report of written communication assessment, 2014-2016 · written communication assessment...

ReportonAssessmentofWrittenCommunicationOctober2016 1

Report of Written Communication Assessment, 2014-2016

Submitted October 2016

Prepared by Dr. Rebecca Ertel, Office of Academic Planning and Assessment for with the

Senate General Education and Writing-Across-the-Curriculum Committee

General Education Written Communication Outcome Overview

The written communication component of CSU’s general education curriculum has the following learning outcome and sub-outcomes:

Outcome: Students communicate effectively • Students are able to communicate in standard English • Students are able to write in expository, descriptive & argumentative styles • Students are able to utilize current technology to communicate

To achieve this outcome, students complete a required core of two sequential composition courses, English 1100 or 1101 and English 1102. English 1100 and 1101 focus on informative writing and have the same learning outcomes, but English 1100 is an intensive version of the course that carries an additional credit hour and includes instruction in reading. Students are placed in either English 1100 or 1101 based on their ACT composite scores. Students with ACT composite scores of less than 18 are placed in English 1100. English 1102, the second course in the sequence, focuses on argumentative writing and research. English 1100, 1101, and 1102 meet Ohio’s transfer module and transfer and articulation guidelines.

Beginning in the fall semester of 2014, in addition to these 1000-level courses, the University implemented its newly adopted writing-across-the-curriculum program. As part of this initiative, all general education courses must include at least 1200 words of written work and stress the conventions and expectations of writing in the academic, business, and professional settings. In addition, because the general education learning outcomes are also institutional learning outcomes, the WAC program assures that instruction and practice in achieving proficiency in written communication extends into the majors by requiring two upper-division writing intensive courses within each major, one at the 3000-level and one at the 4000-leve.

In conjunction with the adoption of a new WAC program, the University also revised and enhanced its assessment of written communication to include two new direct assessments of student writing to be used in addition to the University’s already required course assessment forms. The first, the signature assignment, consists of writing samples collected from English 1100, 1101, 1102, and, beginning in spring semester of 2015, the required upper division writing intensive courses. The second is based on faculty assessments of selected assignments within faculty course


portfolios. Along with these samples of student work, the faculty course portfolios include a course narrative with the instructor’s analysis and reflections, the required course assessment form, and the course syllabus.

The signature assignment assessment was piloted during the spring 2014 semester. The experience from the pilot administration guided this first “official” administration of the signature assessment during the 2014-2015 academic year.

Because a limited number of writing intensive courses were offered in spring 2015, an insufficient number of samples was collected and the assessment of written communication in writing intensive courses was conducted again in spring 2016. The data from 2016 is provided in this report.

Written Communication Assessment Description: Fall Semester, 2014

Signature Assignments

Writing samples were collected from students enrolled in English 1100 and 1101 during fall semester 2014. The samples were scored by the instructor of the section from which they were taken and a member of the Written Communication Faculty Learning Community. The two scores were averaged to produce a final score for the sample. If cases where the scores differed by more than one level on the rubric, the sample was scored by a third reader and the two matching scores were averaged to produce the final score.

Samples were not returned from three sections of English 1100; in two cases, these sections were taught by newly hired adjuncts who missed the assessment training, and in one case by a full-time faculty member who suffered a serious medical issue and was later replaced as the instructor of record.

The essays were assessed using a modified version of the American Association of Colleges and University’s VALUE rubric for written communication. Prior to conducting the assessment, a calibration session was held for the scorers using writing samples from the spring, 2014 pilot assessment. The percent of agreement on the category scores was .85, above the .7 thresh hold generally accepted to establish reliability (Jonsson and Svingby, 2007).

Of the 277 samples collected, 239 were scored. Thirty-eight (38) were discarded either because they did not respond to the prompt, were illegible, or were too short to be scored.

Faculty Course Portfolios

Course portfolios were collected from five instructors during fall semester 2014, four teaching English 1100 and one teaching English 1102. The qualitative data


from the Course Portfolios is used along with the quantitative data from the Signature Assignments to provide recommendations for improving the curriculum and instruction for the Effective Written Communication learning outcome.

Findings

Discussion of Findings by Category Score

As expected, the Fall 2014 assessment of Signature Assignments found that students in English 1100 and 1101 scored primarily 1’s and 2’s on the CSU modified version of the Written Communication VALUE rubric indicating that the majority begin their composition courses performing at the Benchmark or Milestone 1 levels.

