Docstoc

Rubrics

Document Sample
Rubrics Powered By Docstoc
					       DOLCE:
Developing Off/On-Line
   Computer Ethics
http://csethics.uis.edu/dolce/


         partially supported by the
         National Science Foundation
         CCLI-DUE 9952841

                                       1
Grading Essays in Computer Science:
   Rubrics Considered Helpful
Barbara Moskal             Keith Miller                    Laurie King
Mathematical & Computer    Computer Science                Math & Computer Science
   Sciences                Univ. of Illinois-Springfield   College of the Holy Cross
Colorado School of Mines   P.O. Box 19243                  One College Street
Golden, CO 80401           Springfield, IL 62794-9243      Worcester, MA 01610




                                                                                  2
Rubrics Considered Helpful:
         Outline

  • Brief overview
  • Brief practice grading session



                                     3
Computer Science Ethics:
   Important Issues
 • Responsible Computer Use
 • Harm from Unreliable
   Software/Malicious Attacks.
 • Professional Decisions
 • CSAB and ABET

                                 4
Classroom Challenge:
 Assessing Students
• Writing is important
  – What?
  – So What?
  – Now What?
• Grading Essays is different from
  grading in a technical course
                                     5
          Rubrics:
Descriptive Scoring Schemes

   • Pre-Defined Scheme makes
     Evaluation more Objective
   • Holistic versus Analytic
   • Analytic: Separate Specific
     Criteria of Interest
                                   6
          Rubrics:
   Details and Definitions
• Task Specific versus General Criteria
• Validation: Evidence to support that
  the manner in which assessment
  information is used is appropriate.
• Rater Reliability: Consistency of
  Assessment Scores between raters.
                                      7
               Rubrics: An Example
         Written Communication (General Criteria)
Mechanical (Sentence Level)       Clarity (Paragraph Level)             Organization (Whole Essay)
Inadequate (1 pt.): Sentences     Inadequate (1 pt.): There appears     Inadequate (1 pt.): Thoughts
and paragraphs are difficult to   to be no organization of the          in the writing do not appear
read and understand due to        essay’s contents.                     organized or logical. No
poor grammar or mechanics.        Needs Improvement (2 pts.):           organization visible.
Needs Improvement (2 pts.):       Organization of the essay is          Needs Improvement (2 pts.):
The essay contains numerous       difficult to follow due to a          Some thoughts are
grammatical and mechanical        combination of inadequate             discernible, but the essay
errors.                           transitions and a rambling format.    confuses the reader. It is
Adequate (3 pts.): The essay      Adequate (3 pts.): The essay can      unclear the direction the essay
contains minimal grammatical      easily be followed. A combination     will take.
or mechanical errors.             of the following is apparent: Basic   Adequate (3 pts.): Most
Excellent: (4 pts.): The essay    transitions are used. A structured    thoughts appear logically, but
is clear and concise and the      format is used.                       the essay is listless, flat, or
grader found no grammatical       Excellent: (4 pts.): The essay can    slightly muddled.
or mechanical errors.             easily be followed. A combination     Excellent (4 pts.): Essay
                                  of the following is apparent:         presents its ideas eloquently,
                                  Effective transitions are used. A     logically, and clearly. Writer
                                  polished format is used.              leads the reader gracefully.
                                                                                                    8
           Rubrics: An Example
            Technical Content (General Criteria)
Followed the Assignment's Directions     Explains the Technical Issue
Inadequate (2 pts.): The paper has       Inadequate (2 pts.): Names the
no apparent relation to the directions   technical issue, but technical issue is
of the assignment.                       not explained.
Needs Improvement (4 pts.): Some         Needs Improvement (4 pts.):
of the paper follows the directions.     Attempts to explain the technical issue,
Adequate (6 pts.): Most of the paper     but is misleading or inaccurate.
follows the directions.                  Adequate (6 pts.): Technical details
Excellent: (8 pts.): The paper follows   are accurate, but either incomplete or
the directions precisely. (i.e. the      rambling.
sections are labeled, directions for     Excellent: (8 pts.): Technical
finding the article are clear, all       explanation is both concise and
required information, etc.)              complete in technical explanation.
                                         Leads gracefully into ethical
                                         discussion.
                                                                               9
              Rubrics: An Example
              Technical Content (General Criteria)
Stakeholders Identified and Values at Stake         Conclusion: Justified Preferred
Explained                                           Position
Inadequate (2 pts.): Does not identify who is       Inadequate (2 pts.): Doesn’t pick a
impacted by the ethical dilemma or how they are     position.
impacted. Does not explain the values at stake.     Needs Improvement (4 pts.): Picks a
Needs Improvement (4 pts.): Specifies either        position, but doesn’t justify it.
who is impacted by the ethical dilemma OR how       Adequate (6 pts.): Picks and tries to
they are impacted, but not both. Attempts to        justify position; Argument is not
explain the values at stake, but misses the mark.   convincing OR a convincing
Adequate (6 pts.): Specifies who is impacted by     justification is given, that has nothing
the ethical dilemma AND how they are impacted.      to do with the analysis stated.
Attempts to explain the values at stakes, but       Excellent: (8 pts.): Essay provides a
leaves out important points.                        persuasive argument that clearly
Excellent: (8 pts.): Specifies who is impacted by   supports the position. Even a reader
the ethical dilemma AND how they are impacted.      who disagreed with the position
Clearly explains the important values at stake      before finds her/himself thinking
and why they are ethically significant.             about the issue more carefully.
                                                                                          10
            Rubrics: An Example
       Technical Content (Task Specific Criteria)
Uses Utilitarian Theory in Analysis      Uses an Analogy
Inadequate (2 pts.): None                Inadequate (2 pts): None discernable
discernable.                             Needs Improvement (4 pts): The
Needs Improvement (4 pts.): The          paper included an analogy, but it was
paper mentioned utilitarian ideas, but   not used well.
they weren't used well.
                                         Adequate (6 pts): The paper included
Adequate (6 pts.): The paper
                                         an appropriate analogy (i.e. similarities
included an adequate utilitarian
                                         and differences are explained with
analysis.
                                         respect        to      the       original
Excellent (8 pts.): The paper
                                         situation/activity).
included an unusually original or
particularly revealing utilitarian       Excellent (8 pts): The paper included
analysis.                                an appropriate analogy which was
                                         either unusually original or particularly
Uses Deontological Theory in Analysis    revealing.
Similar to Utilitarian above.
                                                                               11
          Rubrics: Results
                      Highest
CONTENT:              Possible   ESSAY 1   ESSAY 2
Followed Directions       8       7.8       7.6
Technical Details         8       7.0       6.2
Stakeholders              8       5.4       5.4
Analysis: Analogy         8       5.0
Analysis: Utilitarian     8                6.4
Analysis: Deontological 8                  6.2
Conclusion                8      5.6       6.6
WRITING:
Clarity                   4      3.5       3.8
Mechanics                 4      2.5       3.4
Organization              4      3.4       3.4
OVERALL SCORE:           100%    77%       82%       12
  Rubrics: Conclusions
• Helps faculty member organize
  thinking
• Helps students understand how
  they will be evaluated
• Produces higher quality work
• Tool to track student development
                                      13
•   Keith Miller    miller.keith@uis.edu
•   Laurie King     LA@cs.holycross.edu
•   Barbara Moskal bmoskal@mines.edu
•   Tracy Camp      tcamp@mines.edu
•   Deborah Johnson dgj7p@virginia.edu
•   Chuck Huff      huff@stolaff.edu
      (supported by NSF grant DUE-9980768)



