PROGRAM ASSESSMENT FORM
LEARNING GOALS
FALL 2013 AND SPRING 2014
Name of Program: General Education (Competency in Written Communication)
Name of Program Leader: Linda Rowland
Date: 30 May 2014
LEARNING OUTCOME(S)
Identify the learning outcome(s) that you are measuring.
This ongoing assessment focused on General Education Competency 2: Written Communication,
through an assessment of the core learning outcomes developed for the Composition I and II
courses in the General Education Program as a part of the Assessment Plan in the Writing
Program (see Appendix A). The General Education competency and Composition II outcomes are
listed below.
General Education Competency 2: Written Communication
 Employ the conventions of standard written English;
 Select a topic, and develop it for a specific audience and purpose, with respect for diverse
perspectives;
 Organize and present relevant content with coherence, clarity, and unity;
 Develop research skills including the ability to collect, analyze, synthesize, and accurately
present and document information;
 Use appropriate language to convey meaning effectively;
 Apply critical reading skills.
Composition II Learning Outcomes
 Use a rigorous writing process that includes inventing, drafting, and revising
 Employ the conventions of standard written English
 Employ conventions specific to academic writing
 Formulate a sound argument and develop it for a specific audience and purpose
 Select, organize, and relate ideas and information with clarity and precision
 Use higher level research skills including collecting, evaluating, managing, incorporating,
and documenting information
 Identify how authors develop written arguments
 Apply critical reading and thinking skills
 Consider diverse perspectives when formulating and developing arguments.
For the full set of General Education Competencies, see Appendix B. For the full set of learning
outcomes for Composition I and II see Appendix C.
ASSESSMENT PLAN
Name and brief description of the instruments/rubrics. (Attach a copy of the instrument to this
document if appropriate).
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
1
The team continued to use an instrument adapted from AAC&U’s VALUE (Validated
Assessment of Undergraduate Education) project. The rubric is one intended to assess written
communication skills from graduating seniors but includes a series of milestones as its measures;
thus, the rubric was used recognizing that students completing Freshman Composition would not
achieve at the highest level (“Capstone 4”) but rather would achieve at a lower level (“Milestone
2”). Faculty who are trained in the use of rubric-based scoring provided a norming session for the
faculty conducting the scoring using sample essays that had a range of scores. The norming
session provided all the scorers with an understanding of how to apply the rubric to the essays.
(See Appendix D for a copy of the rubric.)
An indirect assessment was conducted, in which students were asked to score their own writing
against the same rubric. The indirect assessment provides insight into how well the students have
learned to gauge their own work, including strengths and weaknesses. This is the fourth year that
the indirect assessment was included.
Brief description of what is to be assessed/measured.
The focus in this assessment was on Written Communication skills, focusing directly on Learning
Competencies outlined in the General Education Program and the Learning Outcomes established
for Composition I and II (the outcomes developed for Composition I and II were developed to
meet the Written Communication Competency in the General Education Program).
Date(s) of administration.
Essays from Composition II classes were collected in the Spring 2014 semester and scored at the
beginning of the Summer of 2014.
Sample (number of students, % of class, level, demographics).
For the direct assessment, essays were collected from 9 different Composition II classes (n=192
students) out of a total of 74 sections (n=1837 students enrolled); this equates to 12.2% of
sections, 10.5% of total student population. Of the 192 students in these classes, a total of 162
essays were collected for the scoring, and all of them were read and scored during the session (8
during the norming session, and 154 during the scoring session), for a total of 8.8% of the
students taking Composition II.
For the indirect assessment, all 162 students submitted valid assessments (these submissions were
from the same students whose essays we scored). The results of these submissions were
compared to the results of the direct assessment in order to determine the average overall
difference between the indirect and direct assessments.
DATA ANALYSIS
Direct Assessment
The rubric that was used for this assessment included four ratings, described as follows:
Benchmark 1; Milestone 2; Milestone 3; Capstone 4. The intention of the rubric is to provide
benchmarks for students in their journey through their four year degree so that they would be
achieving at a level of “Capstone 4” during their senior year of pursuing a Bachelor’s degree.
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
2
The faculty determined that at the end of first year Composition classes (Composition I and II),
students should have achieved at a level of Benchmark 2 (with scores that average a “2”). The
following were the average scores from the assessment:
Spring 2010
Spring 2011
Spring 2012
Spring 2013
Spring 2014
Context and
Purpose of
Writing
1.95
2.07
1.86
1.92
2.3
Content
Development
1.95
1.82
1.82
1.69
2.1
Genre and
Disciplinary
Conventions
1.86
1.97
1.71
1.78
2.2
Sources and
Evidence
Control of Syntax
and Mechanics
1.69
1.93
1.70
1.76
2.0
1.96
1.94
1.80
1.84
2.2
Average
1.88
1.94
1.78
1.80
2.2
The average scores in each area and the overall average score did rise above the score of a “2”
that was expected for this assessment, and average scores increased from last year. Faculty
associated with the assessment discussed the overall student accomplishment in this round of
scoring, noting that several actions had caused the increase in student scores:
 In this fifth round of assessment, we scored significantly higher numbers of essays across
a wider range of sections and instructors (almost twice as many sections), thus providing
a richer and more accurate data set;
 During the course of this year, all of the efforts that had been put forward in previous
years (providing examples of strong essays, including information literacy workshops)
were increased;
 The prompt was one that was agreed upon by the Composition faculty as a whole and
was used with more coherence across all sections.
In particular, the faculty have been concerned with scores on the use of sources and evidence for
some time. With the addition of a full-time First Year Experience Librarian, we have been able to
increase our efforts to work on Information Literacy in our first year classes such as Composition
I and II. Indeed, a comparison of the number of sessions for first year students shows a more than
twofold increase:
Date
2012-2013
2013-2014
Composition I
20
31
Composition II
18
41
Effective Learn
3
16
Total Sessions
41
88
Total Students
810
1943
The faculty were very satisfied with the results of this assessment and look forward to being part
of the team that is developing a new assessment plan for 2015-2020.
Indirect Assessment
As this was the fourth year of conducting the indirect assessment, the faculty were able to see if
students had a better sense of their own abilities than they did in the previous year. Students were
asked to score their own essays using the same rubric that the faculty used. The gap between the
student perception of their work and the faculty assessment of their work was closed considerably
this year, largely because the faculty had been sharing the rubric with the students during the
course of the year and providing the students with a better sense of their capabilities. In addition,
the student scores increased noticeably this year, which also assisted in reducing the gap.
