university writing project report analysis of college ... · the university writing project is an...

UNIVERSITY WRITING PROJECT REPORT

Analysis of College-Level Writing Skills

Fall 2015 and Spring 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following report contains a summary of the results for the 2015-2016 University Writing

Project (UWP). The UWP collects authentic student writing samples in order to examine the

writing performance of college juniors and seniors. During the 2015-2016 academic year,

faculty from across the university, as well as a scoring team from the Department of English,

evaluated samples of student writing assignments using rubrics developed from the Written

Communication and Critical Thinking AAC&U VALUE rubrics. Because the number of faculty

scorers was very small (n= 4), their results were not included in the analysis.

This year a total of 663 writing samples from 712 students were scored. Each sample was rated

on seven criteria using a scale ranging from 1(developing) to 4 (proficient). Samples were also

rated for an overall, holistic score ranging from 1 (developing) to 4 (proficient). This report

contains a descriptive analysis of the English team’s scores. Of the 663 samples scored, 77.7

percent received an overall rating of 3 or higher, which indicated that most students within this

sample were writing at a progressing or proficient level.

Results from this assessment will be shared with university stakeholders in order to display

university writing performance in comparison to previous years. In addition, departments

received aggregated data regarding their students’ performance in written communication and

critical thinking skills relative to the rest of the university.

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

Student Sample ......................................................................................................................................... 1

Writing Samples........................................................................................................................................ 3

Scoring Procedures ................................................................................................................................... 4

Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

University-level Student Writing Performance ......................................................................................... 5

College of Business Student Writing Performance ............................................................................... 7

College of Engineering & Engineering Technology Student Writing Performance ............................. 9

College of Health and Human Sciences Student Writing Performance .............................................. 11

College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Student Writing Performance .................................................. 13

College of Visual and Performing Arts Student Writing Performance ............................................... 15

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 17

APPENDIX A - English Scoring Team Rubric 2015-2016 ........................................................................ 18

APPENDIX B - English Scoring Team Ratings 2014-2015 ....................................................................... 19

University-level....................................................................................................................................... 19

College of Business ............................................................................................................................. 20

College of Engineering & Engineering Technology ........................................................................... 21

College of Health and Human Sciences .............................................................................................. 22

College of Visual and Performing Arts ............................................................................................... 23

College of Liberal Arts and Sciences .................................................................................................. 24

1

Introduction

The University Writing Project is an assessment of college junior and senior level writing

performance based on an analysis of course-embedded writing assignments. For this project,

writing assignments were submitted by faculty from multiple departments across the five

colleges. Assignments were evaluated separately by an independent faculty group and a scoring

team from the Department of English. Each writing sample was evaluated using a rubric

developed from the Written Communication and Critical Thinking AAC&U VALUE rubrics;

written samples were rated on seven criteria including: Question/problem, thesis/position,

content development, sources/evidence, format/genre, conclusion, and syntax/editing. This

report provides an analysis of course writing assessments across seventeen departments for

academic year 2015-2016. Results are compared to the prior years for trends.

Methods

Student Sample

Writing samples from a total of 712 students were scored (some students completed group

papers). The sample characteristics and its comparison to the Northern Illinois University

population is described in Table 1. The current UWP sample included a lower percentage of

female students, students identifying as Hispanic, and overall had a slightly elevated mean ACT

score in comparison to NIU population. In terms of college representation, the current sample

was low of student writing assignments from colleges of Education, and Liberal Arts and

Sciences. (See Table 2).

2

Table 1. Demographic Information

Ethnicity UWP Sample %

(n = 712)

Total Population %

(N = 8779)

White 66.9% 62.8%

African-American 9.1% 11.6%

Hispanic 4.9% 7.9%

Asian 5.8% 6.1%

Other 8.4% 10.6%

Not Indicated 4.9% 1.0%

Gender

Male 55.2% 51.0%

Female 41.9% 49.0%


Admit Type

Entered as freshman 36.4% 36.5%

Entered as transfer 56.3% 49.6%


Table 1a. High School GPA and Standardized Test Scores

HS GPA ACT Composite

UWP

Sample

NIU Population UWP

Sample

NIU Population

N 322 4337 405 5512

Mean 3.4 3.3 23.5 22.6

SD 0.49 0.52 4.0 4.1 Note: For HS GPA & ACT composite scores, N represents the scores that were reported out of the

total sample (712) or total population (8779).

