Evaluation is a delicate dance led by educators. However, this is not a couple’s dance. It is an orchestrated event with many participants and interested stakeholders. When multiple educators collaborate to evaluate groups of students, it is imperative that these educators rehearse their understanding of the assessment process in order to achieve a harmonious and synchronized result. In evaluation this is termed interrater reliability. Rubrics are constructed to map out the steps of evaluation, but it has been shown that the use of rubrics does not result in reliable scores (Alinier, Hunt, Gordon, & Harwood, 2006; Axley, 2008; Stevens, 2013; Todd, Hawkins, Parsons, & Hercinger, 2008).
This research examined the effect of a collaborative dialog between nurse educators to establish consensus for evaluation of student nurse skill performance and their sense of professional community. Videoed student skill performances were the basis for the group dialog. Participants viewed these videos together and discussed evaluation for these student performances. The primary investigator was present to answer any questions that participants had regarding the student nurse performances. The participants used their schools’ evaluation tool to guide their evaluation and the discussion. Individual interviews after the group dialog were used to gather data to address the research questions.
|Commitee:||Atkinson, Becky, Carter-Templeton, Heather, Gakumo, C. Ann, McDougall Jr., Graham|
|School:||The University of Alabama|
|Department:||Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies|
|School Location:||United States -- Alabama|
|Source:||DAI-A 79/02(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Educational leadership, Nursing|
|Keywords:||Instructional leadership, Interrater reliability, Nursing education, Professional community, Rubric, Skill evaluation|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be