Difference
between
Indirect and
Direct
Spring 2011
Spring 2012
Spring 2013
Spring 2014
Context and
Purpose of
Writing
+0.49
+0.54
+0.87
+0.3
Content
Development
Genre and
Disciplinary
Conventions
+0.64
+0.64
+1.02
+0.3
+0.56
+0.69
+0.84
+0.1
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
Sources and
Evidence
+0.54
+0.87
+1.02
+0.3
Control of Syntax
and Mechanics
+0.67
+0.64
+0.96
+0.3
Average
+0.59
+0.68
+0.94
+0.3
3
This was the lowest gap between student perceptions and faculty assessment that we have
experienced, which indicates real maturation in the teaching, learning, and assessment process.
Inter-rater Reliability
Finally, the faculty tracked the number of times each essay was read in order to determine the
inter-rater reliability. If an essay was read twice and received the same score in 3 out of the 5
areas on the rubric, the essay was considered completed. If there were fewer than 3 of the same
scores, the essay was read a third and sometimes a fourth time.
Of the 154 essays scored (not including the 8 essays that were used for norming), 86 were
completed with only two readings (a 55.6% inter-rater reliability). 58 of the remaining essays
were read a third time (37.7%) and 10 were read a fourth time (6.5%). This is a very strong level
of inter-rater reliability (considering that the expectation for reliability was based on receiving the
same score in 3 out of 5 areas); indeed, the number of essays needing more readings remained
about the same as the year before.
For final scores on all essays, see Appendix E. For individual scorer scores on individual essays,
see Appendix F. For individual self-assessment scores, see Appendix G. For the essay prompt and
representative scored essays, see Appendix H.
USE OF ASSESSMENT FINDINGS TO IMPROVE STUDENT LEARNING
Include plan for sending substantive changes to department/college/university curriculum teams.
Plan to Address this Year’s Results
Roughly one third of the full-time composition faculty have participated in assessment or
workshops. This year, we plan to extend pared down versions of these workshops to include all
composition faculty. We have also made the sample essays available as resources to the faculty
(via the Composition Faculty Resources site on Canvas).
Based on our observations, we have implemented a new policy that 60% of assessment in
composition classes must be based on major writing assignments/essays. Many faculty now
realize that having too many low-stakes assignments can skew and inflate grades. Contrary to
popular belief, this does not help retain students; instead, it gives them an artificial sense of
achievement in general education courses. This change will put a greater emphasis on the writing
assignments and the development of writing skills.
Minutes are attached in the Appendix (Appendix I).
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
4
Appendix A – Composition I and II Outcomes Assessment Plan
Proposed Plan for Composition Program Assessment


Use the Written Communication VALUE (Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate
Education) Rubric developed by the Association of American Colleges and Universities. For our
purposes, the Benchmark Criteria (1) will be what is expected from students who enter
Composition I and the Benchmark Criteria (2) will be what is expected from students who have
completed Composition II.
Complete a Direct Assessment only in the pilot year; add an Indirect Assessment (student survey
using the same instrument) in the second year.
Summer 2010
 Evaluate 100 essays gathered from students at the end of Composition II in the Spring 2010 year.
 Complete a rubric-based scoring session using the VALUE rubric in order to assess student
learning in the areas provided on the rubric.
Fall 2010
 Present the data gathered in the Summer to the Composition Steering Committee.
 Discuss and then set a specific improvement goal for the academic year based on the data.
 Determine whether we can assess the specific goal with our regular yearly process or if we wish
to adopt additional assessment measures.
 Identify and share resources with faculty to facilitate work on the goal.
 Plan and present a professional development opportunity to help faculty member’s work on the
improvement goal in Composition I and II classes.
Spring 2011
 Gather 100 essays from student nearing completion of Composition II from a group of faculty
other than those who scored the essays in the pilot year.
 Have the students in those classes complete an indirect assessment of their work using the same
rubric that the faculty will use to score the essays.
Summer 2011
 Repeat assessment of essays procedure to determine if an improvement of student learning has
occurred.
 Determine if a continued focus on the area of improvement is warranted or if a new area for
improvement will be defined.
AY 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014

Continue annual assessment process with the goal of continuous improvement of student learning
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
5
Appendix B – General Education Learning Competencies
GENERAL EDUCATION COMPETENCIES
(Approved by the General Education Council on 4/12/11)
Working with SACS representatives, and with members of the Office of Curriculum and Instruction
and Office of Planning and Institutional Performance, the General Education Council has examined
national models and best practices in developing standards for FGCU general education
competencies in quantitative reasoning, written communication, and critical thinking. These
competencies are clear, nationally-recognized, and measurable skills that all university graduates
should be able to demonstrate.
Competency 1: Quantitative Reasoning





Solve mathematical problems;
Analyze and interpret quantitative data;
Summarize data into graphic and tabular formats;
Make valid inferences from data;
Distinguish between valid and invalid quantitative analysis and reasoning.
Competency 2: Written Communication






Employ the conventions of standard written English;
Select a topic, and develop it for a specific audience and purpose, with respect for diverse
perspectives;
Organize and present relevant content with coherence, clarity, and unity;
Develop research skills including the ability to collect, analyze, synthesize, and accurately
present and document information;
Use appropriate language to convey meaning effectively;
Apply critical reading skills.
Competency 3: Critical Thinking






Define an issue or problem using appropriate terminology;
Select, organize, and evaluate information;
Identify and analyze assumptions made by oneself and others;
Synthesize information, and draw reasoned inferences;
Develop and clearly state a position, taking into account all relevant points of view;
Formulate an informed and logical conclusion, and test it for viability.
History: Approved by General Education Council on 11/2/05; revised and approved on 4/12/11
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
6
Appendix C – Composition I and II Learning Outcomes
Learning Outcomes: Composition I / ENC 1101
 Use a rigorous writing process that includes inventing, drafting, and revising
 Employ the conventions of standard written English
 Employ conventions specific to particular types of essays
 Formulate a topic and develop it for a specific audience and purpose
 Select, organize, and relate ideas and information with clarity and precision
 Use basic research skills including collecting, managing, and documenting information
 Identify how authors employ language and develop ideas in texts
 Apply critical reading and thinking skills
 Consider diverse perspectives when formulating and developing ideas
 Develop an idea related to environmental sustainability
Learning Outcomes: Composition II / ENC 1102
 Use a rigorous writing process that includes inventing, drafting, and revising
 Employ the conventions of standard written English
 Employ conventions specific to academic writing
 Formulate a sound argument and develop it for a specific audience and purpose
 Select, organize, and relate ideas and information with clarity and precision
 Use higher level research skills including collecting, evaluating, managing, incorporating, and
documenting information
 Identify how authors develop written arguments
 Apply critical reading and thinking skills
 Consider diverse perspectives when formulating and developing arguments
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
7
Appendix D – Scoring Rubric
FGCU Outcome
Comp 1: Formulate a topic
and develop it for a specific
audience and purpose
Rubric criteria
Context of and Purpose for
Writing
Includes considerations of
audience, purpose, and the
circumstances surrounding
the writing task(s).
