writing assessment writing & critical thinking assessment
TRANSCRIPT
Writing AssessmentWRITING &WRITING &
CRITICAL THINKINGCRITICAL THINKING
ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT
WRITING WRITING
ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT
READERS: HONRS 150 INSTRUCTORS
Number of papers read: 41Number of readers per paper: 2Number of readers: 8
(Gary Hatch, Joyce Adams, Elizabeth Crowe, Lisa Johnson,
Deirdre Paulsen, Kerry Spencer, Kylie Turley)
WRITING RUBRIC
Paper #: Title: Course:
Traits Fails Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
1 2 3 4 5 6
Thesis and Support
Lacks a clear, recognizable assertion
Has a clear, recognizable assertion that provides focus and direction to the essay.
Shows recognition of opposing views, multiple perspectives, or location within scholarly literature
Organization Lacks clear, transparent organization. Characterized by lack of flow and coherence
Clear, transparent organization. Characterized by coherence and flow within sections. Transitions may be formulaic or mechanical.
Organized conceptually rather than formulaically. Consistent coherence and flow. Transitions move beyond the formulaic or mechanical.
Rhetorical Knowledge
Suggests a lack of awareness of rhetorical situation
Demonstrates an awareness of subject, audience, occasion, and purpose. Stylistic choices are appropriate for rhetorical situation.
Consistent voice (style, tone, and point of view appropriate to subject, audience, occasion, and purpose).
Use of Sources Inappropriate sources that may be poorly integrated. May not consistently give appropriate credit.
Uses appropriate scholarly sources that are well integrated in the essay. Sources are properly introduced. Gives appropriate credit for sources.
Engages the sources. Demonstrates exceptional depth of research, such as primary research data, primary documents, or visual sources.
Knowledge of Conventions
Inconsistent in following standards of EAE and citation style.
Generally follows accepted standards of edited American English and details of appropriate citation style.
Consistent in following standards of edited American English and details of appropriate citation style.
Notes (only for elements of an essay that aren’t covered by the rubric):
Overall Scores by Standard
17%
46%
37%exceeds
meets
fails
6 papers
19 papers
16 papers
N = 41
53%
34%
13%
Trait – Knowledge of Conventions
5 papers
22 papers
14 papers
N = 41
Trait - Organization
12%
40%
48%EXCEEDS
MEETS
FAILS
5 papers
16 papers20 papers
N = 41
Trait – Rhetorical Knowledge
21%
38%
41% EXCEEDS
MEETS
FAILS
8 papers
16 papers
17 papers
N = 41
Trait - Thesis
23%
51%
26%
EXCEEDS
MEETS
FAILS
9 papers
21 papers
11 papers
N = 41
Trait – Correct Use of Sources
16%
46%
38%
EXCEEDS
MEETS
FAILS
7 papers
18 papers
16 papers
N = 41
All Traits
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
knowconventions
organization rhetoricalknowledge
thesis use ofsources
EXCEEDS
MEETS
FAILS
N = 41
Reader Agreement
Agree 1 Split 2 Split
Conventions 41.46% 51.22% 7.32%
Organization 46.34% 51.22% 2.44%
Rhetorical Knowledge 39.02% 53.66% 7.32%
Thesis 46.34% 48.78% 4.88%
Sources 43.90% 75.61% 4.88%
OVERALL 43.41% 56.10% 5.37%
Reader Agreement
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Conventions Organization RhetoricalKnowledge
Thesis Sources OVERALL
2 Split
1 Split
Agree
Critical Thinking Critical Thinking AssessmentAssessment
Critical Thinking Readers
• Bill Baker, Management Communications• Ralph Brown, Sociology • Valerie Hegstrom, Spanish & Portuguese • John Lamb, General Education & Chemistry• Hal Miller, Psychology• Karen Pierotti, General Education• Robert Seegmiller, Physiology & Developmental
Biology
CRITICAL THINKING RUBRIC
TraitFails Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard NA
1 2 3 4 5 6
Main idea/claim/ argument/hypothesis
● lacks clarity & focus● fails to clarify
● articulates clearly at early point & once thereafter
● sustains the argument● maintains focus on theme● offers insightful, sophisticated point of view
Evidence● lacks sufficient evidence● citations improperly applied/ inappropriate