3

Table 2. Students’ Fields of Study

Academic Program-College (Major) UWP Sample

%

n = 712

NIU Population %

N= 8779

Business 18.8% 16.6%

Education 0.1% 9.1%

Engineering & Engineering Technology 30.5% 10.4%

Health and Human Sciences 27.9% 20.7%

Liberal Arts and Sciences 17.3% 38.3%

Visual and Performing Arts 5.3% 4.9%

Other (SAL, Undecided) 0.0% 0.1%

Academic Program-College (Course taken)* n = 712

Business 18.0% --

Education 0.0% --

Engineering & Engineering Technology 32.6% --

Health and Human Sciences 23.6% --

Liberal Arts and Sciences 19.9% --

Visual and Performing Arts 6.0% -- *Note: For Academic Program-College (Course taken), students could have taken more than one

course in different colleges

Writing Samples

A total of 747 student writing samples were received from seventeen departments in Fall 2015

and Spring 2016. Samples came from five colleges. Of these submitted writing samples, 663

were scored. Table 3 contains the number of writing samples scored from each college (noting

the number of group papers). Some students had multiple writing samples scored, either because

they had submissions from the same class or two different classes.

Table 3. Writing Samples

Academic Program-

College (Course taken)*

Have group paper? Total Number of

papers scored No Yes

Business 136 0 136 (20.5%)

Education 0 0 0 (0%)

Engineering &

Engineering Technology

127 30 157 (23.7%)

Health and Human

Sciences

178 0 178 (26.8%)

Liberal Arts and Sciences 142 5 147 (22.2%

Visual and Performing

Arts

45 0 45 (6.8%)

Total number of papers 628 35 663 *Note: For Academic Program-College (Course taken), students could have taken more than one course

in different colleges

4

Scoring Procedures

As in previous years, the student writing samples were scored by two separate teams of raters,

each using the same modified rubric developed from the Written Communication and Critical

Thinking AAC&U VALUE rubrics. Because only a small number of faculty scorers (n=4) scored

82 samples (representing four courses), their ratings were not considered in aggregating the

results. Instead, inter-rater agreement was considered within the English Team Scorers.

Evaluation of student writing samples are described below.

Faculty Raters

A group of faculty members were recruited to participate in a study which asked them to rate

their students’ writing samples using the modified AAC&U VALUE Rubric combining Written

Communication and Critical Thinking. This rubric was developed by Professor Brad Peters,

Director of Undergraduate Studies for the Department of English and Coordinator for the

Writing Across the Curriculum project. The rubric provides ratings on seven criteria using a

scale ranging from 1(developing) to 4 (proficient) (See Appendix A). The criteria include:

question or problem, thesis/position, content development, sources and evidence, format,

conclusions, and syntax and editing. Participating faculty attended an hour and a half long

workshop in which they discussed the rubric and scored sample student assignments as a team

for practice. Faculty were also given suggestions on how to incorporate the rubric into their

classroom assessment practices. Faculty then selected a writing assignment from one of their

course sections, rated these papers using the rubric, and submitted the papers and scores to

Accreditation, Assessment and Evaluation for processing. Because the number of faculty

participants was very small, their results were not included in this report.

English Scoring Team Raters

A team of scorers in the Department of English rated the student writing samples using the same

version of the modified the AAC&U VALUE Rubric described above. The English scoring team

consisted of eight raters who were trained together on how to score student assignments using

the modified rubric. The goal of the training was to calibrate scorers in order to reach the highest

level of inter-rater agreement. Training consisted of a discussion about the rubric, practice

ratings of student writing samples, and periodic check-ins throughout the scoring process. Each

student assignment was scored by two raters who compared ratings after scoring the same sets of

papers. In a few instances, a third rater was needed to resolve discrepancies. As part of their

process, the student writing samples received an overall holistic score that is indicative of the

overall quality of the writing sample per scorer judgement. The team held one scoring session

during the end of the spring semester in order to normalize the process. The total calibration and

scoring time lasted eight days. The average scores across all raters for each of the categories is

included in the results section.

5

Results

University-level Student Writing Performance

English Scoring Team Ratings

The English scoring team scored 663 student papers. Overall, the team rated 77.7 percent of the

student papers at a Progressing 3 level or higher. This is approximately four percent lower than

last year’s 81.8 percent in the number of students falling in the Progressing level 3 or higher

category. Comparison with 2013-2014 data indicates a 4.4 percent increase in the same category.