Capstone (4)
Demonstrates a thorough
understanding of context,
audience, and purpose that is
responsive to the assigned
task(s) and focuses all
elements of the work.
Milestone (3)
Demonstrates adequate
consideration of context,
audience, and purpose and a
clear focus on the assigned
task(s) (e.g., the task aligns
with audience, purpose, and
context).
Milestone (2)
Demonstrates awareness of
context, audience, purpose,
and to the assigned tasks(s)
(e.g., begins to show
awareness of audience's
perceptions and
assumptions).
Benchmark (1)
Demonstrates minimal
attention to context,
audience, purpose, and to the
assigned tasks(s) (e.g.,
expectation of instructor or
self as audience).
Comp 1 and 2: Select,
organize, and relate ideas and
information with clarity and
precision
Content Development
Uses appropriate, relevant,
and compelling content to
illustrate mastery of the
subject, conveying the writer's
understanding, and shaping
the whole work.
Uses appropriate, relevant,
and compelling content to
explore ideas within the
context of the discipline and
shape the whole work.
Uses appropriate and relevant
content to develop and
explore ideas through most of
the work.
Uses appropriate and relevant
content to develop simple
ideas in some parts of the
work.
Comp 1: Employ conventions
specific to particular types of
essays
Genre and Disciplinary
Conventions
Formal and informal rules
inherent in the expectations
for writing in particular forms
and/or academic fields
(please see glossary).
Demonstrates detailed
attention to and successful
execution of a wide range of
conventions particular to a
specific discipline and/or
writing task (s) including
organization, content,
presentation, formatting, and
stylistic choices
Demonstrates skillful use of
high-quality, credible,
relevant sources to develop
ideas that are appropriate for
the discipline and genre of the
writing
Demonstrates consistent use
of important conventions
particular to a specific
discipline and/or writing
task(s), including organization,
content, presentation, and
stylistic choices
Follows expectations
appropriate to a specific
discipline and/or writing
task(s) for basic organization,
content, and presentation
Attempts to use a consistent
system for basic organization
and presentation.
Demonstrates consistent use
of credible, relevant sources
to support ideas that are
situated within the discipline
and genre of the writing.
Demonstrates an attempt to
use credible and/or relevant
sources to support ideas that
are appropriate for the
discipline and genre of the
writing.
Demonstrates an attempt to
use sources to support ideas
in the writing.
Uses graceful language that
skillfully communicates
meaning to readers with
clarity and fluency, and is
virtually error-free.
Uses straightforward language
that generally conveys
meaning to readers. The
language in the portfolio has
few errors.
Uses language that generally
conveys meaning to readers
with clarity, although writing
may include some errors.
Uses language that
sometimes impedes meaning
because of errors in usage.
Comp 2: Formulate a sound
argument and develop it for a
specific audience and purpose
Comp 2: Employ conventions
specific to academic writing
Comp 1: Use basic research
skills including collecting,
managing, and documenting
information
Comp 2: Use higher level
research skills including
collecting, evaluating,
managing, incorporating, and
documenting information
Comp 1 and 2: Employ the
conventions of standard
written English
Sources and Evidence
Control of Syntax and
Mechanics
Borrowed from AAC&U’s VALUE project – Written Communication Rubric
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
8
Appendix E – Final Scores
8
48
73
97
117
144
154
178
1
7
9
10
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Context of
and
Purpose for
Writing
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2.5
1.5
3
3
3
2.5
2
2.5
3
2
2.5
2
2
2.5
2.5
2
2
2
2.5
2.5
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2.5
2
Content
Development
Genre and
Sources
Disciplinary
and
Conventions Evidence
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
2
3
1.5
3
2.5
2.5
2.5
2
2
2.5
2
3
3
2
2
3
1.5
2
2
2.5
2.5
2
2
1.5
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
2.5
2.5
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2.5
2
3
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2.5
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
2.5
2
2.5
3
3
3
1
2
3
1.5
2.5
2.5
2
2.5
2.5
1
2
2
3
3
2
1.5
1
3
2.5
2.5
2.5
2
1.5
Control of
Syntax
and
Mechanics
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2.5
2
1.5
2.5
2.5
3
3
2.5
2
1.5
3
3
2
3
3
1.5
Average
2.4
2.2
1.6
2
2.8
3
2
2
2.8
1.8
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
1.8
2.1
2.7
1.9
2.8
2.4
2.1
2.3
2.6
1.4
2.1
2.1
2.8
2.6
2.1
1.9
1.6
2.9
2.6
2.3
2.6
2.3
1.8
42
43
44
45
46
47
49
50
51
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2.5
3
3
1
3
1.5
3
2
3
2.5
2
2
3
3
2.5
2
2.5
2.5
3
2
2
2.5
2.5
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
2.5
2
1.5
3
1.5
2.5
1
3
2
1.5
1.5
3
2.5
2.25
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
2
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
2.5
3
3
2.5
3
2
2
2
2
2
1.5
2
2
1
3
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
2.5
3
2.25
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
1.5
2
2
2
2
1.5
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
1
2
1
2
2
2.5
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2.5
1
2.5
1
2.5
2
1
2
2.5
2
2.25
2
2.5
2
2
2
1.5
2
2
3
3
1
1.5
2
2.5
1
2.5
2
1
1.5
2.5
3
3
2.5
2.5
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2.5
2
2
2.5
2
2
1
2
2.5
1
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2.5
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
1.5
2
1.7
1.7
1.1
2.2
2.6
2.9
2.2
2.9
2.1
1.9
2
2
2
2
2.4
2.2
1.3
2.8
1.4
2.4
1.2
2.7
2.2
1.5
1.9
2.6
2.7
2.25
2
2.8
2.1
2.4
2
1.9
2.2
2.2
3
2.9
1.7
1.8
2
2.2
1.7
2
10
89
90
91
93
94
95
96
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
118
119
120
121
122
124
126
128
129
130
131
132
133
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
3
3
2.5
3
2
2
3
2
2.5
2.5
1.5
3
2
3
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2.5
2.5
3
2.5
2.5
2.5
2
3
3
2
2.5
1.5
2
1.5
3
2
2.5
2
2.5
1.5
3
2
2.5
2.5
2
2
1
3
1
2
2
1.5
2.5
2
2.5
3
2
1.5
1
2
2
1.5
2.5
2.5
2
2
2
2.5
1.5
1
2
2
2.5
2.5
2
1.5
2
2.5
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2.5
2
1
3
2
2.5
2
1
3
2
3
3
2
1.5
1.5
2
2
1.5
3
3
2.5
2.5
2
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
1.5
2
2
2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
2.5
2.5
2
2.5
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2.5
1.5
3
3
2
1
1.5
1.5
2
1
3
2.5
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
1.5
2.5
2
2
1
1.5
2
1.5
3
2
1
2
2
2
2.5
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2.5
3
1.5
1
1
1.5
2
2
3
3
2.5
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
2.5
2
1
2
2
3
2
3
2.5
2
2
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.2
2.4
2
1.4
2.6
1.7
2.2
2.1
1.4
2.6
1.9
2.8
3
2
1.4
1.4
1.8
2
1.6
2.9
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.9
1.8
1.5
2.1
1.9
2.8
2.7
2.1
1.8
1.6
2.1
1.8
3
2
2.1
2
2.1
1.9
2.4
11
142
143
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
155
156
157
158
159
161
162
163
167
169
170
171
172
173
175
176
177
179
182
183
184
185
186
188
189
190
192
3
1
2
3
2.5
2
1.5
2.5
3
2
2
2.5
2.5
2
2
2
3
2
2.5
2
2
3
2.5
2
1.5
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2.5
1.5
2
2
1
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1.5
1.5
2
2
1.5
2
2.5
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
1.5
3
1.5
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
1.5
1
1
2
1
2.5
2
2
2
FINAL
2.3
Context of
and
Purpose for
Writing
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.2
2.2
Content
Genre and
Sources Control of Average
Development Disciplinary
and
Syntax
Conventions Evidence
and
Mechanics
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
2
1
1.5
3
2
2
2
2
1.5
2
2
2
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
3
2
2
2
2
2.5
2
2
2
2.5
2
2
1
2
2
1.5
2.5
2
2
2.5
2
2.5
2.5
3
2
2
2.5
2
2.5
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2.5
3
3
2.5
2
2.5
2.5
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
2.5
2.3
1.5
2
3
2.2
2
1.8
2.1
2.2
2
2.2
2.1
2.8
1.6
2.5
1.8
3
2
