International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, a leading journal in its field has recently listed a featured article written by the CIT nursing fellows.

The article published in 2008, “A Rubric for Improving the Quality of Online Courses” (by Jane Blood-Siegfried, Nancy Short, Carla Gene Rapp, Elizabeth Hill, Steve Talbert, John Skinner, Amy Campbell, and Linda Goodwin) describes an evaluation rubric to measure quality in the graduate online curriculum, offering a useful tool for online course development.

Dr. Short and Dr. Blood-Siegfried are happy to know people found this rubric was useful, “Over 1000 downloads have occurred for the first release so I guess they decided to feature it again… It (the rubric) certainly is important for our own programs. I am pleased to see that it has finally been featured. We did a lot of good work that year with our CIT partners.”

The full text of the article is available for download.

About the Fellowship:

Six Nursing faculty and one graduate student participated in a CIT Fellows Program to develop methods evaluate the quality of the School’s online courses. The group created an evaluation rubric, applied it to their courses, and conducted student focus groups to provide feedback about online course quality. The group also performed a curriculum analysis to locate gaps in content coverage in their series of core courses. Visit the Fellows Program archive page to know more about the fellowship participants, activities, outcomes, and student focus group feedback, etc.

Alma Blount, Director, Hart Leadership Program, Sanford Institute of Public Policy

Project Description

The Hart Leadership Program, directed by Alma Blount, is exploring different methods of assessment for their program.  The goals of this exploration include the following:

•    overall student work (yielded by improved and standardized assessment methods using rubrics and assessment technologies)
•    student engagement (measured by assessment technologies and past student ratings)
•    student and program exposure via eportfolio publishing and public press

Currently, program faculty and staff have chosen to use eportfolios as a means towards creating a standardized programmatic assessment by generating standard rubrics to assess writing samples (reflective pieces and full papers), along with a completed eportfolio presentation (public webpages generated by the students’ work).  The program has decided to use Chalk&Wire’s ePortfolio2 product to meet the aforementioned goals.

Project Started: Dec 2007
Funding: $4300

Julie Reynolds, Mellon Instructor in Writing & Biology, Arts & Sciences

Project Description

Julie Reynolds and her colleagues Paula Lemons and Ahrash Bissell are developing a methodology for designing valid and reliable, discipline-specific, critical-thinking questions and grading rubrics that simultaneously measure student’s content knowledge and specific critical-thinking skills (e.g., application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation). Using this methodology, they are generating questions and grading rubrics, and beginning to use these questions to gather data on student learning of both content and critical-thinking skills.

To share their work and allow others to contribute, they are looking for a web-based tool that can manage this type of collaborative assessment design and modification. This grant funded an assistant to assess web sites that might be suitable for a critical thinking assignment repository. The ultimate goal is to find an appropriate on-line tool to build a scholarly community around critical thinking assignments and rubrics for grading. Criteria used to assess websites:

1. free
2. user friendly
3. contains a downloadable database of critical-thinking assignments related to the teaching of biology
4. allows for collaborative writing of critical thinking assignments
5. claims to measure critical thinking in student responses
6. actually can measure critical thinking in student responses

Of the 13 software or websites assessed, none met the criteria. Investigated software/websites included: CPR, FLAG CDT, LE3, InsightAssessment, CornellCT, 2Mpower, SmartPrim, Theseus, Trackstar, DevelopingCTSkills, Critical Thinking Co, Writeboard, and CLAQWA.

The assistant suggested designing a new system to meet the needs of the project.

Project Started: August 20, 2007
Funding: $2000

Anathea Portier-Young, Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Duke Divinity School

Project Description

Anathea Portier-Young enrolled in the CIT’s Spring 2006 Fellows program designed for faculty teaching large classes. In Fall 2006, Portier-Young was teaching the course “Old Testament Interpretation,” a core requirement of all incoming Divinity students, and she wanted to explore ways to approach learning activities and manage course logistics in a class expected to have close to 200 students.

During the Fellows program, participants were introduced to methods that could be used to enhance student learning, including approaches to lectures, group activities and grading with large courses. Portier-Young explored class activities including guided note taking to give her students a clearer picture of important topics in the course. She also tried use of a class wiki for communication and collaborative writing, and developed grading rubrics for essay assignments. In addition, Portier-Young looked at methods to improve her lectures for better student understanding and engagement.

Outcomes reported from this Fellowship included that students demonstrated better comprehension of material and more confidence in assignments with the grading rubric, and the wiki received participation from most students in the class. Portier-Young plans to streamline and improve the activities in the future.

Project start date: 1/2006
Funding awarded: $1,250