101 samples, 42% of the 239 scored, received a composite score of one (1), the Benchmark category. This compares to 45% in the spring pilot study. 124 samples, 52%, received a composite score of two (2), the Milestone One category. This compares to 47% in the pilot study. Fifteen samples, 6%, received a composite score of three (3). Only one sample, less than 1%, received a score of 3 in the pilot study.

Based on the spring pilot, the faculty established Category 1 as the benchmark for students entering English 1100 and 1101. These results, with some modest variability, are consistent with the results of the 2014 pilot, confirming that most students begin their first composition course at the Category 1 or Benchmark level.

Category Scores for Eng. 1100

Of the 185 samples scored from sections of English 1100, seventy-nine (79) samples, 43%, received a composite score of one (1), the Benchmark category. This compares to 45% in the spring pilot study. Ninty-six (96) samples, 52%, received a composite score of two (2), the Milestone One category. This compares to 55% in the pilot study. Ten (10) samples, 5%, received a composite score of three (3). Only sample, less than 1%, received a score of 3 in the spring pilot.

Category Scores for English 1101

Of the 54 samples scored from sections of English 1101, 22 samples, 41%, received a composite score of one (1), the Benchmark category. This compares to 57% in the spring pilot study and 43% in the fall sections of English 1100. Twenty-seven (27) samples, 50%, received a composite score of two (2), the Milestone One category. This compares to 55% in the pilot study and 52% in English 1100. Five (5) samples, 9%, received a composite score of three (3). Less than 1%, received a score of 3 in the spring pilot and 5% of the samples from English 1100 in fall received a 3 score.


ScoresbyRubricCategoryDistributedbyCourse1100 N=185 1101 N=54 N Category Percent N Category Percent79 1 43% 22 1 41%96 2 52% 27 2 50%10 3 5.0% 5 3 9.0%0 4 0.0% 0 4 0.0%

Table1.

English 1100 and 1101 Pre and Post Comparison

Samples were also collected for comparison from 71 students enrolled in spring semester 2015 sections of English 1102. During the first two weeks of the semester, these students were asked to respond to the same prompt used to obtain the samples they wrote in their English 1100 or 1101 courses in the fall 2014 semester.

The sample scores showed students achieved insignificant gains in Category score during their first writing course. Scores for 9 of the 49 students who completed English 1100 improved by one category, while scores for 10 of the 24 students who completed English 1101 improved by one category. Given the design of the rubric, this finding is not surprising; the four point scale is not designed to capture small, incremental gains.

Discussion of English 1100 , 1101 Sub-Scores

The median for all sub-scores is 1.5. Mean scores suggest that students in both English 1100 and 1101 are modestly stronger in the areas of context and purpose and development. Students’ weakest average scores are in the area of using sources and evidence. These results are consistent with the spring pilot study.

Students entering English 1102 had a median score of 1.5 for all categories except content and purpose. The composite score of students entering 1102 showed a very modest gain from 1.5 to 1.6. Entering English 1102, the students’ weakest sub-score mean is in the area of Using Sources and Evidence. These results are consistent with the spring pilot study.


English1100Sub-Scores,Fall2014

Table2.


Table3.


Table4.


In general, these findings reinforce the observations made by faculty in their course portfolios.

Discussion of Findings By Placement Standard

Beginning in 2010, entering students have been placed into either English 1100 or English 1101 based on their ACT English or SAT composite scores. Results of the 2013-2014 pilot assessment show that a student’s ACT English score, the measure used to place most students, has a high degree of correlation with the student’s performance on the signature assignment when sampled in English 1100 or 1101. The number of samples from students placed based on their SAT score was too small to yield useful information, so was not analyzed.

Figure5:WrittenCommunicationCompositeandACTEnglishScores

One issue noted in the report of the spring pilot assessment was a high rate of misplacement. Data from the Signature Assignment suggest that correct placement correlated well with performance on the assessment. Students who were correctly placed in English 1101 and 1100 performed better than students who were incorrectly placed. Since the Signature Assignments were written during the first week of classes, this result cannot be explained by instruction.

