Grading Rubric for Cell & Molecular Biology (BIOL 405) Disease Papers
Date: Spring 2008
Reflection written July 3, 2008
Standard: National Science Education Standards A, B, D, and E. These standards state that science teachers will plan inquiry-based science programs that will guide and facilitate their students’ learning while providing students with the time, space, and resources needed for learning science. Additionally, science teachers will develop communities of learners that reflect the intellectual rigor, attitudes, and values of scientific inquiry.
Describe: When I began teaching, I created a rubric for grading research papers. Papers were graded based on four criteria: mechanics, references (use of literature), clarity, and content. Each section was worth an equal amount, reflecting my emphasis on written communication and appropriate referencing. However, this grading rubric was clearly teacher-driven. In order for my students to acquire ownership over this aspect of their learning, I gave the spring 2008 Cell and Molecular Biology (BIOL 405) students the task of creating their own rubric. The students in this class were all upper-division science majors and they did an excellent job; the rubric they created was fair and balanced. (Please note that the students’ rubric was based off a total score of 30 points, as this was only one component of the assignment; they also received points for writing a self-critique of their paper, as well as for critiquing their classmates using the student-generated rubric. However, using the same ratios, the rubric could be adapted for higher point values.)
Due to the success of this assignment, I plan to involve the students in future upper-division classes in creating their own grading rubrics. In the lower-division Microbiology (BIOL 150) course, however, I use a modified rubric when grading their formal laboratory report, poster, and oral presentation of their small-group microbiology research projects. For the small-group projects, I grade based on content and scientific accuracy (40%), clarity (40%), and creativity (20%). Using this rubric, referencing and mechanics (spelling and grammar) are included in clarity, since a sloppy product will lack clarity.
Analyze: This artifact was included in my teaching portfolio to demonstrate my ability to guide student learning: by eliciting student involvement in designing this aspect of their course, I encouraged them to take ownership of their learning. As the class created the rubric, the students had to come to a consensus regarding the crucial aspects of the assignment. For example, they were forced to determine whether using references and proper spelling and grammar mattered to the overall paper. They were also forced to address content issues prior to beginning their assignment. As the students considered these questions, they established a sense of ownership for the process and the assignment.
By creating their own rubric, the students were also creating a learning community that reflected the intellectual rigor, attitudes, and values of scientific inquiry. A key component of scientific inquiry is the peer-review process prior to publication and dissemination of data. This peer-review process is created and maintained by scientists. By creating their own rubric, the students were re-creating the peer-review process in the classroom.
Appraise: The rubric that the students created for this assignment was fair and easy-to-follow. They demonstrated that upper-division science majors do have a solid awareness of the necessary components of written communication, although they still need practice in this area. It was particularly beneficial for me to observe their thinking patterns as they collaborated to create the rubric. I learned that they do know what is required for good writing, but that they need more practice in the peer-review process itself; the ability to critique their own writing and that of their classmates was a weak area for many of the students.
Transform: Due to the success of this project, I plan to involve students in future upper-division classes in creating their own grading rubrics. I will also place extra emphasis on the self- and peer-critique portion of the assignment, as it was apparent that this was a weak area for the majority of students in the spring 2008 class.
************
To view the student-generated grading rubric for Cell and Molecular Biology (BIOL 405) Disease Papers, click here.