2.5
2
2.1
2.7
2.3
2.1
1.9
2.6
2.1
1.7
1.4
2.2
1.9
1.4
2.2
2.1
1.8
2.2
12
Appendix F – Individual Scores
8
48
73
97
117
144
154
178
1
Average
7
Average
9
Average
10
Average
15
Average
Context of
and
Purpose for
Writing
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
Content
Development
Genre and
Sources
Disciplinary
and
Conventions Evidence
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
Control of Average
Syntax
and
Mechanics
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2.5
3
3
3
3.0
3
3
2
3.0
2
3
3
2.5
3
3
2
3.0
2.8
2.8
2
1
3
1.5
2
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
2.0
2
2
3
2.0
2
2
3
2.0
2
1.6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2.5
3
3
3
3
2.8
3
3
3
3
2
2.5
3
2
2.5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.6
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2.5
2
3
2
2.5
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2.6
3
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
13
16
Average
17
Average
18
Average
19
Average
20
Average
21
Average
22
Average
23
Average
3
2
2
2.5
3
2
2
2.5
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2.6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1.8
1.8
3
2
3
2.5
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2.4
1.8
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2.6
2.8
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1.5
2
2
1
2
2
1.8
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
2.6
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
2.5
2
3
2
2.5
2.2
2.6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
14
24
Average
25
Average
27
Average
28
Average
29
Average
30
Average
31
Average
32
2
3
1
2
2.5
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
2
2.5
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2.4
2.8
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1.5
1.6
1.2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
2.5
2.2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2.5
2.2
2
2
3
2.5
3
2
2.5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2.5
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.8
2.4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2.2
2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
15
Average
2
2
2
2
2.5
33
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
1.8
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
1.6
1.6
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2.5
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2.8
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2.5
2
3
2
2.5
3
3
2
3
2.6
2.6
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2.5
2
2
3
2
2.4
2.2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
3
2
2.5
3
3
3
2.6
2.6
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2.4
2.2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
2
1
1.5
2
1.6
Average
35
Average
36
Average
37
Average
38
Average
39
Average
40
Average
41
Average
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
16
42
Average
43
Average
44
Average
45
Average
46
Average
47
Average
49
Average
50
Average
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
1
1
1
2
2
2
1.8
1.6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
1
1
1
1.8
1.6
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1.5
1.2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2.4
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2.6
2.6
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2.5
3
3
3
3
2.8
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2.4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
2.8
3
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
17
51
Average
53
Average
54
Average
55
Average
56
Average
57
Average
58
Average
59
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
2
2.5
2.2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
2
2.5
2
2
4
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
4
3
2.5
2
2.6
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.2
2.2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
18
Average
3
2
2
2
2
60
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1.5
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1.4
1.2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2.5
3
2
2
2.5
3
2.6
1
2
1.5
2
1
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1.4
1.4
3
3
3
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
2.6
2.2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.2
1.2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2.6
2.8
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2.2
2.2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.4
1.6
Average
61
Average
62
Average
63
Average
64
Average
65
Average
66
Average
67
Average
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
19
68
Average
69
Average
70
Average
71
Average
72
Average
74
Average
75
Average
76
Average
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
1.6
2.2
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
1
2
2.5
2
3
1
2
2.5
2
2
2
3
2
2.4
2.8
3
3
3
3
2
2.5
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2.8
2.6
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2.5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2.5
3
3
3
3
2.6
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.4
2.4
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
20
77
Average
78
Average
79
Average
80
Average
81
Average
82
Average
83
Average
84
Average
85
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
1.8
3
2
2
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2.5
2.2
2.2
3
2
2.5
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.4
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.8
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
1
1
1
2
2
2
1.6
1.8
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
1.8
1.8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
21
Average
2
2
2
2
2
86
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
2.4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
1.8
1.6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
2.2
1.8
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2.5
2
3
3
2.5
2.4
2.4
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2.4
2.8
3
2
1
2.5
3
2
1
2.5
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.4
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2.5
3
2
2
2.5
2
2
2
2
2.6
2.2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Average
87
Average
88
Average
89
Average
90
Average
91
Average
93
Average
94
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
22
Average
95
Average
96
Average
98
Average
99
Average
100
Average
101
Average
102
Average
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1.4
1.4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2.6
2.6
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
1.8
1.6
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.4
3
2
2
2.5
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2.2
2
2
1
3
2
1.5
1
2
2
2
1.5
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
1.4
1.4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2.5
3
3
2
3
3
2
1
2.5
2
2
2
2
2.8
2.4
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
23
103
Average
104
Average
105
Average
106
Average
108
Average
109
Average
110
Average
111
Average
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
1.8
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
2.5
3
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2.5
2.6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
2.2
1.8
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1.5
2
1
1
1.5
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1.6
1.2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
1
2
1.5
1
1
1
1.2
1.6
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1.5
1
2
2
1.5
1.6
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
24
112
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
1
2
1.5
1
1
1
2
2
2
1.4
1.8
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2.5
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2.8
3
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
2.6
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2.4
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.4
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.2
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.8
3
