GENERAL EDUCATION LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR WRITING
MTSU ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FINAL DATA ANALYSIS for SPRING 2009
ASSESSMENT RUBRIC RESULTS
from May, 2009 EVALUATION SESSION
Drafted by: Dr. Allison D. Smith, adsmith@mtsu.edu
CRITERIA:
Less than
Adequate
(D or F
level)1
Adequate
(C level)
More than
Adequate
(B or A level)
Less than
Adequate (1)
Adequate (2)
More than
Adequate (3)
67/198=33.8%
120/198=60.6%
11/198=5.6%
Less than
Adequate (1)
Adequate (2)
More than
Adequate (3)
65/198=32.8%
125/198=63.1%
8/198=4.0%
Less than
Adequate (1)
Adequate (2)
More than
Adequate (3)
83/198=41.9%
106/198=53.5%
9/198=4.5%
Less than
Adequate (1)
Adequate (2)
More than
Adequate (3)
54/198=27.3%
128/198=64.6%
16/198=8.1%
The student writer is able to distill a primary
argument into a single, compelling statement.
Sample rating pool: 99 X 2 ratings each
Mean rating: 1.71
SD: 0.48
Inter-rater reliability: 0.65
The student writer gives a clear purpose and
audience.
Sample rating pool: 99 X 2 ratings each
Mean rating: 1.71
SD: 0.46
Inter-rater reliability: 0.61
The student writer is able to order major points in
a reasonable and convincing manner based on
primary argument.
Sample rating pool: 99 X 2 ratings each
Mean rating: 1.63
SD: 0.46
Inter-rater reliability: 0.46
The student writer is able to develop his/her ideas
using appropriate rhetorical patterns (e.g.,
narration, example, comparison/contrast,
classification, cause/effect, definition).
Sample rating pool: 99 X 2 ratings each
Mean rating: 1.81
SD: 0.48
Inter-rater reliability: 0.60
The student writer is able to manage and
coordinate basic information gathered from
multiple secondary sources.
Sample rating pool: 99 X 2 ratings each
Mean rating: 1.64
SD: 0.48
Inter-rater reliability: 0.59
Less than
Adequate (1)
Adequate (2)
More than
Adequate (3)
81/198=40.9%
108/198=54.5%
9/198=4.5%
Less than
Adequate (1)
Adequate (2)
More than
Adequate (3)
71/198=35.9%
117/198=59.1%
10/198=5.0%
Less than
Adequate (1)
Adequate (2)
More than
Adequate (3)
46/198=23.2%
151/198=76.3%
1/198=0.5%
The student writer is able to employ correct
diction, syntax, usage, grammar, and mechanics.
Sample rating pool: 99 X 2 ratings each
Mean rating: 1.70
SD: 0.46
Inter-rater reliability: 0.49
The student writer has written a minimum of
1,000 words or four typed pages at 250 words per
page (please estimate).
Sample rating pool: 99 X 2 ratings each
Mean rating: 1.77
SD: 0.39
Inter-rater reliability: 0.75
Scores used (Less than Adequate, Adequate, and More than Adequate) are anchored by the department’s
grading guidelines for A-F grades on 1010 and 1020 papers.
1
DATA COLLECTION:

Student anonymity

Faculty anonymity

Representative sample
(100 students in spring 09 English 1020/only 99 essays could be used due to clerical
copying error):

Gender:
F
M
Not specified

Age:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
29
35
42
Not specified



50.00% (50)
49.00% (49)
1.00% (1)
5.00% (5)
61.00% (61)
16.00% (16)
5.00% (5)
3.00% (3)
1.00% (1)
1.00% (1)
2.00% (2)
1.00% (1)
1.00% (1)
1.00% (1)
1.00% (1)
1.00% (1)
1.00% (1)
Ethnicity:
American Indian
Black, not of Hispanic Origin
Hispanic
Not Specified
White, not of Hispanic Origin
1.00% (1)
16.00% (16)
2.00% (2)
1.00% (1)
80.00% (80)
Student Classification:
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
78.00% (78)
17.00% (17)
2.00% (2)
3.00% (3)
Faculty Rank:
Graduate Teaching Assistant
Adjunct
Full-Time Temp (FTT) Instructor
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Full Professor
18.00% (18)
20.00% (20)
33.00% (33)
13.00% (13)
9.00% (9)
9.00% (6)
Final 1020 Grades for Selected Students in Study:
Grade Given by 1020 Teacher:
A
31% (31)
B+
10% (10)
B
29% (29)
B7% (7)
-------------------------------------------------- 77% (77) More Than Adequate
C+
6% (6)
C
10% (10)
C3% (3)
-------------------------------------------------- 19% (19) Adequate
F
3% (3)
N
0% (0)
-------------------------------------------------- 3% (3) Less Than Adequate