FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W320116644> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W320116644 startingPage "22" @default.
• W320116644 abstract "In recent years, the University of Kansas has made it a priority to improve the written communication and critical thinking skills of our undergraduate students. We especially have embraced the challenge of enhancing these skills in courses with larger enrollments - those with sixty to several hundred students. Although most faculty members presume that high-end student writing and critical analysis can only be properly taught or evaluated when class size is below thirty or forty students, a group of University of Kansas colleagues has redesigned largeenrollment courses around a cognitive apprenticeship model to specifically target these skills. Faculty members working with colleagues in the writing center and libraries developed and implemented staged assignments that allow students to acquire writing and critical thinking skills through multiple iterations with individual feedback.In early versions of the project, five faculty members worked with a subject librarian and a writing consultant to design sequenced assignments that would develop students' skills in written communication, critical reading, and synthesis of research literature. Later, through a project funded by the Spencer and Teagle Foundations, we expanded to ten additional courses and we developed a graduate student fellowship program in which teaching assistants were prepared as consultants by specialists in the library and in the writing center. We provided supplemental financial support to graduate student fellows so they could give extra time and skill to the courses they are assisting.We wanted to know whether collaborative course design was worth the investment of time and resources needed to scale up beyond a pilot program. To answer this question, we used rubrics developed by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) to evaluate the written communication and critical thinking skills of students in these team-designed courses. The VALUE rubrics supplemented existing instructor evaluations of successful learning (i.e., grades on course-specific rubrics), allowing us to measure skills that are neither course nor discipline specific. We also liked the well- articulated goals and benchmarks of performance of the VALUE rubrics because they connect our expectations to those of a community of faculty colleagues from around the country. As a third measure, we had samples of students take the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) to evaluate our course design model and to triangulate among three estimates of student learning (grades, VALUE rubrics, and CLA).THE RATING PROCESSTo date, we have used the VALUE rubrics on written communication and critical thinking to score the written assignments of about one hundred students from the first year of our three-year team-design project. We began by gathering random samples of assignments from the two team-designed courses from the project s first year (political science and psychology) and two traditional courses of similar size and curricular level in the same disciplines. We convened a three-hour session of four graduate students (the raters) and a few faculty members to iteratively rate and discuss five or six assignments and make minor adjustments to the rubric language until they came to a shared understanding of the rubric categories and criteria. Each assignment was then independently scored on both the written communication and critical thinking rubrics by two different raters. The raters were quite reliable with each other, providing scores that were identical or one category apart at least 90 percent of the time. At the end of this process, the raters met again to discuss scoring disagreements and were permitted, but not compelled, to change their ratings following the discussion.RESULTSOnce the scoring was complete, our first step was to look for overlap across the individual dimensions of the rubrics as a possible way of simplifying our inspection and representation of student performance. …" @default.
• W320116644 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W320116644 creator A5017184778 @default.
• W320116644 creator A5035968599 @default.
• W320116644 date "2011-10-01" @default.
• W320116644 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W320116644 title "Using VALUE Rubrics to Evaluate Collaborative Course Design" @default.
• W320116644 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W320116644 type Work @default.
• W320116644 sameAs 320116644 @default.
• W320116644 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W320116644 countsByYear W3201166442014 @default.
• W320116644 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W320116644 hasAuthorship W320116644A5017184778 @default.
• W320116644 hasAuthorship W320116644A5035968599 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C107806365 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C111640148 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C2777212361 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C2779182362 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C533356498 @default.
• W320116644 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C107806365 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C111640148 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C136764020 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C138885662 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C145420912 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C154945302 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C15744967 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C19417346 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C2777212361 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C2779182362 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C41008148 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C41895202 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C509550671 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C533356498 @default.
• W320116644 hasConceptScore W320116644C71924100 @default.
• W320116644 hasLocation W3201166441 @default.
• W320116644 hasOpenAccess W320116644 @default.
• W320116644 hasPrimaryLocation W3201166441 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W138100203 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W1570968745 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W1574162093 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W167851188 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W1972702197 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W2070735699 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W2079527061 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W2189369399 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W2473017504 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W2560268508 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W271191595 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W2760089558 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W282811119 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W2900021388 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W2990351076 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W3106691874 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W3132896947 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W316612354 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W2147842515 @default.
• W320116644 hasRelatedWork W2772046297 @default.
• W320116644 isParatext "false" @default.
• W320116644 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W320116644 magId "320116644" @default.
• W320116644 workType "article" @default.