Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students
Educators in bioethics have struggled to find valid and reliable assessments that transcend the "reproduction of knowledge" to target more important skill sets. This manuscript reports on the process of developing and grading a minimal-competence comprehensive examination in a bioethics ma...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Stoddard, Hugh A [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2016 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics - New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992, 25(2016), 2, Seite 301 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:25 ; year:2016 ; number:2 ; pages:301 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1017/S0963180115000602 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC1973264013 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a2200265 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC1973264013 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230714184353.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 160427s2016 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1017/S0963180115000602 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a PQ20160610 |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC1973264013 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)GBVOLC1973264013 | ||
| 035 | |a (PRQ)p1405-c74b411e0895f4b871850db57096bc02bfce23f47c78f9295c9f92cfc52430ad0 | ||
| 035 | |a (KEY)0214365820160000025000200301usingascoringrubrictoassessthewritingofbioethicsst | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 100 |q ZDB |
| 084 | |a PHILOS |2 fid | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Stoddard, Hugh A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2016 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Educators in bioethics have struggled to find valid and reliable assessments that transcend the "reproduction of knowledge" to target more important skill sets. This manuscript reports on the process of developing and grading a minimal-competence comprehensive examination in a bioethics master's degree program. We describe educational theory and practice for the creation and deployment of scoring rubrics for high-stakes performance assessments that reduce scoring inconsistencies. The rubric development process can also benefit the program by building consensus among stakeholders regarding program goals and student outcomes. We describe the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome taxonomy as a mechanism for rubric design and provide an example of how we applied that taxonomy to define pass/fail cut scores. Details about domains of assessment and writing descriptors of performance are also presented. Despite the laborious work required to create a scoring rubric, we found the effort to be worthwhile for our program. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Bioethics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Graduate students | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Graduate studies | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Student writing | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Labrecque, Cory A |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Schonfeld, Toby |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics |d New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992 |g 25(2016), 2, Seite 301 |w (DE-627)171063384 |w (DE-600)1146581-5 |w (DE-576)034192417 |x 0963-1801 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:25 |g year:2016 |g number:2 |g pages:301 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000602 |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26957455 |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u http://search.proquest.com/docview/1771408852 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a FID-PHILOS | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHI | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2002 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4219 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 25 |j 2016 |e 2 |h 301 | ||
| author_variant |
h a s ha has |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:09631801:2016----::snacrnrbitasstertnobo |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2016 |
| publishDate |
2016 |
| allfields |
10.1017/S0963180115000602 doi PQ20160610 (DE-627)OLC1973264013 (DE-599)GBVOLC1973264013 (PRQ)p1405-c74b411e0895f4b871850db57096bc02bfce23f47c78f9295c9f92cfc52430ad0 (KEY)0214365820160000025000200301usingascoringrubrictoassessthewritingofbioethicsst DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ZDB PHILOS fid Stoddard, Hugh A verfasserin aut Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Educators in bioethics have struggled to find valid and reliable assessments that transcend the "reproduction of knowledge" to target more important skill sets. This manuscript reports on the process of developing and grading a minimal-competence comprehensive examination in a bioethics master's degree program. We describe educational theory and practice for the creation and deployment of scoring rubrics for high-stakes performance assessments that reduce scoring inconsistencies. The rubric development process can also benefit the program by building consensus among stakeholders regarding program goals and student outcomes. We describe the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome taxonomy as a mechanism for rubric design and provide an example of how we applied that taxonomy to define pass/fail cut scores. Details about domains of assessment and writing descriptors of performance are also presented. Despite the laborious work required to create a scoring rubric, we found the effort to be worthwhile for our program. Bioethics Graduate students Graduate studies Student writing Labrecque, Cory A oth Schonfeld, Toby oth Enthalten in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992 25(2016), 2, Seite 301 (DE-627)171063384 (DE-600)1146581-5 (DE-576)034192417 0963-1801 nnns volume:25 year:2016 number:2 pages:301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000602 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26957455 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1771408852 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4219 AR 25 2016 2 301 |
| spelling |