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1.6
2
Average
2
3
2.5
121
2
1
1
2
1
1.4
Average
113
Average
114
Average
115
Average
116
Average
118
Average
119
Average
120
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
25
Average
122
Average
124
Average
126
Average
128
Average
129
Average
130
Average
131
Average
132
3
2.5
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1.6
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
1.8
2
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
2.6
3
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2.6
2.8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2.5
2.2
2
2
3
2
2.5
1
2
2
1.5
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1.6
2
1
2
2
2
1.5
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1.5
1
1
2
1
1
1.6
1.6
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.2
2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
26
Average
133
Average
135
Average
136
Average
137
Average
138
Average
139
Average
140
Average
3
2
3
2.5
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
3
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
3
1.5
2
2
3
2
2
1.6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2.5
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
3
3
3
2
3
2.2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
1.8
2.2
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.2
2
1
2
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1.8
2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
27
141
Average
142
Average
143
Average
145
Average
146
Average
147
Average
148
Average
149
Average
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2.5
3
2
2
2.5
2.6
2.2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2.5
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2.4
2.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
2.5
1.4
1.6
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1.5
2
3
2
2.5
1.8
2.2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.4
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
2.5
1.8
1.8
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
28
150
Average
151
Average
155
Average
156
Average
157
Average
158
Average
159
Average
161
Average
3
2
2
2.5
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
2
3
2.5
2
2.4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
3
2.2
2.2
3
2
2
2.5
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2.2
2
2
3
2
2.5
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2.5
3
3
2
3
2.6
3
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1.5
2
1
1
1.5
2
2
2
2
1.6
1.6
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
2.5
3
3
2
3
2.4
2.6
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
29
162
Average
163
Average
167
Average
169
Average
170
Average
171
Average
172
Average
173
Average
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
1.8
1.8
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2.6
2.4
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
1.8
2.2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2.2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
2.6
2.8
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2.4
2.2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
30
175
Average
176
Average
177
Average
179
Average
182
Average
183
Average
184
Average
185
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2.2
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.8
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2.5
2
3
2.5
2.6
2.6
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2.5
2.2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1.5
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.6
1.8
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1.4
1.4
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2.2
2.2
2
2
3
1
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.8
2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
31
Average
2
1.5
2
2
2
186
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
1.5
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1.5
1
1
2
1
1.2
1.6
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2.5
3
2
2
2.5
2
2
2
2
2.4
2
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.2
1
2
2
1.5
1
2
1
1.5
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1.6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
2.5
2
3
3
2.5
2
2.4
Average
2
2
3
2
Content
Development
Genre and
Sources
Disciplinary
and
Conventions Evidence
FINAL
Context of
and
Purpose for
Writing
2.3
2.1
2.2
Average
188
Average
189
Average
190
Average
192
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
2.0
Control of Average
Syntax
and
Mechanics
2.2
2.2
32
Appendix G – Student Self Evaluations (Indirect Assessment)
Context
of and
Purpose
for
Writing
Student #
1
7
9
10
15
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
4
2
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Content
Development
Genre and
Disciplinary
Conventions:
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
4
3
1
2
4
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
Sources
and
Evidence
Control of
Syntax
and
Mechanics
2
2
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
2
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
1
4
3
3
4
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
4
4
4
2
2
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
Average
2.2
2.8
3
3.4
3.6
3.2
3.4
3.2
3
2
3.2
4
3.4
3.6
2
2.6
3.6
3
3
2.6
2.2
3
2.8
3
3
3
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.4
3
3
2.6
3.4
2.8
2.6
33
51
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
93
94
95
2
2
3
1
3
2
4
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
2
3
2
3
2
4
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
3
1
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
4
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2.6
2.4
2.4
1.2
2.4
2.2
3.4
3
2.4
2.8
1.6
2.6
1.4
3.2
2
3.2
2.6
2.8
2.2
3
2.6
3.2
2.6
2.6
2.8
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.4
2.8
2.8
2.4
1.4
2.4
2.6
2.6
3
2.6
2
2.2
2.2
2
2.4
34
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
124
126
128
129
130
131
132
133
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
2
3
1
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
2
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
4
1
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
1
3
2
2
3
1
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
1
3
2
3
2
2
3
4
1
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2.4
2.4
1.6
3.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2
2.6
3.4
1
2
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.2
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.4
2.4
2.6
2
2
2.6
1.4
2.4
2.4
1.8
2
2.8
2.2
2
2
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.8
2.4
35
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
154
155
156
157
158
159
161
162
163
167
169
170
171
172
173
175
176
177
178
179
182
183
184
185
186
188
189
190
191
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
2
4
3
3
2
3
2
2.6
Context
of and
Purpose
for
Writing
2
2
4
2
4
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
4
2
1
2
2
3
4
3
2
2
4
3
4
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2.6
Content
Development
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
2
2
3
4
3
3
1
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
Genre and
Disciplinary
Conventions:
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
4
2
3
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
4
4
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
4
3
3
2
2
2
2.6
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
2
4
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
4
3
3
2
3
3
2
2.7
Sources
and
Evidence
Control of
Syntax
and
Mechanics
3
2.2
3
2.4
3.4
2.6
3.4
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.4
3.2
2.8
1.6
2.6
3
2.4
1.6
2.6
2.6
3
3
3.6
2.8
2.6
3
2.8
3.4
2.4
2.2
2.8
3.4
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.6
Average
36
Indirect
Direct
Difference
2.6
2.3
0.3
2.6
2.3
0.3
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
2.5
2.3
0.1
2.6
2.3
0.3
2.7
2.3
0.3
2.6
2.3
0.3
37
Appendix H – Prompt and Sample Scored Essays
General Assessment Prompt AY 2013-2014 (Used SP14)
Topic: Write a persuasive essay promoting an improvement to a current and/or controversial issue.