(See Figure 1).

Figure 1. University-level Writing Performance Levels-English Scoring Team

Writing Subscale Performance

Aggregated results from the 2015-2016 sample indicate the criteria with the highest ratings were:

question/problem (M = 3.11, SD = 0.57) and format (M = 3.05, SD = 0.59). The ratings are

lowest in thesis/position (M = 2.72, SD = 0.61) and conclusions (M = 2.72, SD = 0.68). The

current ratings were compared with the results from the 2013-2014 sample when the same rubric

was used to evaluate the writing of juniors and seniors (See Figure 1b). Effect sizes comparing

the two samples on the seven criteria were calculated and are listed in Table 4. In 2014-2015

the English scoring team used a rubric with slightly different dimensions, which does not allow

for a direct comparison of subscale scores across years. Aggregate ratings by subscales are

reported in Appendix B for the previous 2014-2015 scores.

12(2.2%)

133(24.5%)

308(56.6%)

91(16.7%)

4(0.8%)

88(17.5%)

343(68.1%)

69(13.7%)

3(0.5%)

145(21.9%)

413(62.3%)

102(15.4%)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Developing (1) Progressing (2) Progressing (3) Proficient (4)

2013-2014 (n=544 papers) 2014-2015 (n=504 papers) 2015-2016 (n=663 papers)

6

Figure 1b. Performance on Writing Subscales -English Scoring Team (2015-2016)

Note: Since holistic scores were not reported in 2013-2014, they are not reported as comparisons

in the table above.

Table 4. University-level English Scoring Team Ratings - Writing Performance

2013-2014

(N=544)

2015-2016

(N=663)

Effect Size

(Cohen’s d)

Criteria Mean SD Mean SD

Question/Problem

**

2.96 0.67 3.11 0.57 0.241

Thesis/Position 2.69 0.70 2.72 0.61 0.456

Content

Development

2.92 0.72 2.90 0.64 0.029

Sources/Evidence 2.83 0.73 2.81 0.74 0.027

Format 2.85 0.69 3.05 0.59 0.311

Conclusions 2.65 0.76 2.72 0.68 0.097

Syntax & Editing 2.93 0.58 2.96 0.55 0.053

*Overall 2.83 0.58 2.89 0.53 0.108

Holistic -- -- 2.96 0.61

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Overall

Question/Problem

Thesis/Position

Content Development

Sources/Evidence

Format

Conclusions

Syntax/Editing

2013-2014 (N=544 papers) 2015-2016 (N=663 papers)

7

College of Business Student Writing Performance


The English scoring team scored a total of 136 junior/senior writing samples from the College of

Business. Overall, the team rated 69.1 percent of the student papers at a Progressing 3 level or

higher. This is much less than last year’s 76.3 percent. (See Figure 2). There were no writing

samples collected from the college in 2013-2014.

Figure 2. College of Business Writing Performance Levels-English Scoring Team


In the current sample, students performed best when addressing the question or problem (M =

2.92, SD = 0.47) and in their overall writing format (M = 2.89, SD = 0.46). Aggregate scores

were lowest in using and integrating sources (M = 2.35, SD =0.70). (See Table 5 and Figure 2b).

Source integration was also the lowest score the previous year (M = 2.38, SD = 0.56). (For 2014-

2015 subscale scores, please see Appendix B). Because a slightly different rubric was used in

2014, we were unable to make comparison for all subscales.

1(1.0%)

23(22.8%)

72(71.3%)

5(5.0%)0

(0.0%)

42(30.9%)

90(66.2%)

102(2.9%)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%


2014-2015 (n=101) 2015-2016 (n=136)

8

Figure 2b. College of Business Writing Performance-English Scoring Team (2015-2016)

Note. n = 136

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Overall

Holistic

Question/Problem

Thesis/Position

Content Development

Sources/Evidence

Format

Conclusions

Syntax/Editing

Table 5

2015-2016 College of Business English Scoring Team

Ratings - Writing Performance (n=136)

Criteria Mean SD

Question/Problem 2.92 0.47

Thesis/Position 2.52 0.51

Content Development 2.68 0.55

Sources/Evidence 2.35 0.70

Format 2.89 0.46

Conclusions 2.54 0.66

Syntax & Editing 2.83 0.46

*Overall 2.68 0.41

Holistic 2.76 0.53

9

College of Engineering & Engineering Technology Student Writing Performance



Engineering & Engineering Technology. Overall, the team rated 77.1 percent of the student

papers at a Progressing 3 level or higher (See Figure 3). This is higher than the prior year’s 73.4

percent.