Written Communication Assessment Description: Spring Semesters 2015/2016

Signature Assignments

Writing samples were collected from students enrolled in English 1102 in spring 2015 and 11 upper-division writing intensive courses during spring semester 2016. The samples were scored by the instructor of the course and a member of the Written Communication Faculty Learning Community. The two scores were averaged to produce a final score for the sample. To improve inter-rater reliability, if the two scores differed by more than one category on the rubric, the sample was

0

10

20

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59

WrittenCommunicationCompositeAssessmentandACTEngScores

ACTENG CombinedAvgScore


scored by a third reader and the two nearest composite scores were averaged to produce the final score.

The samples were assessed using a modified version of the American Association of Colleges and University’s VALUE rubric for written communication. Prior to conducting the assessment, a calibration session was held for the scorers using writing samples from the spring, 2014 pilot assessment. The percent of agreement on the composite score is .79, above the .7 thresh hold generally accepted to establish reliability (Jonsson and Svingby, 2007).

Description of English 1102 Samples

174 samples were collected from 245 students enrolled in English 1102 during spring semester 2015. 9 samples were discarded because they were either too short to score or illegible. 165 samples were scored.

English1102Scores,Spring2015

Table5.

Discussion of Samples from English 1102, Spring 2015

Median category scores ranged from 1.8 in Content and Purpose to 1.5 in Syntax and Mechanics. Entering English 1102, the students’ weakest sub-scores were Syntax and Mechanics and Sources and Evidence. These areas remain the students’ weakest in the 1102 sample. These results are consistent with the spring pilot study. The mean composite score for the sample is 2, reflecting no gain between English 1100/1101 and 1102, also consistent with the pilot results.

Description of Samples from Writing Intensive Courses, Spring 2016

The number of samples collected from writing intensive courses during spring 2015 was small for several reasons. Most significantly, only 28 of the 34 major programs submitted samples. Of the six programs which submitted samples, a significant number of the students from which samples were collected were not graduating


seniors. Due to the small sample size, samples were collected and score in spring 2016.

Description of Spring 2016 Writing Intensive Sample

Samples were collected from 68 seniors enrolled in 11 upper-division writing intensive courses during spring semester 2016. 14 samples were discarded because they were either were not within the word count specified for scoring or were illegible. 54 samples were scored.

WritingIntensiveCoursesSpring2016

Table6

Discussion of Samples from Writing Intensive Upper Division Courses

Mean and median category scores show little variability, ranging from 2.5 in the Syntax and Mechanics and Sources and Evidence categories to 2.6 in the remaining categories. The Syntax and Mechanics and Sources and Evidence sub-scores are also the lowest sub-score areas in the samples from first-year students. The mean composite score for the sample is 3 compared to 2 for the sample from first-year students.

Recommendations

Improve instruction in the areas of using sources and evidence and grammar and mechanics.

Increase emphasis on writing in major programs.

Increase student awareness of the importance of writing.


References

Jonsson, A. & Gunilla, S. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability,

validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review,

2, 130–144

Stoddart, T., Abrams, R., Gasper, E., & Canaday, D. (2000). Concept maps

as assessment in science inquiry learning—A report of methodology.

International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1221–1246


Appendix A

CentralStateUniversity

English1100:IntroductiontoWritingandReadingforCollege(5)

CourseSyllabus

CatalogDescriptions:

ENG.1100IntroductiontoWritingandReadingforCollege(5credits,I,II):AnintensiveintroductiontowritingandreadingforCollege.Studentswillreadliteraryandnon-literarytextsandcomposeessaysthatdemonstrateproficiencyincollegelevelwritingandmechanics.Atleastonepaperwillbeareader-responseessaybasedonaliterarytext.Studentswillalsobeintroducedtothebasicprinciplesofdocumentationandwriteoneessayusingdocumentation.Lecture/discussionperiodswillfocusondiscussionsofassignedreadingsandintroducingtheconventionsofacademicprose,includingelementsofStandardEnglishgrammarandmechanics.Individualizedandsmall-groupworkonthewritingprocessincluded.RequiredofstudentswhoseperformanceontheEnglishPlacementTestindicatesaneedforintensivewritinginstruction.EquivalenttoEnglish1101forgeneraleducationrequirements.

Textbooks:

Maimon,ElaineP.andJaniceH.Peritz.WritingIntensive:EssentialsforCollegeWriters.Boston:McGrawHill,2009,2007.Print.

ConnectWriting2.0.Boston:McGrawHill,2013.Online.