These could involve problems of:
The environment
Economics
Foreign policy
Social issues
Audience: Consider the appropriate community audience who needs to be persuaded of your point of
view and/or can affect change. Be sure to assess that audience’s values when formulating your
argument.
Length: 900-1100 words (approximately 4 pages excluding Works Cited page)
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
38
Benchmark 1 – Sample Essay
1 - Demonstrates
minimal attention
to context,
audience, purpose,
and to the assigned
task(s) (e.g.,
expectation of
instructor or self as
audience).
Student 44
1 - Uses
appropriate and
relevant content to
develop simple
ideas in some parts
of the work.
1 - Attempts to use
a consistent system
for basic
organization and
presentation.
1 - Demonstrates
an attempt to use
sources to support
ideas in the
writing.
1 - Uses language
that sometimes
impedes meaning
because of errors
in usage.
Pro- Choice
One case in 1973, Roe v Wade, changed America and the citizens living in it. Roe v Wade was a court case
that basically said mothers can have abortions in the first trimester. As far as the second and third trimesters goes, if
the mother’s health/life is at risk then the abortion would be okay. If the mother would be fine having the baby then
people can go into details with the pro-life choice. Although the court ruled pro-choice there has been a lot of
controversy because many people believe a 3 week old fetus is a human and therefore should not be aborted. That
brings the question, what should be done about abortions? The solution I’ve come up with is for the government to
pass a law that says women can have abortions, but have to take classes that gives accurate information; the
positives and negatives. After providing information about both we should let the choice be up to the mother and
interfere only if we have too. In the article, The Apple Argument against Abortion, the author, Peter Kreeft, states
his reasoning and viewpoint on abortion and why it should be eliminated altogether.
Peter Kreeft wrote the article “The Apple Argument Against Abortion”. In the article he used something
called apple argument trying to prove why abortion is not acceptable as a solution for unwanted pregnancies. He
states “…if we know what an apple is, Roe v. Wade must be overthrown, and that if you want to defend Roe, you
will probably want to deny that we know what an apple is.” His argument is abortion is murder, “…Babies are being
slaughtered.” He also believe abortion is not fair to the unborn fetus because the fetus didn’t “agree” to it. He states,
“But harming or killing another against his will, not by free contract, is clearly wrong; if that isn't wrong, what is?” –
Peter Kreeft is a Christian man who is headstrong about getting rid of abortion, but his argument is very weak. He
uses multiple fallacies for example with the statement “…Babies are being slaughtered.” Using the drastic word
slaughtered is an example of both distorted emotional appeals and creating false needs. I believe it’s a distorted
emotional appeals threat fallacy because he uses the word slaughter to compare to what happens during abortions.
He compares abortion to murder and that’s a drastic comparison. He also says “I will do this because, as Edmund
Burke declared, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.".” He tries, once
again, comparing A to B when they aren’t the same. His comparison is a little different than his previous one. This
one is more of a. Although life is very valuable to people….
Reason for solution- Abortion--we should continue allowing abortion because no one knows what could’ve
happened personally for the woman. If she tried having an abortion in her 2nd and 3rd trimesters and the baby could
be born healthy with no problems then she will need to have it and look into adoption. Giving information on both
alternatives will inform the woman on all she needs to know about both the pros and cons. If she still continue to
want an abortion and she’s able let her.
Common ground- agree life shouldn’t be taken and life is important for all. For abortion we don’t know
how the woman got pregnant. Therefore tell her about the options and the facts. If she still decide to go along with
the abortion then let her unless the baby is a full term baby and no longer a fetus in the first trimester. For adoption
again give full information on it, the pros and cons. The choice is the parents at the end, the only interference we
should have is if the woman is in her second and third trimester then she will need to have to the baby and go
towards adoption or attempt to keep the baby.
Work Cited
Kreeft, Peter. "The Apple Argument Against Abortion." Catholicagencynews.com. Crisis Magazine 18,
Dec. 2000. Web. Mar.-Apr. 2014.
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
39
Milestone 2 – Sample Essay
2 - Demonstrates
awareness of
context, audience,
purpose, and to the
assigned task(s)
(e.g., the task aligns
with audience,
purpose, and
context).
2 - Uses appropriate
and relevant content
to develop and
explore ideas
through most of the
work.
2 - Follows
expectations
appropriate to a
specific discipline
and/or writing
task(s) for basic
organization,
content, and
presentation.
2 - Demonstrates an
attempt to use
credible and/or
relevant sources to
support ideas that
are appropriate for
the discipline and
genre of the writing.
2 - Uses language
that generally
conveys meaning to
readers with clarity,
although writing
may include some
errors.
Student 55
You Have a New Message
“Eleven percent of citizens that drive between the ages of eighteen and twenty who have been involved in a
car accident and lived proclaimed that they were either sending or receiving texts messages when the incident
occurred” (Statistics on Texting). Studies by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety show that “texting while
driving kills eleven teens each day”(Statistics on Texting). After reviewing these eye-popping statistics, what is the
best way to stop teenagers from texting while driving? While some individuals believe that talking on the phone and
texting while driving are not severe issues, I, on the other hand, believe we need to take these problems to the next
level. Therefore, the best way to take teenagers off their phones while driving is to fully eliminate the phone while
operating a vehicle.
On the contrary, Adrian Lund, President of the Highway Loss Data Institute and Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, says, “texting bans haven’t reduced crashes at all” (Holbrook 1). Lund also proclaims, “crashes
increased in three of the four states we studied after bans were enacted” (1). Mr. Lund is committing a hasty
generalization due to the fact that the study only covered 4 out of the 50 states (California, Louisiana, Minnesota,
and Washington). Ray LaHood, the Department of Transportation Secretary, believes Lund’s study by the Highway
Loss Data Institute, “is misleading, stating that his department’s research shows that distracted driving laws could
reduce car accidents”(1). A nationwide study performed by economists Rahi Abouk and Scott Adams, found that
states with a fierce ban on texting and driving, saw an 8 percent decrease in single one person car accidents (Texting
Bans Fatal Accidents).
