Peer and self-grading: comparisons between analytical and holistic rubrics in an engineering classroom

• Autores: Omar Cheidde Chaim, Edson Walmir Cazarini
• Localización: The International journal of engineering education, ISSN-e 0949-149X, Vol. 33, no. 6 (Parte A), 2017, págs. 1798-1802
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Incorporating a variety of assessment practices can help improve the engineering education practices. However, manytasks that add value to the process can be too time consuming and have their usage limited if used frequently and in largeclasses. One of the tools to facilitate professors and assessors practice is that of peer and self-assessments paired withrubrics. This work analyses and compares the implementation of two different rubrics’ types, analytical and holistic, in asix-month course on decision making in industrial engineering. The rubrics were designed to assess format, researchbibliography, text quality andcontent. As results, wefound significant differencesbetween both typeof rubricsin achievingconsensus, bad practices issues, average grades and feedback influence. While easier to achieve consensus and less timeconsuming to design, holistic rubrics are easier to tamper with and consistently present higher grades. Analytical rubricsheavily influence written feedbacks exchanged between students. Overall, we believe that through responsible use,analytical rubrics can have a positive impact in the development of engineering education.