DOLCE home page:
    http://csethics.uis.edu/dolce/           14
       Activity: Assignment
Write a sentence that expresses an analogy
between a technology that includes computing and
a technology that does not include computing.
Your sentence should illustrate something germane
to ethics about the computer technology. Try to
write a sentence that makes the reader think; don't
restate the obvious. The sentence can include both
similarities and differences, but should emphasize
an aspect that has ethical significance.
                                                 15
               Activity: Rubric
           Inadequate (1       Adequate (2        Excellent (3
           point)              points)            points)
Mechanical Misspelling and     Misspelling or     No obvious
Details    bad grammar.        bad grammar.       mechanical errors.

            None               Analogy            An unusually
Analogy     discernable or     appropriate to the revealing analogy.
            unrelated          assignment.
            analogy.

Ethical     No discernable     Some ethical       Ethical content
Content     ethical content.   content.           impressive for a
                                                  single sentence.
                                                                     16
           Activity: Sentences
1. The Internert is like a bomb because it blasts away all competing
   media.
2. MP3 files is similar to copyrighted books.
3. Just as the Model T Ford made autos accessible to many more
   people, Palm Pilots will make computing accessible to many
   more people, tearing down the digital divide.
4. Junk email is worse than junk mail from the U.S. Post Office
   because junk emails are cheaper for the sender and more
   annoying for the receiver.
5. Listening to a hacker on the topic of computer ethics is like
   listening to Bill Gates talk about open source software. Self
   justification is rarely enlightening.                           17

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:65
posted:12/12/2011
language:English
pages:17