10.1017/S0963180115000602 doi PQ20160610 (DE-627)OLC1973264013 (DE-599)GBVOLC1973264013 (PRQ)p1405-c74b411e0895f4b871850db57096bc02bfce23f47c78f9295c9f92cfc52430ad0 (KEY)0214365820160000025000200301usingascoringrubrictoassessthewritingofbioethicsst DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ZDB PHILOS fid Stoddard, Hugh A verfasserin aut Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Educators in bioethics have struggled to find valid and reliable assessments that transcend the "reproduction of knowledge" to target more important skill sets. This manuscript reports on the process of developing and grading a minimal-competence comprehensive examination in a bioethics master's degree program. We describe educational theory and practice for the creation and deployment of scoring rubrics for high-stakes performance assessments that reduce scoring inconsistencies. The rubric development process can also benefit the program by building consensus among stakeholders regarding program goals and student outcomes. We describe the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome taxonomy as a mechanism for rubric design and provide an example of how we applied that taxonomy to define pass/fail cut scores. Details about domains of assessment and writing descriptors of performance are also presented. Despite the laborious work required to create a scoring rubric, we found the effort to be worthwhile for our program. Bioethics Graduate students Graduate studies Student writing Labrecque, Cory A oth Schonfeld, Toby oth Enthalten in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992 25(2016), 2, Seite 301 (DE-627)171063384 (DE-600)1146581-5 (DE-576)034192417 0963-1801 nnns volume:25 year:2016 number:2 pages:301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000602 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26957455 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1771408852 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4219 AR 25 2016 2 301 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1017/S0963180115000602 doi PQ20160610 (DE-627)OLC1973264013 (DE-599)GBVOLC1973264013 (PRQ)p1405-c74b411e0895f4b871850db57096bc02bfce23f47c78f9295c9f92cfc52430ad0 (KEY)0214365820160000025000200301usingascoringrubrictoassessthewritingofbioethicsst DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ZDB PHILOS fid Stoddard, Hugh A verfasserin aut Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Educators in bioethics have struggled to find valid and reliable assessments that transcend the "reproduction of knowledge" to target more important skill sets. This manuscript reports on the process of developing and grading a minimal-competence comprehensive examination in a bioethics master's degree program. We describe educational theory and practice for the creation and deployment of scoring rubrics for high-stakes performance assessments that reduce scoring inconsistencies. The rubric development process can also benefit the program by building consensus among stakeholders regarding program goals and student outcomes. We describe the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome taxonomy as a mechanism for rubric design and provide an example of how we applied that taxonomy to define pass/fail cut scores. Details about domains of assessment and writing descriptors of performance are also presented. Despite the laborious work required to create a scoring rubric, we found the effort to be worthwhile for our program. Bioethics Graduate students Graduate studies Student writing Labrecque, Cory A oth Schonfeld, Toby oth Enthalten in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992 25(2016), 2, Seite 301 (DE-627)171063384 (DE-600)1146581-5 (DE-576)034192417 0963-1801 nnns volume:25 year:2016 number:2 pages:301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000602 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26957455 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1771408852 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4219 AR 25 2016 2 301 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1017/S0963180115000602 doi PQ20160610 (DE-627)OLC1973264013 (DE-599)GBVOLC1973264013 (PRQ)p1405-c74b411e0895f4b871850db57096bc02bfce23f47c78f9295c9f92cfc52430ad0 (KEY)0214365820160000025000200301usingascoringrubrictoassessthewritingofbioethicsst DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ZDB PHILOS fid Stoddard, Hugh A verfasserin aut Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Educators in bioethics have struggled to find valid and reliable assessments that transcend the "reproduction of knowledge" to target more important skill sets. This manuscript reports on the process of developing and grading a minimal-competence comprehensive examination in a bioethics master's degree program. We describe educational theory and practice for the creation and deployment of scoring rubrics for high-stakes performance assessments that reduce scoring inconsistencies. The rubric development process can also benefit the program by building consensus among stakeholders regarding program goals and student outcomes. We describe the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome taxonomy as a mechanism for rubric design and provide an example of how we applied that taxonomy to define pass/fail cut scores. Details about domains of assessment and writing descriptors of performance are also presented. Despite the laborious work required to create a scoring rubric, we found the effort to be worthwhile for our program. Bioethics Graduate students Graduate studies Student writing Labrecque, Cory A oth Schonfeld, Toby oth Enthalten in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992 25(2016), 2, Seite 301 (DE-627)171063384 (DE-600)1146581-5 (DE-576)034192417 0963-1801 nnns volume:25 year:2016 number:2 pages:301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000602 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26957455 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1771408852 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4219 AR 25 2016 2 301 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1017/S0963180115000602 doi PQ20160610 (DE-627)OLC1973264013 (DE-599)GBVOLC1973264013 (PRQ)p1405-c74b411e0895f4b871850db57096bc02bfce23f47c78f9295c9f92cfc52430ad0 (KEY)0214365820160000025000200301usingascoringrubrictoassessthewritingofbioethicsst DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 ZDB PHILOS fid Stoddard, Hugh A verfasserin aut Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Educators in bioethics have struggled to find valid and reliable assessments that transcend the "reproduction of knowledge" to target more important skill sets. This manuscript reports on the process of developing and grading a minimal-competence comprehensive examination in a bioethics master's degree program. We describe educational theory and practice for the creation and deployment of scoring rubrics for high-stakes performance assessments that reduce scoring inconsistencies. The rubric development process can also benefit the program by building consensus among stakeholders regarding program goals and student outcomes. We describe the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome taxonomy as a mechanism for rubric design and provide an example of how we applied that taxonomy to define pass/fail cut scores. Details about domains of assessment and writing descriptors of performance are also presented. Despite the laborious work required to create a scoring rubric, we found the effort to be worthwhile for our program. Bioethics Graduate students Graduate studies Student writing Labrecque, Cory A oth Schonfeld, Toby oth Enthalten in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992 25(2016), 2, Seite 301 (DE-627)171063384 (DE-600)1146581-5 (DE-576)034192417 0963-1801 nnns volume:25 year:2016 number:2 pages:301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000602 Volltext http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26957455 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1771408852 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4219 AR 25 2016 2 301 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics 25(2016), 2, Seite 301 volume:25 year:2016 number:2 pages:301 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics 25(2016), 2, Seite 301 volume:25 year:2016 number:2 pages:301 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Bioethics Graduate students Graduate studies Student writing |
