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.
