title: Do targeted written comments and the rubric method of delivery affect performance on future human physiology laboratory reports?
abstract: We investigated how students performed on weekly two-page laboratory reports based on whether the grading rubric was provided to the student electronically or in paper form and the inclusion of one- to two-sentence targeted comments. Subjects were registered for a 289-student, third-year human physiology class with laboratory and were randomized into four groups related to rubric delivery and targeted comments. All students received feedback via the same detailed grading rubric. At the end of the term, subjects provided consent and a self-assessment of their rubric viewing rate and preferences. There were no differences in laboratory report scores between groups (P = 0.86), although scores did improve over time (P < 0.01). Students receiving targeted comments self-reported viewing their rubric more often than students that received no comments (P = 0.02), but the viewing rate was independent of the rubric delivery method (P = 0.15). Subjects with high rubric viewing rates did not have higher laboratory report grades than subjects with low viewing rates (P = 0.64). When asked about their preference for the future, 43% of respondents preferred the same method again (electronic or paper rubric) and 25% had no preference. We conclude that although student laboratory report grades improved over time, the rate and degree of improvement were not related to rubric delivery method or to the inclusion of targeted comments.
authors.affiliation: Department of Human Physiology. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon zclayton@uoregon.edu.
authors.forename: Zachary S
authors.initials: ZS
authors.lastname: Clayton
authors.affiliation: Department of Human Physiology. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
authors.forename: Gabriel P
authors.initials: GP
authors.lastname: Wilds
authors.affiliation: Department of Human Physiology. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
authors.forename: Joshua E
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Mangum
authors.affiliation: Department of Human Physiology. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
authors.forename: Austin D
authors.initials: AD
authors.lastname: Hocker
authors.affiliation: Department of Human Physiology. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
authors.forename: Sierra M
authors.initials: SM
authors.lastname: Dawson
mesh_terms: D002983:Clinical Competence / Q000592:standards*; D004521:Educational Measurement / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D013677:Medical Laboratory Science / Q000193:education*; D010827:Physiology / Q000193:education*; D011897:Random Allocation; D013336:Students, Health Occupations; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014956:Writing / Q000592:standards*
keywords: human physiology; laboratory reports; rubric; scientific writing; writing feedback