LearningOutcomes

1. Recognizeelementsthatcontributetorhetoricalsituations,includingpurpose,audience,stance,andappropriateconventions.

2. Criticallyexaminepersonalviewsincomparison/contrastwiththoseexploredintexts.3. Identify,analyze,anddiscussthemesandstructuresoftexts.4. Applytheprocessofwritingthroughdrafting,revising,andediting,attimesin

collaborationwithothers.5. Applywritingprocesstoproduceeffectiveandfullydevelopedessays.6. Usecorrectgrammar,sentencestructure,andpunctuation.7. Exploreadiverserangeofauthors,cultures,andperspectives.8. Useelectronicenvironmentstodraftandpublishworkwherepossible.

Policies/Requirements:

1. Writeacombinationofessays,annotatedbibliographies,and/orshortercompositionsofformalwritingthatisroughlyequivalenttotwentypages.

2. Writeonesource-supportedessayfollowingtheMLAformat.


3. Completeallassignmentsaccordingtoscheduledduedates,includingallassignmentsfromConnectWriting2.0.TheConnectWriting2.0assignmentsshouldtotalatleast10%ofthefinalgrade.

4. Participateinallclassdiscussions,activities,andassignments.5. Takethedepartmentalfinalexaminationattheprescribedtime.6. Avoidplagiarism.Plagiarism,thesubmittingofanotherstudent’sworkormaterialfromother

printedsourcesasone’sownwork,mayresultinthegradeof"F"forthepaperorforthecourseitself.

7. Attendclassontimeregularly.Studentsareresponsibleforobtainingmaterials,assignments,andinformationgivenonmissedclassdays.

8. InstructorsmaydevelopandenforceotherpoliciesconsistentwiththecurrentCSUcoursecatalog,departmentalguidelines,andstandardacademicpractices.Veteraninstructorsmaypickanalternatesupplementaltextbook.

CriteriaforGrading:

Thegradefortheclasswillbedeterminedbythestudent’slevelofcompetenceinclassassignmentsandactivities,homework,tests,quizzes,andessays.InstructorsmaydevelopandenforceattendanceandotherpoliciesconsistentwiththecurrentCSUcoursecatalogandDepartmentalguidelines.

Eachinstructorwilldevelopacoursesectionsyllabusthatdiscussesspecificmethodsofdelivery,topics,activities,andassignments.Thefinalexamwillcountasatleast10%ofthefinalgrade.ENG1100usestheuniversity’sA-FandIgradingscale.

AmericanswithDisabilitiesCompliance:CentralStateUniversityiscommittedtoincludingstudentswithdisabilitiesasfullparticipantsinitsprograms,services,andactivitiesthroughcompliancewithSection504oftheRehabilitationActof1973andtheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA)of1990.Ifyouareastudentwithadocumenteddisabilitypleasecall

Dr.WandaHadleyat937-376-6479todiscussyourcourseaccommodations.

Knowledge,Skills,andDispositions

Atthecompletionofthecoursethestudentwilldemonstrateknowledge,skills,anddispositionsasfollows:

Knowledge:

1. Explainthetheme,structure,andmeaningofliteraryandnon-literarytexts.2. Knowhowtodevelopathesis.3. Explaintherelationshipbetweendetailsandthemesoftexts.4. Understandwhatconstitutesevidenceandhowtodeterminethemosteffective

form.5. Developtheabilitytoproduceeditedwritingaccordingtotheconventionsof

StandardAmericanEnglish.6. Understandhowtodocumentprimaryandsecondarysourcesinessays.


7. Identify,analyzeanddiscussthemesandstructuresofliteraryandnon-literarytexts.

Skills:8.Defendthemesbyidentifyingvalidsupportingideasandevidence.

9.Writeeffectivethesisstatements.

10.Writeeffective,fullydeveloped,andorganizedessays.

11.Synthesizeideasfromreadingsintootheractivitiesandwriting.

12.Useanddocumentsecondarysources.

13.Useamoreextensive,sophisticatedvocabulary.

14.Writeforclarity,organization,anddevelopment.

15.Usecorrectgrammar,sentencestructure,andpunctuation.

Dispositions:16.Understandandappreciateavarietyofliteraryandnon-literarytexts.

17.Examinepersonalviewsincomparison/contrastwiththoseexploredintexts.

18.Exploreadiverserangeofauthors,cultures,andperspectives.

19.Learntherelationshipbetweenliteratureandlife/universaltruths.