Figure 3. College of Engineering & Engineering Technology Writing Performance Levels-

English Scoring Team


In the current sample, students performed best when addressing the question or problem

(M=3.09, SD=0.53). They were rated lowest in writing conclusions (M=2.66, SD=0.61) and

presenting a thesis or position (M=2.69, SD=0.61). These results varied in the prior years (See

Table 6 and Figure 3b). See Appendix B for 2014-2015 ratings by subscale.

4(4.3%)

20(21.5%)

55(59.1%)

14(15.1%)1

(1.7%)

15(25.0%)

37(61.7%)

7(11.7%)0

(0.0%)

36(22.9%)

107(68.2%)

14(8.9%)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%


2013-2014 (n=93) 2014-2015 (n=60) 2015-2016 (n=157)

10

Figure 3b. College of Engineering & Engineering Technology Writing Performance-English

Scoring Team (2015-2016)


in the table above.

Table 6. College of Engineering & Engineering Technology English Scoring Team

Ratings - Writing Performance

2013-2014

(n = 93)

2015-2016

(n =157)


Question/Problem 2.91 0.80 3.09 0.53

Thesis/Position 2.70 0.08 2.69 0.61

Content Development 3.06 0.08 2.91 0.62

Sources/Evidence 2.67 0.07 2.81 0.61

Format 2.84 0.07 2.96 0.56

Conclusions 2.61 0.08 2.66 0.61

Syntax & Editing 2.94 0.07 2.86 0.49

*Overall 2.80 0.06 2.86 0.48

Holistic --- --- 2.92 0.59

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Overall

Question/Problem

Thesis/Position

Content Development

Sources/Evidence

Format

Conclusions

Syntax/Editing

2013-2014 (n=93) 2015-2016 (n=157)

11

College of Health and Human Sciences Student Writing Performance



Health and Human Sciences. Overall, the team rated 91.6 percent of the student papers at a

Progressing 3 level or higher (See Figure 4). This is slightly lower than the prior year’s 94.2

percent.

Figure 4. College of Health and Human Sciences Writing Performance Levels-English Scoring

Team


The criteria with the highest aggregate ratings were: question/problem (M=3.37, SD=0.49) and

format (M=3.33, SD=0.55). The ratings are lowest in thesis/position (M=2.95, SD=0.49) and

conclusions (M=2.98, SD=0.50). Thesis/position was also the lowest score in 2013-2014 when a

similar rubric was used. (See Table 7 and Figure 4b). See Appendix B for 2014-2015 ratings by

subscales.

3(1.5%)

50(25.8%)

108(55.7%)

33(17.0%)

0(0.0%)

8(5.8%)

112(81.2%)

18(13.0%)

0(0.0%)

15(8.4%)

115(64.6%)

48(27.0%)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%


2013-2014 (n=194) 2014-2015 (n=138) 2015-2016 (n=178)

12

Figure 4b. College of Health and Human Sciences Writing Performance-English Scoring Team

(2015-2016)


in the table above.

Table 7. College of Health and Human Sciences English Scoring Team Ratings - Writing

Performance

2013-2014

(n =194)

2015-2016

(n =178)






Format 2.90 0.05 3.33 0.55

Conclusions 2.62 0.06 2.98 0.50

Syntax & Editing 3.00 0.04 3.19 0.45

*Overall 2.84 0.04 3.16 0.44

Holistic --- --- 3.23 0.49

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Overall

Question/Problem

Thesis/Position

Content Development

Sources/Evidence

Format

Conclusions

Syntax/Editing

2013-2014 (n=194) 2015-2016 (n=178)

13

College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Student Writing Performance



Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS). Overall, the team rated 70.1 percent of the student papers at a

Progressing 3 level or higher. This was lower than last year’s 78.4 percent (See Figure 5).

Figure 5. College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Writing Performance Levels-English Scoring

Team


In the current sample, juniors and seniors from CLAS performed best when addressing the

question/problem (M=3.02, SD=0.65). The ratings are lowest in writing conclusions (M=2.64,

SD=0.78) and thesis/position (M=2.68, SD=0.72). These results are similar to the 2013-2014

findings when the rubric used was most similar (See Table 8 and Figure 5b). See Appendix B for

2014-2015 ratings by subscales.