| dewey-raw |
100 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Stoddard, Hugh A @@aut@@ Labrecque, Cory A @@oth@@ Schonfeld, Toby @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2016-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
171063384 |
| dewey-sort |
3100 |
| id |
OLC1973264013 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1973264013</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230714184353.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160427s2016 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1017/S0963180115000602</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20160610</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1973264013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1973264013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)p1405-c74b411e0895f4b871850db57096bc02bfce23f47c78f9295c9f92cfc52430ad0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0214365820160000025000200301usingascoringrubrictoassessthewritingofbioethicsst</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">ZDB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stoddard, Hugh A</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Educators in bioethics have struggled to find valid and reliable assessments that transcend the "reproduction of knowledge" to target more important skill sets. This manuscript reports on the process of developing and grading a minimal-competence comprehensive examination in a bioethics master's degree program. We describe educational theory and practice for the creation and deployment of scoring rubrics for high-stakes performance assessments that reduce scoring inconsistencies. The rubric development process can also benefit the program by building consensus among stakeholders regarding program goals and student outcomes. We describe the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome taxonomy as a mechanism for rubric design and provide an example of how we applied that taxonomy to define pass/fail cut scores. Details about domains of assessment and writing descriptors of performance are also presented. Despite the laborious work required to create a scoring rubric, we found the effort to be worthwhile for our program.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bioethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Graduate students</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Graduate studies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Student writing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Labrecque, Cory A</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schonfeld, Toby</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992</subfield><subfield code="g">25(2016), 2, Seite 301</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)171063384</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1146581-5</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)034192417</subfield><subfield code="x">0963-1801</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:25</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:301</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000602</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26957455</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://search.proquest.com/docview/1771408852</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2002</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4219</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">25</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="h">301</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Stoddard, Hugh A |
| spellingShingle |
Stoddard, Hugh A ddc 100 fid PHILOS misc Bioethics misc Graduate students misc Graduate studies misc Student writing Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students |
| authorStr |
Stoddard, Hugh A |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)171063384 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0963-1801 |
| topic_title |
100 ZDB PHILOS fid Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students Bioethics Graduate students Graduate studies Student writing |
| topic |
ddc 100 fid PHILOS misc Bioethics misc Graduate students misc Graduate studies misc Student writing |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 100 fid PHILOS misc Bioethics misc Graduate students misc Graduate studies misc Student writing |
| topic_browse |
ddc 100 fid PHILOS misc Bioethics misc Graduate students misc Graduate studies misc Student writing |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| author2_variant |
c a l ca cal t s ts |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
171063384 |
| dewey-tens |
100 - Philosophy |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)171063384 (DE-600)1146581-5 (DE-576)034192417 |
| title |
Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC1973264013 (DE-599)GBVOLC1973264013 (PRQ)p1405-c74b411e0895f4b871850db57096bc02bfce23f47c78f9295c9f92cfc52430ad0 (KEY)0214365820160000025000200301usingascoringrubrictoassessthewritingofbioethicsst |
| title_full |
Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students |
| author_sort |
Stoddard, Hugh A |
| journal |
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics |
| journalStr |
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2016 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
301 |
| author_browse |
Stoddard, Hugh A |
| container_volume |
25 |
| class |
100 ZDB PHILOS fid |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Stoddard, Hugh A |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1017/S0963180115000602 |
| dewey-full |
100 |
| title_sort |
using a scoring rubric to assess the writing of bioethics students |
| title_auth |
Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students |
| abstract |
