Degree of the satisfaction, utility and validity of electronic rubrics evaluation during the practicum.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24310/RevPracticumrep.v2i1.8265Keywords:
Satisfaction, Evaluation, Practicums, Scoring Rubrics, Student teachers, Electronic rubric-based assessmentAbstract
The purpose of this study is knowing what future teachers think about theuse of electronic rubrics (e-rubrics) during the practicums. We analyse the variables of degree of the satisfaction, utility and validity. Besides the degree of the potential recommendation to others after the use of that instrument. The data is obtained from an ad hoc questionnaire designed for this propose. The sample comprises 29 students of Practicum I (2016/2017) of the degree of Education from the University of Granada (Spain). Two groups of practicums have been selected (one experimental and one control) to check the difference between the group who used e-rubric during the practicum and the group who didn’t use it. Having analysed the data we can conclude that future teachers have positively appraised the use of the e-rubric. They consider that it has helped them to rethink about the skills they have acquired. It becomes necessary keep on researching since it has been an exploratory study. E-rubrics can be considered useful to improve the evaluation processes of the practicum period.Downloads
Metrics
References
Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(3).
Andrade, H. L., Du, Y., &., & Mycek, K. (2010). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and middle school students’ writing. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 199-214.
Auvinen, T. (2011, November). Rubyric. InProceedings of the 11th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research,(pp. 102-106). Koli, Filand. doi: 10.1145/2094131.2094152
Atkinson, D., & Lim, S. L. (2013). Improving assessment processes in Higher Education: Student and teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of a rubric embedded in a LMS. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 651-666. doi: 10.14742/ajet.526
Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson, D. G. (2013). Does student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgement over time?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(8), 941-956. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.769198
Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., &Guinalíu, M. (2012). Redes sociales virtuales desarrolladas por organizaciones empresariales: antecedentes de la intención de participación del consumidor. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa, 15(1), 42-51. doi: 10.1016/j.cede.2011.06.003
Cebrián-de-la-Serna, M., Serrano-Angulo, J, & Ruiz-Torres, M. (2014). Las eRúbricas en la evaluación cooperativa del aprendizaje en la Universidad. Comunicar,22(43), 153-161.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 13 (3), 319-340. doi: 10.2307/249008
Fry, S. A. (1990). Implementation and evaluation of peer marking in higher education. Assessment and evaluation in higher education, 15(3), 177-189. doi: 10.1080/0260293900150301
Hoepfl, M. (2007). Alternative classroom assessment tools and scoring mechanisms. Assessment of technology education: Council of technology teacher education 56th yearbook, 65-86.
Gallego-Arrufat, M. J., & Raposo-Rivas, M. (2014). Compromiso del estudiante y percepción del proceso evaluador basado en rúbricas. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 12(1), 197-215. doi:10.4995/redu.2014.6423
Grisaffe, D. B. (2007). Questions about the ultimate question: conceptual considerations in evaluating Reichheld's net promoter score (NPS). Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 20, 36-53.
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences.Educational research review,2(2), 130-144. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & management,40(3), 191-204. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4
Moskal, B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical assessment, research & evaluation, 7(10), 71-81.
Padilla Meléndez, A., &Garrido Moreno, A. (2006). El uso de tecnologías basadas en Internet para el aprendizaje: Un estudio exploratorio en el contexto del modelo de aceptación de la tecnología. Investigaciones europeas de dirección de la empresa (IEDEE), 12(2), 217-230.
Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: Effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation,39(4), 195-203. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.005
Panadero, E., & Romero, M. (2014). To rubric or not to rubric? The effects of self-assessment on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy.Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 133-148. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2013.877872
Panadero, E., & Brown, G. T. (2017). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: positive experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education,32(1), 133-156.
Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students' behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational technology & society,12(3), 150-162.
Pérez-Torregrosa, A.B.,Gutiérrez-Santiuste, E., & Gallego-Arrufat, M.J. (2016, september). Autoevaluación con e-rúbrica en practicum: construcción y validación del instrumento. En Pedro, N., Pedro, A., Filipe Matos, J., Piedade, J., & Fonte, M. (Eds.), Digital Technologies & Future School Atas do IV Congresso Internacional TIC e Educação 2016 (pp. 387-393). Lisboa: Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa.
Perrone, M. y Propper, F. (Eds.). (2007). Satisfacción. En Perrone Diccionario de educación. pp.339-340.Buenos Aires: Alfagrama.
Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: A case study.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 417-444. doi:10.1080/02602930500099219
Raposo-Rivas, M., & Gallego-Arrufat, M. J. (2016). University Students' Perceptions of Electronic Rubic-Based Assessment. Digital Education Review, (30), 220-233.
Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 35(4), 435-448. doi:10.1080/02602930902862859
Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard business review, 81(12), 46-55.
Rezaei, A. R., & Lovorn, M. (2010). Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assessing writing,15(1), 18-39. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.003
Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2004). Exploring the interaction equation: Validating a rubric to assess and encourage interaction in distance courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4), 24-37.
Sánchez, M. J., Martín, F. A., & Villarejo, F. (2016). El modelo TAM y la enseñanza superior. Una investigación del efecto moderador del sexo. Revista Española de Pedagogía,238, 459-478.
Selim, H. M. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education, 40(4), 343-360. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00142-2
Serrano Angulo, J., & Cebrián Robles, D. (2014). Usabilidad y Satisfacción de la e-Rúbrica. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 12(1), 177-195.
Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149-169. doi: 10.1080/713611428
Teo, T., Lee, C. B., Chai, C.S., & Wong, S. L. (2009). Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Computers & Education,53(3), 1000-1009. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.017
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Acceptance of the work implies that the author grants Revista Prácticum the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute and sell his or her work worldwide, both in digital and paper formats, CD-ROM, etc.
Likewise, the authors shall grant Revista Prácticum the rights of dissemination, public communication on the Internet and IT networks, data buses, as well as any other portals or electronic devices for online consultation of its contents and extracts, under the conditions of the portal, repositories or databases where the work is stored.
Revista Prácticum allows authors to publish and disseminate their articles and works on their personal websites, research teams, institutional repositories and scientific databases. All this in accordance with the Creative Commons 4.0 License
8.png)
