CWU Writing Assessment

Why?
To improve student learning.
Why?
To improve student learning.
To improve student writing across campus.
Why?
To improve student learning.
To improve student writing across campus.
Identify student strengths and weaknesses.
Why?
To improve student learning.
To improve student writing across campus.
Identify student strengths and weaknesses.
Identify the need for resources, including faculty
development.
Why?
To improve student learning.
To improve student writing across campus.
Identify student strengths and weaknesses.
Identify the need for resources, including faculty
development.
Develop some common assessments for writing.
Why?
To improve student learning.
To improve student writing across campus.
Identify student strengths and weaknesses.
Identify the need for resources, including faculty
development.
Develop some common assessments for writing.
To provide a foundation for a Writing Across the
Curriculum program.
Why?
To improve student learning.
To improve student writing across campus.
Identify student strengths and weaknesses.
Identify the need for resources, including faculty
development.
Develop some common assessments for writing.
To provide a foundation for a Writing Across the
Curriculum program.
Okay, we also need to satisfy the NWCCU.
Time Line
May 2010
 Introduction of rubric and plan for assessing writing
Time Line
May 2010
 Introduction of rubric and plan for assessing writing

2010-11 Academic Year

Each department with W courses will assess at least one
section of one W course.
Time Line
May 2010
 Introduction of rubric and plan for assessing writing

2010-11 Academic Year

Each department with W courses will assess at least one
section of one W course.
Optional norming session(s)
Time Line
May 2010
 Introduction of rubric and plan for assessing writing

2010-11 Academic Year

Each department with W courses will assess at least one
section of one W course.
Optional norming session(s)
Optional assessment of writing in the disciplines (e.g.
capstone courses)
Time Line
May 2010
 Introduction of rubric and plan for assessing writing
2010-11 Academic Year
Each department with W courses will assess at least one
section of one W course.
Optional norming session(s)
Optional assessment of writing in the disciplines (e.g.
capstone courses)
June 2011 (or possibly Sept. 2011)
Writing assessment results included in annual
assessment report.
Possibilities
Embedded assessment
Possibilities
Embedded assessment
Individual instructors can assess a sample of papers.
Possibilities
Embedded assessment
Individual instructors can assess a sample of papers.
Rubric can be, but need not be used for grading.
Possibilities
Embedded assessment
Individual instructors can assess a sample of papers.
Rubric can be, but need not be used for grading.

External group assessment

Possibilities
Embedded assessment
Individual instructors can assess a sample of papers.
Rubric can be, but need not be used for grading.

External group assessment

Two readers increase validity and reliability.
Possibilities
Embedded assessment
Individual instructors can assess a sample of papers.
Rubric can be, but need not be used for grading.

External group assessment

Two readers increase validity and reliability.
Exchange of ideas across disciplines.
Possibilities
Embedded assessment
Individual instructors can assess a sample of papers.
Rubric can be, but need not be used for grading.

External group assessment

Two readers increase validity and reliability.
Exchange of ideas across disciplines.
Object of assessment is student writing, not departments.
Possibilities
Embedded assessment
Individual instructors can assess a sample of papers.
Rubric can be, but need not be used for grading.

External group assessment

Two readers increase validity and reliability.
Exchange of ideas across disciplines.
Object of assessment is student writing, not departments.
Getting it over with.
Possibilities
Embedded assessment
Individual instructors can assess a sample of papers.
Rubric can be, but need not be used for grading.

External group assessment

Two readers increase validity and reliability.
Exchange of ideas across disciplines.
Object of assessment is student writing, not departments.
Getting it over with.
Tracy might buy lunch.
Who will use the data?
Departments
Colleges
Undergraduate Studies
Writing Across the Curriculum Committee
Faculty Senate General Education Committee
Writing Center and English Department
The Rubric
Adapted from a rubric used for Intermediate writing
assessment and Senior writing assessment 1997-2001.
Also used for the Washington State Senior Writing
Survey.
The Rubric
Adapted from a rubric used for Intermediate writing
assessment and Senior writing assessment 1997-2001.
Also used for the Washington State Senior Writing
Survey.
Descriptors have been added to aid in identifying a
weak paper.
The Rubric
Adapted from a rubric used for Intermediate writing
assessment and Senior writing assessment 1997-2001.
Also used for the Washington State Senior Writing
Survey.
Descriptors have been added to aid in identifying a
weak paper.
Changed from a four-point scale to Pass/No Pass for
simplicity.
The Rubric
Adapted from a rubric used for Intermediate writing
assessment and Senior writing assessment 1997-2001.
Also used for the Washington State Senior Writing
Survey.
Descriptors have been added to aid in identifying a
weak paper.
Changed from a four-point scale to Pass/No Pass for
simplicity.
Upon request, a rubric using a three- or four-point
scale can be provided to departments.
Previous results
High inter-rater reliability among faculty from History,
Family and Consumer Sciences, Chemistry, Physics,
and English.
Previous results
High inter-rater reliability among faculty from History,
Family and Consumer Sciences, Chemistry, Physics,
and English.
Identified relative weaknesses in Reasoning and
Conventions/Presentation.
Previous results
High inter-rater reliability among faculty from History,
Family and Consumer Sciences, Chemistry, Physics,
and English.
Identified relative weaknesses in Reasoning and
Conventions/Presentation.
Used to support creation of Writing Center.
Previous results
High inter-rater reliability among faculty from History,
Family and Consumer Sciences, Chemistry, Physics,
and English.
Identified relative weaknesses in Reasoning and
Conventions/Presentation.
Used to support creation of Writing Center.
Informed revisions to English 101 and 102 outcomes.