A comparison of grading rubrics for professional seminars given by doctor of pharmacy candidates

Dana Carroll, Sharon Mcdonough, Jessica Starr, Miranda Andrus, T. Lynn Stevenson, Anne Marie Liles

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare a numeric grade-based rubric, previously developed by the Auburn University, Harrison School of Pharmacy for assessing fourth-year Doctor of Pharmacy student professional seminar presentations, to a newly developed pass/fail rubric. Methods: A research group was assembled for this study that consisted of five faculty members and the school's assessment director. The research group reviewed a random sampling of 25% (n = 32) of the 2011 graduating class's seminar presentations using the newly developed pass/fail rubric. Of those selected, the seminar presentation was viewed via digital or DVD recordings and graded by three members of the research group. These assessments were then compared to the actual grade received with the old, numeric-based rubric in 2010-2011. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test for paired comparisons was employed to compare the scores with the old and new grading rubrics. Results: None of the students in the sample failed the professional seminar with utilization of the old, numeric-based rubric. However, the failure rate increased significantly [65.6% (n = 21), p<0.001] with utilization of the new pass/fail rubric. Overall, the strongest performance categories with the new rubric were Delivery (34% received highest distinction and 6% failed) and Printed and Audiovisual Materials (28% received highest distinction and 9% failed). The weakest areas of performance with the new rubric were Summary (50% failure) and Seminar Content (44% failure). Conclusions: Utilization of the new pass/fail rubric provides a more rigorous system of grading student presentations than the old numeric-based rubric.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)288-294
Number of pages7
JournalCurrents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning
Volume5
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2013

Fingerprint

Technical presentations
Research
Pharmacy Schools
Students
Pharmacy Students
Matched-Pair Analysis
Videodisks
Sampling

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacy
  • Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics(all)

Cite this

A comparison of grading rubrics for professional seminars given by doctor of pharmacy candidates. / Carroll, Dana; Mcdonough, Sharon; Starr, Jessica; Andrus, Miranda; Stevenson, T. Lynn; Liles, Anne Marie.

In: Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, Vol. 5, No. 4, 01.07.2013, p. 288-294.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Carroll, Dana ; Mcdonough, Sharon ; Starr, Jessica ; Andrus, Miranda ; Stevenson, T. Lynn ; Liles, Anne Marie. / A comparison of grading rubrics for professional seminars given by doctor of pharmacy candidates. In: Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning. 2013 ; Vol. 5, No. 4. pp. 288-294.
@article{f5ce0520171e48d69aaea30053f532c7,
title = "A comparison of grading rubrics for professional seminars given by doctor of pharmacy candidates",
abstract = "Objective: To compare a numeric grade-based rubric, previously developed by the Auburn University, Harrison School of Pharmacy for assessing fourth-year Doctor of Pharmacy student professional seminar presentations, to a newly developed pass/fail rubric. Methods: A research group was assembled for this study that consisted of five faculty members and the school's assessment director. The research group reviewed a random sampling of 25{\%} (n = 32) of the 2011 graduating class's seminar presentations using the newly developed pass/fail rubric. Of those selected, the seminar presentation was viewed via digital or DVD recordings and graded by three members of the research group. These assessments were then compared to the actual grade received with the old, numeric-based rubric in 2010-2011. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test for paired comparisons was employed to compare the scores with the old and new grading rubrics. Results: None of the students in the sample failed the professional seminar with utilization of the old, numeric-based rubric. However, the failure rate increased significantly [65.6{\%} (n = 21), p<0.001] with utilization of the new pass/fail rubric. Overall, the strongest performance categories with the new rubric were Delivery (34{\%} received highest distinction and 6{\%} failed) and Printed and Audiovisual Materials (28{\%} received highest distinction and 9{\%} failed). The weakest areas of performance with the new rubric were Summary (50{\%} failure) and Seminar Content (44{\%} failure). Conclusions: Utilization of the new pass/fail rubric provides a more rigorous system of grading student presentations than the old numeric-based rubric.",
author = "Dana Carroll and Sharon Mcdonough and Jessica Starr and Miranda Andrus and Stevenson, {T. Lynn} and Liles, {Anne Marie}",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cptl.2013.02.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "288--294",
journal = "Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning",
issn = "1877-1297",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of grading rubrics for professional seminars given by doctor of pharmacy candidates

AU - Carroll, Dana

AU - Mcdonough, Sharon

AU - Starr, Jessica

AU - Andrus, Miranda

AU - Stevenson, T. Lynn

AU - Liles, Anne Marie

PY - 2013/7/1

Y1 - 2013/7/1

N2 - Objective: To compare a numeric grade-based rubric, previously developed by the Auburn University, Harrison School of Pharmacy for assessing fourth-year Doctor of Pharmacy student professional seminar presentations, to a newly developed pass/fail rubric. Methods: A research group was assembled for this study that consisted of five faculty members and the school's assessment director. The research group reviewed a random sampling of 25% (n = 32) of the 2011 graduating class's seminar presentations using the newly developed pass/fail rubric. Of those selected, the seminar presentation was viewed via digital or DVD recordings and graded by three members of the research group. These assessments were then compared to the actual grade received with the old, numeric-based rubric in 2010-2011. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test for paired comparisons was employed to compare the scores with the old and new grading rubrics. Results: None of the students in the sample failed the professional seminar with utilization of the old, numeric-based rubric. However, the failure rate increased significantly [65.6% (n = 21), p<0.001] with utilization of the new pass/fail rubric. Overall, the strongest performance categories with the new rubric were Delivery (34% received highest distinction and 6% failed) and Printed and Audiovisual Materials (28% received highest distinction and 9% failed). The weakest areas of performance with the new rubric were Summary (50% failure) and Seminar Content (44% failure). Conclusions: Utilization of the new pass/fail rubric provides a more rigorous system of grading student presentations than the old numeric-based rubric.

AB - Objective: To compare a numeric grade-based rubric, previously developed by the Auburn University, Harrison School of Pharmacy for assessing fourth-year Doctor of Pharmacy student professional seminar presentations, to a newly developed pass/fail rubric. Methods: A research group was assembled for this study that consisted of five faculty members and the school's assessment director. The research group reviewed a random sampling of 25% (n = 32) of the 2011 graduating class's seminar presentations using the newly developed pass/fail rubric. Of those selected, the seminar presentation was viewed via digital or DVD recordings and graded by three members of the research group. These assessments were then compared to the actual grade received with the old, numeric-based rubric in 2010-2011. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test for paired comparisons was employed to compare the scores with the old and new grading rubrics. Results: None of the students in the sample failed the professional seminar with utilization of the old, numeric-based rubric. However, the failure rate increased significantly [65.6% (n = 21), p<0.001] with utilization of the new pass/fail rubric. Overall, the strongest performance categories with the new rubric were Delivery (34% received highest distinction and 6% failed) and Printed and Audiovisual Materials (28% received highest distinction and 9% failed). The weakest areas of performance with the new rubric were Summary (50% failure) and Seminar Content (44% failure). Conclusions: Utilization of the new pass/fail rubric provides a more rigorous system of grading student presentations than the old numeric-based rubric.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879183089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879183089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cptl.2013.02.002

DO - 10.1016/j.cptl.2013.02.002

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 288

EP - 294

JO - Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning

JF - Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning

SN - 1877-1297

IS - 4

ER -