1 / 32

CWU Writing Assessment

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?.

doriang
Download Presentation

CWU Writing Assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CWU Writing Assessment

  2. Why? • To improve student learning.

  3. Why? • To improve student learning. • To improve student writing across campus.

  4. Why? • To improve student learning. • To improve student writing across campus. • Identify student strengths and weaknesses.

  5. Why? • To improve student learning. • To improve student writing across campus. • Identify student strengths and weaknesses. • Identify the need for resources, including faculty development.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Time Line May 2010 • Introduction of rubric and plan for assessing writing

  10. 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.

  11. 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)

  12. 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)

  13. 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.

  14. Possibilities Embedded assessment

  15. Possibilities Embedded assessment • Individual instructors can assess a sample of papers.

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

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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. Who will use the data? • Departments • Colleges • Undergraduate Studies • Writing Across the Curriculum Committee • Faculty Senate General Education Committee • Writing Center and English Department

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. Previous results • High inter-rater reliability among faculty from History, Family and Consumer Sciences, Chemistry, Physics, and English.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

More Related