IS THIS AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT?: A COMPARISON OF COLLEGE FRESHMAN SEMINAR STUDENTS' RUBRIC DEVELOPMENT AND PROJECT GRADES

The aim of this project was to increase student engagement by involving them in the grading process for their individual class projects. Students were enrolled in two sections of College HDV 102 Freshman Seminar, Survival of the Fittest: Maximize Your Learning to Maximize Your Potential, a course designed to identify and validate their personal studying preferences through interactive lectures and completion of the VARK survey which differentiated their learning/studying styles as Visual (V), Aural (A), Read/Write (R) and/or Kinesthetic (K). All students were required to create and deliver a learning/studying tool for an academic course or personal interest. To function as an efficient learning/studying tool that accommodated a variety of learning styles, required elements included interactivity and self- assessment and correction features. As a required class participation project, students created a grading rubric for these individual presentations. An additional class participation activity required students to score and submit a grading rubric for each peer presentation. For both seminars, 100% of students stated they were not involved in the grading process for any of their other college courses. Serving as an authentic assessment measure, each seminar section's rubric uniquely reflected the features and correlating scoring points students deemed appropriate for grading individual learning/studying tools. Rubric element similarities for these individual presentations included minimum and maximum time allotments, interactivity, and explaining how different learning styles were accommodated. Rubric differences included point allocation and criteria for exceeding expectations. The two Freshman Seminars were similar in student composition; the Monday Seminar (Group 1) consisted of 18 students while the Thursday Seminar (Group 2) had 19 students. Group 1's rubric was constructed to grade each of the four class chosen attributes: Organization/Timing, Effort, Presentation/Content Effectiveness and Creativity on a scale where one point meant Unsatisfactory, two points indicated Needs Improvement and three points identified Meets or Exceeds Expectations. A learning/studying tool scored the maximum of 12 points would receive a grade of 100%. Data analysis for this group showed 18/18 received a grade between 97-100% with 2 awarded 100%. The class average grade was 98.5%. Group 2's rubric was constructed to grade each of the four class chosen attributes: Effectiveness, Effort, Presentation/Content and Creativity on a scale where one point meant Unsatisfactory, two points indicated Needs Improvement, three points identified Meets Expectations and four points distinguished Exceeds Expectations. A learning/studying tool scored the maximum of 16 points would achieve the grade of 100%. Data analysis for this group revealed 10/19 received a grade between 95-100% with 1 achieving 100%; 8/19 were scored in the 90-94% range; and 1/19 graded as 80%. The average class grade was 95%. Data suggest that peers may have a tendency to be very lenient graders despite the expectations of the rubric. All students were engaged during presentations and student presenters were treated with respect.