On Rubrics

Faculty Development

This semester I’m attending a series of Faculty Development Workshops at NJIT designed to assist new faculty with such essentials as teaching, grant writing, publishing, and tenure & promotion.

I’m posting here now in hopes of getting some feedback on a couple of rubrics I developed after attending the second such workshop.

I’m having students give group presentations in my course on Sports, Technology, and Society, and I was searching for ways to help ensure that all members contributed to the group presentation, as well as to differentiate among varying degrees of contribution. Last Tuesday’s workshop focused on assessment, with some treatment of the use of rubrics for both formative and summative assessment. I did a bit more research on my own, and here’s what I’ve come up with.

First, I developed a two-pronged approach. I want to be able to grade the presentation as a whole, as well as each individual’s contribution to that presentation. I decided to make the group presentation grade worth 60% and the individual contribution grade worth 40% of the overall presentation grade.

Second, I developed the group presentation rubric. For this, I owe a debt to several of the rubrics posted by the Eberly Center at Carnegie Mellon University. I found the rubrics for the philosophy paper and the oral presentation particularly helpful. I am thinking about using this rubric both for formative evaluation (to show the students what I expect), as well as for summative evaluation (actually grading the presentations).

Third, I developed the individual peer assessment rubric. I would actually have the students anonymously fill out one of these for each of their fellow group members. For this rubric, I found a publication from the University of New South Wales to be quite helpful (especially Table 2).

I’d be quite interested in constructive feedback on this approach.

Chatham House Rule | Chatham House

Will be attending a meeting under the Chatham House Rule over the next few days. I’m allowed to report what’s said, as long as I don’t give away who said it. I wonder whether someone would be able to guess that I said something by what was said. I think that might even be a goal of mine — to make sure my voice is recognizable.

The Chatham House Rule originated at Chatham House with the aim of providing anonymity to speakers and to encourage openness and the sharing of information. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion.

Source: Chatham House Rule | Chatham House

Integration, part 1: The “what”

A succinct, yet thorough, account of what integration is. I’m still not convinced that there’s not other things going on that I would call ‘interdisciplinary’ that don’t involve integration of any of the sorts discussed here. I write about my skepticism in detail here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-012-0179-7.

Integration and Implementation Insights

Community member post by Julie Thompson Klein

julie-thompson-kleinJulie Thompson Klein’s biography

Integration lies at the heart of inter- and transdisciplinarity. Klein & Newell (1996) call it the “acid test” of interdisciplinarity, and Pohl, van Kerkhoff, Hirsch Hadorn, & Bammer (2008) consider it “the core methodology underpinning the transdisciplinary research process.”

What exactly, though, is integration?

This blog post answers that question while identifying key resources.

View original post 1,507 more words

Evaluating broader impacts: The state of the art – Workshop (with images, tweets) · skonkiel · Storify

Washington, DC – Feb 10 & 11, 2016

Source: Evaluating broader impacts: The state of the art – Workshop (with images, tweets) · skonkiel · Storify

Workshop on Evaluating Broader Impacts: the State of the Art

To improve our theoretical understanding of the different ways that the broader impacts of science can be evaluated…

Source: Workshop 2016

Accelerated Academy | The Acceleration of Higher Education

Ecce Homo Academicus

A really interesting conference is going on now in Prague. I’m following along from afar via Titter, using #FastUni.

Source: Accelerated Academy | The Acceleration of Higher Education

Science in the Open » Blog Archive » Abundance Thinking

Reflections on Triangle SCI 2015 from @CameronNeylon:

What struck me as we prepared for our final presentations was that these narratives of scarcity don’t just limit us in the world of publication. I am lucky enough to have been to quite a few meetings where great people are sequestered together to think and discuss. These meetings always generate new ideas, exciting projects and life changing insights that somehow dissolve away as we return to our regular lives. The abundance of these focussed meetings, abundance of time, abundance of expertise, abundance of the attention of smart people gives way to the scarcity of our day to day existence. The development of these new ideas falters as it has to compete with scarce time of individuals. When time can be found it is asynchronous, and patchy. We try to make time but we never seem to be able to find the right kind of time.

Source: Science in the Open » Blog Archive » Abundance Thinking