cassandra
For both of the rubrics, I got similar scores: 38 for the DCN rubric and 36 for the other one. The student made several APA 7th edition errors (doi needs to be a link starting with https, there should not be a first letter initial included in the in-text citations, there should be more included on the title page, the headline on the first page should be in bold, the reference page should say references not work cited, and the in-text CDC citation should include the full name with abbreviation for the first in-text citation). The specific assignment rubric did not state if repeat errors were marked as one or if they count individually, like the DCN rubric. I did end up counting repeat errors as one, but that was based on my interpretation of the rubric, and another instructor could count each individually. The paper did not include the classroom textbook but did meet the requirement for scholarly articles. There were some grammatical errors, but the paper was relevant to nursing practice and was supported by evidence. The paper was also only five pages with the title and reference page, not without.
I definitely ran into some challenges when scoring the paper:
- I reread the paper and rubrics several times throughout the scoring process because I wanted to make sure I was not missing anything. After giving a score, I also reread the paper to see if I agreed with the final score I had given them the first time.
- When there was a range for the points in a specific level of achievement, it was difficult for me to determine what number to give them.
- The student, for the specific assignment rubric criteria, “applies concepts from the required number and type of sources,” met half of the requirements for the satisfactory and the needs improvement levels of achievements (Denver College of Nursing [DCN], n.d.-b, p. 1).
- The specific assignment rubric had a possible error. In the “applies concepts from the required number and type of sources” level of achievements, there was no possibility for a 6 to be given (DCN, n.d.-b, p. 1).
- Lastly, when scoring the overall context of the paper, it is hard to objectively score it without detailed specifics. For example, when the specific assignment rubric asks how much breadth and depth is added to the paper, the scoring can be subjective, and different instructors may have different views on what that means. Therefore, the score may differ per instructor.
Due to these challenges, I prefer the DCN rubric because each category describes how to score the paper in more detail. It only has three levels of achievement, which is pretty straightforward compared to five. The satisfactory and excellent levels only allow for one number difference, unlike the specific assignment rubrics’ exemplary and satisfactory one-to-three number differences.
Del Prato and Bankert (2021) discuss suggestions to help combat “academic grade inflation in nursing education” (p. 12). They argue that across nursing schools less, students are failing due to many contributing factors, one being how rubrics are structured. Del Prato and Bankert (2021) discuss how instructor objectivity may play into rubrics that ill-define criteria for levels of achievement. Therefore, they recommend precise and “rigorous grading rubrics [because they] support faculty objectivity during grading and also communicate clear expectations to students regarding assignment expectations” (pp. 14–15). Consequently, as I previously described, the specific assignment rubric did not have detail as to what constitutes “in detail” versus “adequately explained” for the levels of achievements in the “explains the relevance of the topic to nursing practice,” leaving it up to interpretation from the instructor, therefore, I would suggest revising this section (DCN, n.d.-b, p. 1). The second revision I would make would be to both rubrics due to the unclarity of the scoring criteria when there is more than a one-number jump in each level of achievement. For example, the “needs improvement” level of achievement in the DCN rubric has a three to sixteen-point difference within the criteria (DCN, n.d.-a p. 1). There should be specifics within the “needs improvement” category to determine what constitutes a one versus a sixteen in the content criteria. The same goes for the specific assignment rubric; what constitutes a twelve versus a fifteen in the satisfactory category for the topic criteria?
Who knows, maybe educating the instructor would help alleviate my concerns with the rubrics. As Del Prato and Bankert (2021) also explain, “faculty education about the rubric” should be performed to alleviate subjectivity (p. 13).
satori
This assignment forced me to look at myself more critically. I have had to review and grade some of my peers work before however, with this assignment I felt that I was grading harshly. Using the DCN Rubric, the student received 26 out of 50 total points. This rubric was more generic and was only concerned with the format of the paper. I also think that the DCN rubric provides more points due to the fact that if you have made one mistake, you cannot doc the same mistake again. With the specific assignment rubric, there was more detail in the grading and tailored to the assignment specifically. The student got 24 out of 50 total points. I liked this rubric better because it was more detailed and made it easier for what to look for in a patient’s paper. I felt like I was grading harshly on however the grade on the specific assignment was lower than the grade on the DCN catalog. I think that it is important for the students to follow the rubric because it provides them aa guideline of what to follow in their careers. If I could change one thing about the DCN rubric is to add more than just the content conclusion and format. I do think grammar should be a subject to grade on as well. For the second rubric, I would change the portion that applies to the concepts of the paper. In theory most concepts are evidence-based practice and it’s okay to utilize it in the clinical practice. The main goal is patient safety, and it is important that what students write about and the safest and most appropriate action for both the paper and the clinical setting.