The banning of texting and driving is highly important because “Researchers at Cohen Children’s Medical
Center estimate more then 3,000 annual teen deaths nationwide from texting” (Ricks 1). A recent poll done by AAA,
shows that 94% of teens said texting and driving is a serious problem, however 35% of them admitted to doing it
anyways. This proves that teens are aware of the risk yet they will continue to text and drive until a law is adopted to
prohibit it. According to a survey done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “twelve percent, out of
8,500 students who responded to the survey, reported they text and drive daily” (Kilgore 1). By implementing a law,
we can bring the “forty-five percent of teens who have texted and driven in the last 30 days” (2), down by a
significant margin, which would once again save countless lives.
The banning of cell phones would be effective because it would not only save numerous lives, but also save
the nation a lot of money caused by traffic accidents. In 2011, the state of “Arizona is one of three states to see an
increase in traffic related fatalities” (Arizona stricter texting), while the rest of the nation is watching that number go
drastically downward. In fact, Arizona lost a whopping “2.9 billion dollars” (Arizona stricter texting), which was all
due to traffic accidents. Consequently, in 2012, Arizona saw a 9 percent raise in traffic accidents, which raises the
question, after continuous years of increase why, is this problem not being addressed. State Senator Steven Farley
blames Senate President, Andy Biggs for the lack of concern saying “Now that he’s senate president he’s been able
to kill it by not bringing it to the floor”(Arizona stricter texting). By implementing a ban on all cell phone use while
driving for teens, we can limit the amount of money that is lost due to common traffic accidents.
In summation, while we should put a ban on all cell phone uses while a teen is driving, teens will be teens;
some of them many follow the law and others will disobey it as if it is completely harmless. Laws may not stop
every teen from texting and driving but a firm ban by each state would definitely limit the number of fatalities from
teens texting and driving. With this ban, we can also save millions of dollars annually, that are constantly being lost
due to traffic accidents. I believe my solution is the most effective because it would limit the use of teens on their
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
40
cell phones and could save lives, which is the main reason why we see commercials and signs regarding texting and
driving. To conclude, while we can make up loss of revenue, we cannot bring a fatality back to earth which is why I
believe an action should be taken to stop teenagers from texting and driving permanently.
Works Cited
Kilgore, Christine. "Despite laws, almost half of teens text while driving." Pediatric
News June 2013: 15. Academic OneFile. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.
Holbrook, Emily. "Increase in accidents since ban on texting." Risk Management Dec.
2010: 44. Academic OneFile. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.
Delthia Ricks. "Study: Texting while driving now leading cause of death for teen
drivers." Newsday [Melville, NY] 9 May 2013. Academic OneFile. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.
"Arizona needs to be stricter on texting while driving." UWIRE Text 22 Oct. 2013: 1.
Academic OneFile. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.
Jaffe, Eric. "Do Texting Bans Really Prevent Fatal Accidents?" The Atlantic Cities. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr.
2014.
"Statistics on Texting & Cell Phone Use While Driving." Edgarsnyder.com. N.p., n.d.
Web. 06 Apr. 2014.
Milestone 3 – Sample Essay
Artificial Perceptions: The Power of News Media
3- Demonstrates
adequate
consideration of
context, audience,
and purpose and a
clear focus on the
assigned task(s),
(e.g., the task aligns
with audience,
purpose, and
context).
3 - Uses appropriate,
relevant, and
compelling content
to explore ideas
within the context of
the discipline and
shape the whole
work.
2 - Follows
expectations
appropriate to a
specific discipline
and/or writing
task(s) for basic
organization,
content, and
presentation.
3 - Demonstrates
consistent use of
credible, relevant
sources to support
ideas that are
situated within the
discipline and genre
of the writing.
3 - Uses
straightforward
language that
generally conveys
meaning to readers.
The language in the
portfolio has few
errors.
Student 81
Do Looks Speak Louder Than Words?
Over the past five years, beauty pageants have blown up through social media, TV networks, and
magazines. Some people believe beauty pageants boost young girls’ self-esteem and benefit their outlook on
themselves and their images; others disagree. Countries such as Britain and France have called on bills to ban child
beauty pageants because they promote vanity, promiscuity, competition, and can provoke the acts of pedophiles
(Wallace). The attention of the French was grabbed when a controversial photo spread in Vogue 2010 highlighted a
ten-year-old girl in woman’s high heels, scandalous outfits, and heavy makeup (Wallace). Child beauty pageants
confuse children’s external, and internal values, create emotional problems, produce financial strain for the family,
and create a sexual mentality for these children.
Fantasies can be created for the girls and boys when they dress up in costumes, dance to songs, and act as
promiscuous characters like three-year-old Paisley did on Toddlers and Tiaras as Julia Roberts in Pretty Women
(Business Insider). But are the mothers also guilty of living a fantasy? Do they live a fantasy by vicariously living
through their children? Martina M. Catwright, a psychologist, did a study on what “motivates parents to subject
their children to the high-pressure, appearance-driven glitz beauty pageant circuit and what “happens” to these
children” (Catwright). She explains a condition called Achievement by Proxy Disortation, “when the adults pride
and satisfaction are achieved when supporting the child’s development and abilities” (Catwright). The main drive
for these parents to force these kids to stay in pageants is the social or financial benefits of the child’s achievements
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
41
and winnings. The continued force of these pageants could create depression or could even lower their self-esteem
when they are being punished for imperfections.
When children are taught to measure their self-worth by their looks, they could become depressed if they
do not continue to be that way when they grow up (Everyday Life). Nicole Hunter, former beauty pageant
contestant, stated:
I don’t even know what it is to feel attractive without make-up on my face. Until recently,
whenever I saw my mother and I wasn’t wearing any sort of makeup she would literally pull a
tube of lipstick out and tell me I needed makeup. Perhaps its because I have worn makeup since
the age of four, when I competed in my first pageant. When children enter beauty pageants at
too young of age, they can develop poor self-image, low self-esteem and even eating disorders
(Beauty Pageants).
Some parents encourage extreme dieting, which can lead to depression or eating disorders, which is very dangerous
when developed in such a young child. In our society fifteen percent of women have eating disorders (Hunter). Even
Miss America from 2008 is a recovering anorexic (Hunter). Creating this self-image of being skinny, dolled up, and
strutting around in sexy outfits can promote sexuality and promiscuity.