4(2.0%)

39(19.0%)

118(57.6%)

44(21.5%)

2(1.0%)

41(20.6%)

118(59.3%)

38(19.1%)

2(1.4%)

42(28.6%)

71(48.3%)

32(21.8%)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%


2013-2014 (n=205) 2014-2015 (n=199) 2015-2016 (n=147)

14

Figure 5b. College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Writing Performance-English Scoring Team

(2015-2016)


in the table above.

Table 8. College of Liberal Arts and Sciences English Scoring Team Ratings - Writing

Performance

2013-2014

(n = 205)

2015-2016

(n =147)






Format 2.92 0.05 2.99 0.66

Conclusions 2.82 0.05 2.64 0.78

Syntax & Editing 2.96 0.04 2.92 0.70

*Overall 2.94 0.04 2.83 0.63

Holistic --- --- 2.89 0.71

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Overall

Question/Problem

Thesis/Position

Content Development

Sources/Evidence

Format

Conclusions

Syntax/Editing

2013-2014 (n=205) 2015-2016 (n=147)

15

College of Visual and Performing Arts Student Writing Performance



Visual and Performing Arts (CVPA). Overall, the team rated 75.6 percent of the student papers

at a Progressing 3 level or higher. This is a much lower percentage than last year’s 83.4 percent;

however, it is most likely due to last year’s small sample size (See Figure 6).

Figure 6. College of Visual and Performing Arts Writing Performance Levels-English Scoring

Team


In the current sample from CVPA, students performed best when providing a format (M = 2.99,

SD = 0.57), addressing the question/problem (M = 2.95, SD = 0.67), and in syntax & editing (M

= 2.95, SD = 0.58). They rated lowest in addressing a thesis/position (M = 2.63, SD = 0.68).

Results varied in prior years (See Table 9 and Figure 6b). See Appendix B for 2014-2015 ratings

by subscales.

1(4.2%)

9(37.5%)

10(41.7%)

4(16.7%)

0(0.0%)

1(16.7%)

4(66.7%)

1(16.7%)

1(2.2%)

10(22.2%)

30(66.7%)

4(8.9%)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%


2013-2014 (n=24) 2014-2015 (n=6) 2015-2016 (n=45)

16

Figure 6b. College of Visual and Performing Arts Writing Performance-English Scoring Team

(2015-2016)


in the table above.

Table 9. College of Visual and Performing Arts English Scoring Team Ratings - Writing

Performance

2013-2014

(n = 24)

2015-2016

(n = 45)






Format 2.75 0.15 2.99 0.57

Conclusions 2.40 0.15 2.70 0.77

Syntax & Editing 2.81 0.13 2.95 0.58

*Overall 2.69 0.13 2.85 0.56

Holistic 2.94 0.67

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

Overall

Question/Problem

Thesis/Position

Content Development

Sources/Evidence

Format

Conclusions

Syntax/Editing

2013-2014 (n=24) 2015-2016 (n=45)

17

Conclusions

This report provides comparisons of written skills over the last three academic years for a

combined sample of NIU juniors and seniors, as assessed using a modified version of the

AAC&U VALUE rubrics for Written Communication and Critical Thinking. Writing samples

were drawn from course-embedded assignments including individual and group papers. Samples

were collected from seventeen departments within five colleges. There were some indicators on

which the sample was not fully representative of the NIU population. In order to maintain

consistency across colleges, we used a trained group of English Team scorers who evaluated

writing samples using the modified AAC&U VALUE rubric. Rigor was maintained by deriving

inter-rater agreement from multiple scorer ratings. Trends in scores are reported by college. In

future years, we may consider using scorers that are discipline specific, categorizing results by

type of assignment (e.g., journal reflections, group papers etc.), and conducting appropriate

statistical analyses, as appropriate based on the sample drawn.

18

APPENDIX A - English Scoring Team Rubric 2015-2016

CRITERIA Proficient 4 3 Progressing 2 Developing 1

Question or

Problem Precise description of question/

problem & its relevant

contextual information.

Reasonable description of

question/ problem & its context.

Sketchy description of question/

problem, some contextual

information.

Incomplete or missing

description of question/

problem; little or no context.

Thesis/

Position Compelling thesis; examines its

complexities & limitations;

proposes to test assumptions.