20.Understandtheimportanceofeffectivewrittencommunication.

21.Developconfidenceinrespondingtooral/writtenprompts.

22.Understandtheimportanceofdocumentation.


CentralStateUniversity

English1101:IntroductiontoWritingforCollege(4)

CourseSyllabus

CatalogDescriptions:

ENG.1101(4credits,1,II,III)IntroductiontoWritingforCollege:Informativewritingbasedonliteraryandnon-literarytexts.Studentswillcomposeessaysthatdemonstrateproficiencyincollege-levelwritingandmechanics.Atleastonepaperwillbeareader-responseessaybasedonaliterarytext.Studentswillalsobeintroducedtothebasicprinciplesofdocumentationandwriteoneessayusingdocumentation.Individualizedandsmall-groupworkonthewritingprocessincluded.

Textbooks:


Kennedy,X.J.,BedfordGuideforCollegeWriterswithReader,NinthEdition.NewYork:Bedford/St.Martin’s,2011.Print.

LearningOutcomes

1. Recognizeelementsthatcontributetorhetoricalsituations,includingpurpose,audience,stance,andappropriateconventions.

2. Criticallyexaminepersonalviewsincomparison/contrastwiththoseexploredintexts.3. Identify,analyze,anddiscussthemesandstructuresoftexts.4. Applytheprocessofwritingthroughdrafting,revising,andediting,attimesin

collaborationwithothers.5. Applywritingprocesstoproduceeffectiveandfullydevelopedessays.6. Usecorrectgrammar,sentencestructure,andpunctuation.7. Exploreadiverserangeofauthors,cultures,andperspectives.8. Useelectronicenvironmentstodraftandpublishworkwherepossible.

Policies/Requirements:

1. Writeacombinationofessays,annotatedbibliographies,and/orshortercompositionsofformalwritingthatisroughlyequivalenttotwentypages.

2. Writeonesource-supportedessayfollowingtheMLAformat.3. Completeallassignmentsaccordingtoscheduledduedates.4. Participateinallclassdiscussions,activities,andassignments.5. Takethedepartmentalfinalexaminationattheprescribedtime.6. Avoidplagiarism.Plagiarism,thesubmittingofanotherstudent’sworkormaterialfromother

printedsourcesasone’sownwork,mayresultinthegradeof"F"forthepaperorforthecourseitself.


7. Attendclassontimeregularly.Studentsareresponsibleforobtainingmaterials,assignments,andinformationgivenonmissedclassdays.

8. InstructorsmaydevelopandenforceotherpoliciesconsistentwiththecurrentCSUcoursecatalog,departmentalguidelines,andstandardacademicpractices.Veteraninstructorsmaypickanalternatesupplementaltextbook.

CriteriaforGrading:

Thegradefortheclasswillbedeterminedbythestudent’slevelofcompetenceinclassassignmentsandactivities,homework,tests,quizzes,andessays.InstructorsmaydevelopandenforceattendanceandotherpoliciesconsistentwiththecurrentCSUcoursecatalogandDepartmentalguidelines.

Eachinstructorwilldevelopacoursesectionsyllabusthatdiscussesspecificmethodsofdelivery,topics,activities,andassignments.Thefinalexamwillcountasatleast10%ofthefinalgrade.ENG1100usestheuniversity’sA-FandIgradingscale.

AmericanswithDisabilitiesCompliance:CentralStateUniversityiscommittedtoincludingstudentswithdisabilitiesasfullparticipantsinitsprograms,services,andactivitiesthroughcompliancewithSection504oftheRehabilitationActof1973andtheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA)of1990.Ifyouareastudentwithadocumenteddisabilitypleasecall

Dr.WandaHadleyat937-376-6479todiscussyourcourseaccommodations.


Atthecompletionofthecoursethestudentwilldemonstrateknowledge,skills,anddispositionsasfollows:

1. Knowledge:

2. Explainthetheme,structure,andmeaningofliteraryandnon-literarytexts.3. Knowhowtodevelopathesis.4. Explaintherelationshipbetweendetailsandthemesoftexts.5. Understandwhatconstitutesevidenceandhowtodeterminethemosteffectiveform.6. DeveloptheabilitytoproduceeditedwritingaccordingtotheconventionsofStandard

AmericanEnglish.7. Understandhowtodocumentprimaryandsecondarysourcesinessays.8. Identify,analyzeanddiscussthemesandstructuresofliteraryandnon-literarytexts.