Melissa Wardy, founder of Pigtail Pals and Ballcap Buddies, which provides age-appropriate clothing for
children states, “My whole issue with sexualization is that it robs girls of girlhood, they should be out being creative
and imaginative, and when they focus on being sexy women it takes away learning opportunities. It takes away the
beauty of childhood” (Morgan). Child beauty pageants promote exactly what Melissa Wardy is trying to prevent. In
2011, Toddlers and Tiaras mom Lindsay Jackson padded her four-year-old chest with fake boobs and a bulging butt
for a Dolly Parton performance. Not only does this promote a mature self-image for a young adolescent, it also
provokes perversion. JonBenet Ramsey, a child beauty queen, was found dead at the age of six. This case, still not
solved, is known to be because of perversion provoked by her dolled up look and mature poses, photo shoots, and
ads. Patsy, her mother says “during photo-shoots strange men would approach us and it made me uncomfortable. I
think about these things now and it makes me cringe. We were so naïve, now I believe it is not a good idea to put
your child on public display” (Huffingtonpost). This is a first hand case showing that when someone puts their child
on display with mature clothes, hair and makeup, it can encourage perversion. Dolling a child up with makeup,
spray tans, fake teeth, nails, hair, and the extravagant and revealing outfits can not only promote this, it can also
cause the family to lose money, and sometimes fall into debt.
When the thought of pageants linger in someone’s mind, images of sparkles, glitter, music, dancing, and
fun appear. But only the families that participate in the pageants experience the dark side of debt. According to
Dorothy Poteat, pageant expert, the low end of costs for a glitz pageant is between four hundred and five hundred
dollars and can go all the way up to $3,500 dollars or more in preparation for only one day (Sandberg). The
addiction of winning and competition drive the parents to not be able to recognize the correct priorities for their
children. As a society, we drive this obsession by tuning into shows such as Toddlers and Tiaras and Honey Boo
Boo. With views so high and the industry for child pageants so large, the idea of completely banning the pageants,
like Britain and France want to do, is nearly impossible.
Recently, France motioned for beauty pageants to be banned all together, the French upper house of
Parliament voted to end beauty pageants for those younger than sixteen (Rubin). Although I believe pageants should
only be adult related such as Miss Florida or Miss America, the demand and industry is so large it is almost
impossible to rid all adolescent pageants. Having age restrictions, or costume, dance, and entertainment restrictions
would be a positive impact on the pageant industry.
When adolescents are pushed into maturing quickly, they observe what they think is beauty, and many
misconceive what the true meaning of beauty is when held to a competitive standard. These pageants deprive young
girls of genuinely believing in themselves and modify their thought process on what is purely beautiful. Chantal
Juanno speaks with truth during her interview with Alissa J. Rubin, “It is extremely destructive for a girl between
the age of six and twelve to hear her mother say what is important for her is to be beautiful,” she shakes her head,
“what children want to hear and should be told everyday is what counts is what they have in their brains” (Rubin).
Promoting confidence in young kids through knowledge and talent, not looks and entertainment, is a far better way
to run the pageant world and by doing this we can conserve their childhood.
Works Cited
Cartwright, Martina M. "Princes by Proxy: Explaining Extreme Pageant Moms." Psychology Today 1967: n. pag.
Psychology Today. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Hunter, Nicole. "Long Term Effects on Women." Beauty Pageants: n. pag. Beauty Pageants. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
42
"JonBenet Ramseys Death." Huffington Post [New York City] May 2005: n. pag. Huffington Post. Web. 15 Apr.
2014.
Morgan, Mandy. "Toddlers and Tears: The Sexualization of Young Girls." Deseret News [Salt Lake City] 15 June
1850: n. pag. Deseret News. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Sandberg, Erica. "Toddlers, Tiaras, and Debt." Credit Cards. N.p., 21 July 2011. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
"Toddlers and Tiaras Controversies." Business Insider. Business Insider, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Wallace, Kelly. "French Moving to Ban Child Pageants." CNN. Turner Broadcasting System, 19 Sept. 2013. Web.
15 Apr. 2014.
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
43
Appendix I – Meeting Minutes
Minutes on Assessment from Composition Faculty Meeting (August 14, 2014).
In this fifth year of assessment, we brought together a diverse group including our First Year Experience
Librarian and full- and part-time Composition faculty members for our annual scoring session. This year
we culled papers from twice as many sections and thus were able to assess almost double the number
of students/essays. We hoped the average scores in each category (as well as the overall average scores)
would rise above the score of “Milestone 2.” We did achieve that increase in average and overall scores
from last year’s assessment.
We attribute this improvement to several factors. We used a more tightly-worded prompt that was
applied with more cohesion across all assessed sections. Additionally, our faculty and students
benefitted measurably from the addition of a full-time First Year Experience Librarian. Heather Snapp
was able to give presentations in twice as many sections as the previous year. That, in addition to the
hours she spends helping students in our freshman residence halls, contributed to the increased success
with which our students identified and used sources and evidence in their essays.
Our indirect assessment also was more successful in this, our fourth year of using this model. Students in
the assessed classes were introduced to the AAC&U Rubric and asked to perform a self-evaluation of
their essays. This year we saw a narrowing of the gap between students’ perception of their
performance and faculty assessment. We credit this to the way our faculty introduced and used the
rubric in their classes leading up to the student self-assessment.
In addition to our annual assessment as described above, we convened a series of three workshops
using final essays from SP 2013 students. Nine full-time faculty participated in three half-day workshops:
Norming using the AAC&U rubric; Scoring using the AAC&U rubric (a replication of our annual scoring
sessions); and Rating the bank of essays to use as samples (high, medium and low). We also discussed on
what we favor in essays, where students need to score as they exit the composition sequences, and how
we can deliver a consistent message to students about achievement.
Proposed Composition Program Response to General Education Assessment Results
Roughly one third of the full-time composition faculty have participated in assessment or workshops.
This year, we plan to extend pared down versions of these workshops to include all composition faculty.
We have also made the sample essays available as resources to the faculty (via the Composition Faculty
Resources site on Canvas).
Based on our observations, we have implemented a new policy that 60% of assessment in composition
classes must be based on major writing assignments/essays. Many faculty now realize that having too
many low-stakes assignments can skew and inflate grades. Contrary to popular belief, this does not help
retain students; instead, it gives them an artificial sense of achievement in general education courses.
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2014
44