View in EDS

Focused on Pedagogy: QR Grading Rubrics for Written Arguments

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Focused on Pedagogy: QR Grading Rubrics for Written Arguments
Language: English
Authors: Ruby A. Daniels, Kathryn Appenzeller Knowles, Emily Naasz, Amanda Lindner
Source: Numeracy. 2023 16(1).
Availability: National Numeracy Network. 906 West 2nd Avenue, Suite 100, Spokane, WA 99201. Tel: 507-222-5239; Web site: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 40
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Scoring Rubrics, Grading, Numeracy, Multiple Literacies, Reliability, Writing (Composition), Student Attitudes, Undergraduate Students, Undergraduate Study, Business Administration Education, Feedback (Response), Visual Aids, Hispanic American Students, Minority Serving Institutions, Blended Learning, Persuasive Discourse
Geographic Terms: Texas
ISSN: 1936-4660
Abstract: Institutional assessments of quantitative literacy/reasoning (QL/QR) have been extensively tested and reported in the literature. While appropriate for measuring student learning at the programmatic or institutional level, such instruments were not designed for classroom grading. After modifying a widely accepted institutional rubric designed to assess QR in written arguments, the current mixed method study tested the reliability of two QR analytic grading rubrics for written arguments and explored students' reactions to the grading tools. Undergraduate students enrolled in a business course (N = 59) participated. A total of 415 QR artifacts from 40 students were assessed; an additional 19 students provided feedback about the grading tools. A new QR writing rubric included three main criteria (numerical evidence, conclusions, and writing), while a second rubric added a fourth criterion for assignments with data visualization. After two coders rated students' QR assignments, data analysis found both new QR rubrics had good reliability. Cohen's kappa found the study's raters had substantial agreement on all rubric criteria ([kappa] = 0.69 to 0.80). Both the QR writing ([alpha] = 0.861) and data visualization ([alpha] = 0.859) grading rubrics also had good internal consistency. When asked to provide feedback about the new grading tools, 89% of students shared positive comments, reporting the rubrics clarified assignment expectations, improved their performance, and facilitated the writing process. This paper proposes slight modifications to the phrasing of the new rubrics' writing criterion, discusses best practices for use of rubrics in QR classrooms, and recommends future research.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1451259
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1451259
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1451259
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Focused on Pedagogy: QR Grading Rubrics for Written Arguments
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ruby+A%2E+Daniels%22">Ruby A. Daniels</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kathryn+Appenzeller+Knowles%22">Kathryn Appenzeller Knowles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Emily+Naasz%22">Emily Naasz</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amanda+Lindner%22">Amanda Lindner</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Numeracy%22"><i>Numeracy</i></searchLink>. 2023 16(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: National Numeracy Network. 906 West 2nd Avenue, Suite 100, Spokane, WA 99201. Tel: 507-222-5239; Web site: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 40
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scoring+Rubrics%22">Scoring Rubrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grading%22">Grading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Numeracy%22">Numeracy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multiple+Literacies%22">Multiple Literacies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reliability%22">Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Study%22">Undergraduate Study</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Business+Administration+Education%22">Business Administration Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Aids%22">Visual Aids</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hispanic+American+Students%22">Hispanic American Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minority+Serving+Institutions%22">Minority Serving Institutions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Blended+Learning%22">Blended Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Texas%22">Texas</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1936-4660
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Institutional assessments of quantitative literacy/reasoning (QL/QR) have been extensively tested and reported in the literature. While appropriate for measuring student learning at the programmatic or institutional level, such instruments were not designed for classroom grading. After modifying a widely accepted institutional rubric designed to assess QR in written arguments, the current mixed method study tested the reliability of two QR analytic grading rubrics for written arguments and explored students' reactions to the grading tools. Undergraduate students enrolled in a business course (N = 59) participated. A total of 415 QR artifacts from 40 students were assessed; an additional 19 students provided feedback about the grading tools. A new QR writing rubric included three main criteria (numerical evidence, conclusions, and writing), while a second rubric added a fourth criterion for assignments with data visualization. After two coders rated students' QR assignments, data analysis found both new QR rubrics had good reliability. Cohen's kappa found the study's raters had substantial agreement on all rubric criteria ([kappa] = 0.69 to 0.80). Both the QR writing ([alpha] = 0.861) and data visualization ([alpha] = 0.859) grading rubrics also had good internal consistency. When asked to provide feedback about the new grading tools, 89% of students shared positive comments, reporting the rubrics clarified assignment expectations, improved their performance, and facilitated the writing process. This paper proposes slight modifications to the phrasing of the new rubrics' writing criterion, discusses best practices for use of rubrics in QR classrooms, and recommends future research.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1451259
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1451259
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 40
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Scoring Rubrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Numeracy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multiple Literacies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Study
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Business Administration Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Visual Aids
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hispanic American Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minority Serving Institutions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Blended Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Texas
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Focused on Pedagogy: QR Grading Rubrics for Written Arguments
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ruby A. Daniels
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kathryn Appenzeller Knowles
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Emily Naasz
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amanda Lindner
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1936-4660
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 16
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Numeracy
              Type: main
ResultId 1