Skills:

1. Defendthemesbyidentifyingvalidsupportingideasandevidence.2. Writeeffectivethesisstatements.3. Writeeffective,fullydeveloped,andorganizedessays.4. Synthesizeideasfromreadingsintootheractivitiesandwriting.5. Useanddocumentsecondarysources.6. Useamoreextensive,sophisticatedvocabulary.


7. Writeforclarity,organization,anddevelopment.8. Usecorrectgrammar,sentencestructure,andpunctuation.

Dispositions:

1. Understandandappreciateavarietyofliteraryandnon-literarytexts.2. Examinepersonalviewsincomparison/contrastwiththoseexploredintexts.3. Exploreadiverserangeofauthors,cultures,andperspectives.4. Learntherelationshipbetweenliteratureandlife/universaltruths.5. Understandtheimportanceofeffectivewrittencommunication.6. Developconfidenceinrespondingtooral/writtenprompts.7. Understandtheimportanceofdocumentation.


CentralStateUniversityEnglish1102:WritingandResearchingtheEssay

CourseSyllabus

CatalogDescription

ENG1102(4credits,I,II,III)WritingandResearchingtheEssay:Research-basedargumentativeandanalyticalwritingusinglibraryandInternetsources.Studentswillcontinuetodevelopproficiencyincollege-levelwritingandmechanics.Theywillwritebriefessaysandatleastonelongerresearchpaper,properlyformatted,usingbothprintandelectronicsources.Theresearchpaperwillbeorientedtowardthestudent’smajorfieldorareaofinterest.CourseincludesreviewfortheEnglishProficiencyexam.Prerequisite:GradeofCoraboveinENG1100or1101orequivalent.

Textbooks


Lunsford,AndreaA.AndJohnJ.Ruszkiewicz.Everything’sanArgument.Boston:Bedford/St.Martin’s,2009.Print.

LearningOutcomes

1. Analyzeargumentativestrategiesandrhetoricalappeals.2. Developappropriateargumentativestrategiesandrhetoricalappealsinessays.3. Find,evaluate,andusesourcesasrecommendedbyacademicmajororareaofinterest.4. Writeunifiedandcoherentanalyticalandpersuasiveessays.5. Applytheprocessofwritingthroughdrafting,revising,andediting,attimesincollaboration

withothers.6. Employtextualconventionsforincorporatingideasfromsources.7. Achieveproficiencyinthetoolsofresearch,includingprintdocuments,scholarlydatabases,general

databases,andinformalInternetsources.8. Usecorrectgrammar,sentencestructure,andpunctuation.

Policies/Requirements

1.ToenrollinENG1102,studentsmusthaveearnedagradeof"C"oraboveinENG1101orequivalent

2.Writeacombinationofessays,annotatedbibliographies,and/orshortercompositionsofformalwritingthatisroughlyequivalenttotwentypages.

3.Writeafullydeveloped,fullydocumentedresearchpaper,proceedingfromroughdraftstofinalform.

4.Consultwithfacultyinthemajordepartmentsforrecommendedsources.

5.Studysampleessaysfordiscussionofideasandwritingmodels.

6.Scheduleatleasttwoconferenceswiththeinstructor.Conferencescanbeindividualorinsmallgroups.

7.Attendclassontime.Studentsareresponsibleforfindingout,ontheirown,thematerialforclassesmissed.


8.Avoidplagiarism.Plagiarism,thesubmittingofanother'sworkormaterialfromotherprintedsourcesasone'sownworkmayresultinthegradeof"F"forthepaperorforthecourseitself.

9.Taketherequireddepartmentalfinalexamattheprescribedtime.

10.Achieveskillsandcompleteallworkbytheendofthesemester.

11.InstructorsmaydevelopandenforceotherpoliciesconsistentwiththecurrentCSUcatalog,departmentalguidelinesandstandardacademicpractices.Veteraninstructorsmaypickanalternatesupplementaltextbook.

CriteriaforGrading:Thefinalgradewillbedeterminedbythelevelofcompetenceinthewritinganddiscussionrequiredinthecourse,masteryofproperdocumentation(s)asrequiredbymajorarea,andclassattendanceandparticipation.Eachinstructorwilldevelopacoursesectionsyllabusthatdiscussesspecificmethodsofdelivery,topics,activities,andassignments.Thefinalexamwillcountasatleast10%ofthefinalgrade.