Thoughtful thesis; acknowledges

its complexities & questions

assumptions.

Adequate thesis; touches on its

complexities & assumptions.

Unclear or inadequate thesis;

oversimplifies or overlooks its

complexities & assumptions.

Content

Development Original, well-conceived ideas

drawn from strong control of

disciplinary knowledge &

specialized terms.

Well-synthesized ideas based on

good control of disciplinary

knowledge & specialized terms.

Acceptable ideas, but they

reflect uneven control of

disciplinary knowledge &

specialized terms.

Fuzzy or misinformed ideas,

show very limited control of

disciplinary knowledge,

misuse of specialized terms.

Sources &

Evidence High-quality sources or

evidence, multiple views

represented, well-evaluated &

integrated; correct citation.

Reliable, balanced sources or

evidence, accurately represented &

integrated; minimal citation errors.

Relevant sources or evidence,

fairly represented, but in need

of better integration; citation

problems.

Minimal sources or evidence,

not always relevant or at times

misrepresented; incorrect

citations.

Format Logical format follows

disciplinary conventions.

Strategic placement of figures or

electronic links, if needed.

Organized format with orderly

transitions. Helpful placement of

figures or links, if needed.

Appropriate but disjointed

format. Figures or links, if

needed, could be better placed.

Disorganized or truncated

format. Figures or links, if

needed, not well placed or

relevant.

Conclusions

Insightful conclusion consistent

with content & thesis; reflects on

outcomes & implications.

Justified conclusion, connected to

development of content & thesis.

Predictable conclusion, drawn

to fit a desired end.

Conclusion inconsistent with

content, oversimplified, or too

abrupt.

Syntax &

Editing

Well-crafted, varied sentences;

grammatically fluent, carefully

edited.

Syntactically clear sentences; few

grammatical errors or typos.

Readable but sometimes

confusing sentences; distracting

errors or typos.

Unclear or poorly constructed

sentences; frequent errors or

typos that impede meaning.

19

APPENDIX B - English Scoring Team Ratings 2014-2015

University-level

Table 10

University-level 2014-2015 English Scoring Team

Ratings - Writing Performance (N=504)

Criteria Mean SD

Audience & Style 3.03 0.58

Focus & Development 2.89 0.60

Analysis 2.66 0.60

Source Integration 2.76 0.65

Format & Editing 2.90 0.62

*Overall 2.85 0.51

Holistic 3.04 0.59

Figure 7: University-level Writing Performance-English Scoring Team (2014-2015)

Note. N=504

20

College of Business

Table 11

College of Business 2014-2015 English Scoring Team

Ratings - Writing Performance (N=101)

Criteria Mean SD



Analysis 2.59 0.49



*Overall 2.69 0.41

Holistic 2.86 0.50

Figure 8: College of Business Writing Performance-English Scoring Team (2014-2015)

Note. N=101

21

College of Engineering & Engineering Technology

Table 12

College of Engineering & Engineering Technology

2014-2015 English Scoring Team Ratings - Writing

Performance (N=60)

Criteria Mean SD



Analysis 2.64 0.68



*Overall 2.77 0.55

Holistic 2.96 0.59

Figure 9: College of Engineering & Engineering Technology Writing Performance-English

Scoring Team (2014-2015)

Note. N=60

22

College of Health and Human Sciences

Table 13

College of Health and Human Sciences


Performance (N=138)

Criteria Mean SD



Analysis 2.75 0.53



*Overall 2.99 0.39

Holistic 3.17 0.43

Figure 10: College of Health and Human Sciences Writing Performance-English Scoring Team

(2014-2015)

Note. N=138

23

College of Visual and Performing Arts

Table 14

College of Visual and Performing Arts


Performance (N=6)

Criteria Mean SD



Analysis 2.83 0.61



*Overall 2.97 0.38

Holistic 3.33 0.41

Figure 11: College of Visual and Performing Arts Writing Performance-English Scoring Team

(2014-2015)

Note. N=6

24

College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

Table 15

College of Liberal Arts and Sciences


Performance (N=199)

Criteria Mean SD



Analysis 2.64 0.66



*Overall 2.85 0.59

Holistic 3.06 0.69

Figure 12. College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Writing Performance-English Scoring Team

(2014-2015)

Note. N=199

university writing project report analysis of college ... · the university writing project is an...

Documents