Educators in bioethics have struggled to find valid and reliable assessments that transcend the "reproduction of knowledge" to target more important skill sets. This manuscript reports on the process of developing and grading a minimal-competence comprehensive examination in a bioethics master's degree program. We describe educational theory and practice for the creation and deployment of scoring rubrics for high-stakes performance assessments that reduce scoring inconsistencies. The rubric development process can also benefit the program by building consensus among stakeholders regarding program goals and student outcomes. We describe the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome taxonomy as a mechanism for rubric design and provide an example of how we applied that taxonomy to define pass/fail cut scores. Details about domains of assessment and writing descriptors of performance are also presented. Despite the laborious work required to create a scoring rubric, we found the effort to be worthwhile for our program. |
| abstractGer |
Educators in bioethics have struggled to find valid and reliable assessments that transcend the "reproduction of knowledge" to target more important skill sets. This manuscript reports on the process of developing and grading a minimal-competence comprehensive examination in a bioethics master's degree program. We describe educational theory and practice for the creation and deployment of scoring rubrics for high-stakes performance assessments that reduce scoring inconsistencies. The rubric development process can also benefit the program by building consensus among stakeholders regarding program goals and student outcomes. We describe the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome taxonomy as a mechanism for rubric design and provide an example of how we applied that taxonomy to define pass/fail cut scores. Details about domains of assessment and writing descriptors of performance are also presented. Despite the laborious work required to create a scoring rubric, we found the effort to be worthwhile for our program. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Educators in bioethics have struggled to find valid and reliable assessments that transcend the "reproduction of knowledge" to target more important skill sets. This manuscript reports on the process of developing and grading a minimal-competence comprehensive examination in a bioethics master's degree program. We describe educational theory and practice for the creation and deployment of scoring rubrics for high-stakes performance assessments that reduce scoring inconsistencies. The rubric development process can also benefit the program by building consensus among stakeholders regarding program goals and student outcomes. We describe the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome taxonomy as a mechanism for rubric design and provide an example of how we applied that taxonomy to define pass/fail cut scores. Details about domains of assessment and writing descriptors of performance are also presented. Despite the laborious work required to create a scoring rubric, we found the effort to be worthwhile for our program. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4219 |
| container_issue |
2 |
| title_short |
Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000602 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26957455 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1771408852 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Labrecque, Cory A Schonfeld, Toby |
| author2Str |
Labrecque, Cory A Schonfeld, Toby |
| ppnlink |
171063384 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1017/S0963180115000602 |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T02:02:42.115Z |
| _version_ |
1803612126829346816 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1973264013</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230714184353.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160427s2016 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1017/S0963180115000602</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20160610</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1973264013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1973264013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)p1405-c74b411e0895f4b871850db57096bc02bfce23f47c78f9295c9f92cfc52430ad0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0214365820160000025000200301usingascoringrubrictoassessthewritingofbioethicsst</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">ZDB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stoddard, Hugh A</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Using a Scoring Rubric to Assess the Writing of Bioethics Students</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Educators in bioethics have struggled to find valid and reliable assessments that transcend the "reproduction of knowledge" to target more important skill sets. This manuscript reports on the process of developing and grading a minimal-competence comprehensive examination in a bioethics master's degree program. We describe educational theory and practice for the creation and deployment of scoring rubrics for high-stakes performance assessments that reduce scoring inconsistencies. The rubric development process can also benefit the program by building consensus among stakeholders regarding program goals and student outcomes. We describe the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome taxonomy as a mechanism for rubric design and provide an example of how we applied that taxonomy to define pass/fail cut scores. Details about domains of assessment and writing descriptors of performance are also presented. Despite the laborious work required to create a scoring rubric, we found the effort to be worthwhile for our program.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bioethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Graduate students</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Graduate studies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Student writing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Labrecque, Cory A</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schonfeld, Toby</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">New York, NY [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992</subfield><subfield code="g">25(2016), 2, Seite 301</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)171063384</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1146581-5</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)034192417</subfield><subfield code="x">0963-1801</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:25</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:301</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000602</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26957455</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://search.proquest.com/docview/1771408852</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2002</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4219</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">25</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="h">301</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.398719 |