Using a Delphi Approach to Develop Rubric Criteria
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Recent developments in post-secondary institutions have motivated a shift towards outcomesbased education.A major impetus for this agenda has been the growing need to provide concrete evidence of student learning and institutional effectiveness to various stakeholders.Given this trend, it is important that research be undertaken to explore valid approaches to learning outcomes assessment.The research described here involves the development of valid, non-discipline specific, analytic rubrics that assess learning outcomes in five key areas: communication, design, teamwork, problem analysis and investigation.This paper reports on the methodology used to complete the first stage of rubric development; identifying the standards through which student work is evaluated.In particular, a two-stage Delphi study was designed to identify rubric criteria for assessing problem analysis and investigation.The Delphi technique is an iterative research tool used to elicit input from a panel of experts.It typically involves a series of virtual survey rounds in which experts offer their views anonymously and have the opportunity to refine them based on controlled feedback from earlier rounds.Panel members include 11 experts for investigation and 15 experts for problem analysis from faculty and staff.In the first round, participants were asked to propose learning outcome statements or "indicators" that are important for assessing problem analysis or investigation.In the second and final round, these responses were arranged by major outcome areas and sent to participants for their feedback.They were asked to rate how likely they were to use the indicators, and their importance in the curriculum.The focus of this paper is not the results of this study, but the methodological processes involved in designing and administering a Delphi survey to develop tools for learning outcomes assessment.This includes expert selection, survey design, and analysis of expert responses.Special attention is paid to the challenges of conducting a Delphi study.1. What are the specific skills/behaviours/attitudes that are important for assessing investigation? 2. What are the specific skills/behaviours/attitudes that are important for assessing problem analysis?This study is part of a larger research project which seeks to develop non-discipline specific analytic rubrics in problem analysis, investigation, design, communication and teamwork.The paper is organized into three sections.The first section provides background information on rubrics and the Delphi method.This is followed by a description of the research team's application of the Delphi process.The final section provides commentary on the Delphi method with a particular focus on the challenges of conducting a Delphi study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,146 | 0,189 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,027 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».