ENG1102usestheuniversity’sA-FandIgradingscale.

AmericanswithDisabilitiesCompliance:CentralStateUniversityiscommittedtoincludingstudentswithdisabilitiesasfullparticipantsinitsprograms,services,andactivitiesthroughcompliancewithSection504oftheRehabilitationActof1973andtheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA)of1990.IfyouareastudentwithadocumenteddisabilitypleasecallDr.WandaHadleyat937-376-6479todiscussyourcourseaccommodations.


Atthecompletionofthiscoursethestudentwilldemonstrateknowledge,skills,anddispositionsasfollows:

Knowledge(whatyoucanexplainand/orteachtoothers)

1.Understandthevariousmodesofwriting(exposition,description,andargumentation)usedinresearchwriting.

2.Explaintherelationshipbetweenthethesisandtherestoftheresearchpaper.

3.Describethetechniquesofargumentation.

4.Refuteadversarialpositions.

5.Describeproperdocumentationasrequiredbymajorarea.

6.Communicateawarenessofissues.

Skills(tasksyoucanperform):

1. Readandthinkcritically.2. Analyzeargumentativeissues.3. Relateinformationinessaystoone’sownacademicmajororareasofinterest.4. Applythetechniquesofargumentationtoresearch-basedwriting.5. Readandthinkcritically.6. Useapproveddocumentationformsinresearch-basedwriting.


7. Useprimaryandsecondarysourcesproperly.8. Writeunifiedandcoherentanalyticalandpersuasiveessays.9. Chooseandlimitaresearchtopic.10. FindinformationinthelibraryandontheInternet.11. Formulateathesisfortheresearchpaper.12. UseMLAorAPAformattinganddocumentationconventions.

Dispositions(attitudesandpatternsofbehavior)

1. Valuecarefulreadingandeffectivewrittencommunication.2. Valuecriticalawarenessofdifferingarguments.3. Maintaininterestincurrenttopics.4. Confidenceindiscussingissues.5. Evaluateandorganizeideas.6. Achieveproficiencyinthetoolsofresearch.7. Recognizerhetoricalmodesusedinresearchwriting.


Appendix B

UsingACT/SATScores

ENGLISHPLACEMENT

EffectiveFallSemester2010,theEnglishfacultymembershaveagreedtouseACTandSATscorestoplacenewfirsttimestudentsinfirst-yearcompositioncourses,providedthatstudentshavesubmittedatleastoneofthesescores.

ACT/SAT SCORES GPA REQUIRED COURSE ACT English score of ≥ 17 or Combined SAT of ≥730-869

NA English 1100 Introduction to Reading and Writing for College

ACT English > 18 or Combined SAT > 870)

NA English 1100 Intro to Writing for College

StudentsinEnglish1101willberequiredtowriteaverificationessay.Dependingontheirperformance,theymightbeadvisedtotransfertoEnglish1100,IntroductiontoReadingandWritingforCollege.Studentswithoutscoresmustwriteaplacementessay.


Appendix C

Signature Essay

You write a well-developed essay in response to the following prompt. Be sure to plan your ideas carefully, include specific examples and details in your paragraphs, and leave sufficient time for editing.

Prompt: Think of an occasion where you had to solve a problem. What was the problem? How did you attempt to solve it? What was the result? What would you do differently if faced with a similar problem in the future?

You could write about a challenge at school, work, or home that needed a resolution. You may choose any situation you remember well to describe. Tell your audience the story of the problem with details about you, other people who were involved, and the situation that will bring the scene to life.

Your finished essay should be at least four to six paragraphs. Your response will help me learn more about you and your writing.


Appendix D

WrittenCommunication

Capstone Milestone Milestone Benchmark

Outcome 4 3 2 1

ContextandPurposeforWriting(Includesconsiderationsofaudience,purpose,andthecircumstancessurroundingthewritingtask(s).)

Demonstratesathoroughunderstandingofcontext,audience,andpurposethatisresponsivetotheassignedtask(s)andfocusesallelementsofthework.

Demonstratesadequateconsiderationofcontext,audience,andpurposeandaclearfocusontheassignedtask(s)(e.g.,thetaskalignswithaudience,purpose,andcontext.)

Demonstratesawarenessofcontext,audience,purpose,andtotheassignedtask(s)(e.g.,beginstoshowawarenessofaudience'sperceptionsandassumptions).

