Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning
Department and Program Report
Please enter the appropriate information concerning your student learning assessment activities
for this year.
Academic Year of Report: 2010-2011
College: CoTS
Department: Mathematics
Program: Bachelor of Science
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
This year we assessed Goal 3: Written Communication. This goal was chosen for us.
2. How were they assessed?
Bachelor of Science majors in our Winter Quarter 2011 senior seminar class, MATH 499S, were asked to
write a 3-5 page paper entitled “What Is Mathematics.”
Nine students completed the assignment.
All of our nine graduating BS majors were enrolled in the course.
The rubric used for assessment of the paper is included at the end of this report.
3. What was learned?
Overall, we are satisfied with the results of the assessment. Generally, students showed competence in their
writing. The deviation from this pattern, however, was in their ability to provide support for their assertions
or to explicitly state their assumptions.
Math 499S (n = 9)
Rubric Element
Content
Reasoning
Organization
Rhetoric of the Discipline
Conventions & Presentation
Pass
Non-Pass
7/78%
4/44%
8/89%
8/89%
7/78%
2/22%
5/56%
1/11%
1/11%
2/22%
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
Faculty in the Mathematics Department will receive a copy of this assessment. We will discuss the
problems we observed in the assessment and attempt to see whether the writing convention and
organization difficulties we saw can be solved primarily by emphasizing that whenever a writing
assignment is made, students should remember the techniques learned in other courses, such as
English 101.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment
information?
There was no equivalent assessment last year.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central
Washington University:
None.
CWU Writing Rubric
Elements
Content
Pass
No Pass
 The topic is appropriate for the assignment.
 The paper as a whole has a clear sense of purpose.
 Topic is not appropriate for the assignment.
 Individual paragraphs and/or paper as a whole lack a clear
sense of purpose. It may lack a thesis, controlling idea, or
introduction and conclusion.
 Evidence or information presented in the paper is relevant,
accurate, necessary, and complete.
 Substantial parts of the writing may be irrelevant,
inaccurate, or only weakly connected to the purpose. There
may be insufficient evidence or information, or little effort to
limit information.
Content overall:
 The claims, ideas, and purpose are significant.
 Claims and ideas are supported by appropriate evidence
and sources.
 Assumptions are recognized and made explicit.
Reasoning
 Analysis and interpretation show some combination of the
following: depth of thinking, logical reasoning, complex
reasoning, accurate conclusions, and/or informed
recommendations.
Reasoning overall: Pass
 Overall organization fits the paper’s purpose.
Organization
Rhetoric of
the
Discipline
(optional for
Gen Ed)
Conventions
and
Presentation
No Pass: 
Pass: 
 The paper uses appropriate headings, transitions, and other
signposts to guide the reader.
 The paper’s parts are connected to each other and to the
overall purpose.
 Visual elements, if used, are integrated with verbal
elements.
Organization overall: Pass 
 Demonstrates knowledge of the subject.
 Use of specialized concepts demonstrates understanding.
 The paper’s genre, format, language, and tone are
appropriate to the discipline.
 The paper shows evidence of disciplinary ways of thinking
and awareness of audience.
Rhetoric of the Discipline overall: Pass 
 The text shows evidence of crafting, editing, and
proofreading. Errors may be present, but they do not impede
meaning.
 Information is cited accurately and completely.
 Format of paper, including any visuals or diagrams, is
effective.
Conventions and Presentation overall: Pass 
 The claims and ideas in the paper may be self-evident,
simplistic, or underdeveloped.
 Claims and ideas not are supported by evidence or only by
weak evidence.
 The analysis may rest on unstated or unexamined
assumptions.
 Analysis and interpretation are underdeveloped, vague, or
overly general.
No Pass: 
 The paper may seem haphazard and may be difficult to
follow.
 Paper lacks adequate signposting.
 The progression of thought is unclear.
 Purpose of visual elements is unclear.
No Pass: 
 Knowledge of the subject flawed or limited or it is not
possible to determine.
 Use of specialized concepts inappropriate or inadequate.
 Shows little or no awareness of genre, format, language,
and tone used in the discipline.
 Little evidence of disciplinary ways of thinking and/or
awareness of audience.
No Pass: 
 Frequent errors and/or insufficient variety and complexity
of sentences. Errors may impede meaning.
 Citation is incomplete or there are serious flaws in
documentation.
 Format is inappropriate and/or visuals and diagrams
No Pass: