the Rasch measurement model and was applied in this study using the Facets software (Linacre, Chicago, IL). The MFRM is ideal for performance-based evaluations with the addition of independent evaluator/judges. 8 , 23 From both yearly cohorts in this investigation, evaluation rubric data were collated and placed into the MFRM for separate though subsequent analyses. Within the MFRM output report, a chi-square for a difference in evaluator leniency was reported with an alpha of 0.05.

The presentation rubric was reliable. Results from the 2007-2008 analysis illustrated that the number of rating scale categories impacted the reliability of this rubric and that use of only 4 rating scale categories appeared best for measurement. While a 10-point Likert-like scale may commonly be used in patient care settings, such as in quantifying pain, most people cannot process more then 7 points or categories reliably. 24 Presumably, when more than 7 categories are used, the categories beyond 7 either are not used or are collapsed by respondents into fewer than 7 categories. Five-point scales commonly are encountered, but use of an odd number of categories can be problematic to interpretation and is not recommended. 25 Responses using the middle category could denote a true perceived average or neutral response or responder indecisiveness or even confusion over the question. Therefore, removing the middle category appears advantageous and is supported by our results.

With 2008-2009 data, the MFRM identified evaluator leniency with some evaluators grading more harshly while others were lenient. Evaluator leniency was indeed found in the dataset but only a couple of changes were suggested based on the MFRM-corrected evaluator leniency and did not appear to play a substantial role in the evaluation of this course at this time.

Performance evaluation instruments are either holistic or analytic rubrics. 26 The evaluation instrument used in this investigation exemplified an analytic rubric, which elicits specific observations and often demonstrates high reliability. However, Norman and colleagues point out a conundrum where drastically increasing the number of evaluation rubric items (creating something similar to a checklist) could augment a reliability coefficient though it appears to dissociate from that evaluation rubric's validity. 27 Validity may be more than the sum of behaviors on evaluation rubric items. 28 Having numerous, highly specific evaluation items appears to undermine the rubric's function. With this investigation's evaluation rubric and its numerous items for both presentation style and presentation content, equal numeric weighting of items can in fact allow student presentations to receive a passing score while falling short of the course objectives, as was shown in the present investigation. As opposed to analytic rubrics, holistic rubrics often demonstrate lower yet acceptable reliability, while offering a higher degree of explicit connection to course objectives. A summative, holistic evaluation of presentations may improve validity by allowing expert evaluators to provide their “gut feeling” as experts on whether a performance is “outstanding,” “sufficient,” “borderline,” or “subpar” for dimensions of presentation delivery and content. A holistic rubric that integrates with criteria of the analytic rubric (Figure ​ (Figure1) 1 ) for evaluators to reflect on but maintains a summary, overall evaluation for each dimension (delivery/content) of the performance, may allow for benefits of each type of rubric to be used advantageously. This finding has been demonstrated with OSCEs in medical education where checklists for completed items (ie, yes/no) at an OSCE station have been successfully replaced with a few reliable global impression rating scales. 29 - 31

Alternatively, and because the MFRM model was used in the current study, an items-weighting approach could be used with the analytic rubric. That is, item weighting based on the difficulty of each rubric item could suggest how many points should be given for that rubric items, eg, some items would be worth 0.25 points, while others would be worth 0.5 points or 1 point (Table ​ (Table2). 2 ). As could be expected, the more complex the rubric scoring becomes, the less feasible the rubric is to use. This was the main reason why this revision approach was not chosen by the course coordinator following this study. As well, it does not address the conundrum that the performance may be more than the summation of behavior items in the Figure ​ Figure1 1 rubric. This current study cannot suggest which approach would be better as each would have its merits and pitfalls.

Rubric Item Weightings Suggested in the 2008-2009 Data Many-Facet Rasch Measurement Analysis

Regardless of which approach is used, alignment of the evaluation rubric with the course objectives is imperative. Objectivity has been described as a general striving for value-free measurement (ie, free of the evaluator's interests, opinions, preferences, sentiments). 27 This is a laudable goal pursued through educational research. Strategies to reduce measurement error, termed objectification , may not necessarily lead to increased objectivity. 27 The current investigation suggested that a rubric could become too explicit if all the possible areas of an oral presentation that could be assessed (ie, objectification) were included. This appeared to dilute the effect of important items and lose validity. A holistic rubric that is more straightforward and easier to score quickly may be less likely to lose validity (ie, “lose the forest for the trees”), though operationalizing a revised rubric would need to be investigated further. Similarly, weighting items in an analytic rubric based on their importance and difficulty for students may alleviate this issue; however, adding up individual items might prove arduous. While the rubric in Figure ​ Figure1, 1 , which has evolved over the years, is the subject of ongoing revisions, it appears a reliable rubric on which to build.

The major limitation of this study involves the observational method that was employed. Although the 2 cohorts were from a single institution, investigators did use a completely separate class of PharmD students to verify initial instrument revisions. Optimizing the rubric's rating scale involved collapsing data from misuse of a 4-category rating scale (expanded by evaluators to 7 categories) by a few of the evaluators into 4 independent categories without middle ratings. As a result of the study findings, no actual grading adjustments were made for students in the 2008-2009 presentation course; however, adjustment using the MFRM have been suggested by Roberts and colleagues. 13 Since 2008-2009, the course coordinator has made further small revisions to the rubric based on feedback from evaluators, but these have not yet been re-analyzed with the MFRM.

The evaluation rubric used in this study for student performance evaluations showed high reliability and the data analysis agreed with using 4 rating scale categories to optimize the rubric's reliability. While lenient and harsh faculty evaluators were found, variability in evaluator scoring affected grading in this course only minimally. Aside from reliability, issues of validity were raised using criterion-referenced grading. Future revisions to this evaluation rubric should reflect these criterion-referenced concerns. The rubric analyzed herein appears a suitable starting point for reliable evaluation of PharmD oral presentations, though it has limitations that could be addressed with further attention and revisions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Author contributions— MJP and EGS conceptualized the study, while MJP and GES designed it. MJP, EGS, and GES gave educational content foci for the rubric. As the study statistician, MJP analyzed and interpreted the study data. MJP reviewed the literature and drafted a manuscript. EGS and GES critically reviewed this manuscript and approved the final version for submission. MJP accepts overall responsibility for the accuracy of the data, its analysis, and this report.

Ridge View High School English Research Guide: Library Catalogs

• Choosing a Topic
• Library Catalogs
• Research Databases (General)
• Subject Specific Databases
• Statistical Information
• Approaches to Literature
• Literary-Analysis Databases
• MLA Citation Style
• Annotated Bibliography

Library Catalog

• Library Catalog You are starting at the advanced search page of the new library catalog interface. You can search this catalog by author's name, title of work, or by item type, i.e., book, video, etc.
• Library catalog lesson (video) This short video lesson demonstrates how to use the USD Library catalog to find books and other materials in the library's collections quickly and efficiently.

WorldCat Catalog

• WorldCat Advanced Search Use WorldCat to get books from the USD Libraries and from around the world.

Source Evaluation Rubric

These resources consist of an example of an annotation paragraph and a Source Evaluation Rubric useful when preparing your evaluation of your source document. Feel free to print or to download each document.

• Source Evaluation Rubric Use this rubric to quickly evaluate and assess the quality of your sources. Then express your evaluation for these different categories in your annotation. Keep in mind that you can cover only 3 or 4 of these categories in your paragraph.
• << Previous: Choosing a Topic
• Next: Research Databases (General) >>
• Last Updated: Apr 3, 2024 3:03 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usd.edu/Ridge_View_HS_English