Demonstratesminimalattentiontocontext,audience,purpose,andtotheassignedtask(s)(e.g.,expectationofinstructororselfasaudience)

ContentDevelopment

Usesappropriate,relevant,andcompellingcontenttoillustratemasteryofthesubject,conveyingthewriter'sunderstandingandshapingthewholework.

Usesappropriate,relevant,andcompellingcontenttoexploreideaswithinthecontextofthedisciplineandshapethewholework.

Usesappropriateandrelevantcontenttodevelopandexploreideasthroughmostofthework.

Usesappropriateandrelevantcontenttodevelopsimpleideasinsomepartsofthework.

GenreandDisciplinaryConventions(Formalandinformalrulesinherentintheexpectationsforwritinginparticularformsand/oracademicfields.)

Demonstratesdetailedattentiontoandsuccessfulexecutionofawiderangeofconventionsparticulartoaspecificdisciplineand/orwritingtasks(s)includingorganization,content,presentation,formatting,andstylisticchoices.

Demonstratesconsistentuseofimportantconventionsparticulartoaspecificdisciplineand/orwritingtasks(s)includingorganization,content,presentation,formatting,andstylisticchoices.

Followsexpectationsparticulartoaspecificdisciplineand/orwritingtask(s)forbasicorganization,content,presentation.

Attemptstouseconsistentsystemforbasicorganizationandpresentation.

SourcesandEvidence

Demonstratesskillfuluseofhigh-quality,credible,relevantevidenceappropriatetothediscipline,genre,andcontextofthewriting.Ifoutsidesourcesareused,thewritereffectivelyusesadisciplinary-appropriatemethodofdocumentation.

Demonstratesconsistentuseofhigh-quality,credible,relevantevidencemostlyappropriatetothediscipline,genre,andcontextofthewriting.Ifoutsidesourcesareused,thewriterattemptstoemployadisciplinary-appropriatemethodofdocumentation.

Demonstratesanattempttousecredibleand/orrelevantevidencetosupportideasthatareappropriatetothediscipline,genre,andcontextofthewriting.Ifoutsidesourcesareused,thewriterattemptstodocumenttheiruse.

Demonstratesanattempttouseevidencetosupportideasinthewriting.Ifoutsidesourcesareused,thewritermakeslittleornoattempttodocumenttheiruse.

ControlofSyntaxandMechanics

Usesgracefullanguagethatskillfullycommunicatesmeaningtoreaderswithclarityandfluency,andisvirtuallyerrorfree.

Usesstraightforwardlanguagethatgenerallyconveysmeaningtoreaders.Thelanguageintheportfoliohasfewerrors.

Useslanguagethatgenerallyconveysmeanstoreaderswithclarity,althoughwritingmayincludesomeerrors.

Useslanguagethatsometimesimpedesmeaningbecauseoferrorsinusage.


Appendix E

Descriptive Statistics for All Samples

Context

Content

Genre

Sources

Syntax

Mean 1.71 Mean 1.63 Mean 1.52 Mean 1.29 Mean 1.42

StandardError 0.04 StandardError 0.04 StandardError 0.04StandardError 0.03 StandardError 0.04

Median 1.75 Median 1.50 Median 1.50 Median 1.00 Median 1.00

Mode 2.00 Mode 2.00 Mode 1.00 Mode 1.00 Mode 1.00StandardDeviation 0.53

StandardDeviation 0.51




SampleVariance 0.28SampleVariance 0.26 SampleVariance 0.23

SampleVariance 0.17

SampleVariance 0.23

Kurtosis-

0.12 Kurtosis-

0.80 Kurtosis -1.43 Kurtosis -0.20 Kurtosis 0.47

Skewness 0.33 Skewness 0.21 Skewness 0.19 Skewness 1.07 Skewness 0.84

Range 2.50 Range 2.00 Range 1.50 Range 1.50 Range 2.50

Minimum 1 Minimum 1.00 Minimum 1 Minimum 1 Minimum 1

Maximum 4 Maximum 3.00 Maximum 3 Maximum 3 Maximum 4

Sum 270 Sum258.00 Sum 240 Sum 204 Sum 225

Count 158 Count158.00 Count 158 Count 158 Count 158

ConfidenceLevel(95.0%) 0.08





report of written communication assessment, 2014-2016 · written communication assessment...

Documents