● uses appropriate, sufficient, relevant evidence ● cites sources properly
● makes effective use of strong, well-placed, extensive, and relevant resources
Logic
● uses weak, narrow, shallow argumentation● does not make connections● does not recognize assumptions, inferences● uses faulty logic
●demonstrates reasonable development, discernible connections, coherent thinking● recognizes assumptions/ inferences● brings argument to a logical conclusion
● achieves strongly reasoned development● provides analysis of assumptions or inferences● makes strong connections● provides compelling commentary or synthesis
Alternative Points of View
● presents biased, unbalance, or narrow thinking● reflects poor awareness of critical context
● presents counterarguments/ alternatives● recognizes weakness(es) of own viewpoint● shows sensitivity to other perspective
● locates argument within current critical discourse (context)● reflects mature balance in point of view
Trait - IdeasMain idea/claim/argument/hypothesis
68%
27%
5%
Exceeds
Meets
Fails
Not Applicable
1 paper
2 papers
8 papers
N = 11
Trait - Evidence
63%
5%
32% Exceeds
Meets
Fails
Not Applicable
1 paper
7 papers3 papers
N = 11
Trait – Logic/Assumptions
9%
32%59%
Exceeds
Meets
Fails
1 paper
3 papers
7 papers
N = 11
Trait – Alternative Points of View
32%
59%
9%
0%
Exceeds
Meets
Fails
N/A
1 paper
3 papers
7 papers
N = 11
All Traits
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ideas Evidence Logic/Assumptions
CounterArguments
Exceeds
Meets
Fails
Not Applicable
All Traits: Writing & Critical Thinking
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ideas Evidence Logic/Assumptions
CounterArguments
Exceeds
Meets
Fails
Not Applicable
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
knowconventions
organization rhetoricalknowledge
thesis use ofsources
EXCEEDS
MEETS
FAILS
Writing Critical Thinking
N = 41 N = 11
Critical Critical Thinking & Thinking &
Writing Writing Assessment Assessment
In the futureIn the future
Assessment via Final Exams
Collecting final exam information during FGEC Reviews
A copy of a final exam Student performance on final exam
Purpose Verify that the exams line up with the foundation documents and
learning outcomes.
Assessment via Advanced Writing
During Fall and Winter semesters, the GE office will collect about 150 papers from different departments who teach advanced writing.
Paper Criteria 1. Single-author papers and some collaborative papers (when using
collaborative papers we would need to know how the collaboration was set up for the collaborative groups.)
2. A paper using library resources that has real research associated with it
3. The paper should be about 8-15 pages long, double-spaced. 4. There should be no mark up on the papers by instructors 5. Preferably the paper should be in electronic format (Word
program is preferred.)
Assessment via Advanced Writing
Course Choice GE office will collect papers from various departments
– 75% of the papers will come from different sections of courses in the English, Philosophy and Management Communication departments;
– the other 25% will come from other departments that teach only one or two sections of a course, e.g. Chem 391.
Choosing Papers GE Office will request a chosen course’s class roll to randomly pick
5 juniors or seniors in the course GE will provide release/permissions sheets to the chosen students
so we have permission to use their papers for the study.
Assessment via Advanced Writing
Submitting the Papers Electronically to Karen Pierotti, Administrative Assistant, General
Education
Distribution of Papers to Assessment Committee Student’s name, instructor’s name, and course will be eliminated
from the paper Paper will receive a number before it is given to the committee
Assessment During spring term, two committees will assess the papers for
writing and critical thinking
GE Web Site
Statistical Results Annotated copies of papers for both
writing & critical thinking
Writing AssessmentWRITING &WRITING &
CRITICAL THINKINGCRITICAL THINKING
ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT