PROGRAM ASSESSMENT FORM
LEARNING GOALS
FALL 2011 AND SPRING 2012
Name of Program: General Education (Competency in Written Communication)
Name of Program Leader: Linda Rowland
Date: 6 June 2012
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 2012
1
The team used 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 second 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 2012 semester and scored at the
beginning of the Summer of 2012.
Sample (number of students, % of class, level, demographics).
For the direct assessment, essays were collected from five different Composition II classes
(n=120 students) out of a total of 69 sections (n=1,688 students enrolled); this equates to 7.2% of
sections, 7.1% of total student population. Of the 120 essays that were collected, 98 total essays
were scored (8 during the norming session, and 90 during the scoring session; the other essays
were not submitted in a fashion that allowed them to be scored).
For the indirect assessment, 98 valid submissions were collected. 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.
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:
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
2
Spring
2010
Spring
2011
Spring
2012
Context
and
Purpose of
Writing
1.95
Content
Development
Genre and
Disciplinary
Conventions
Sources and
Evidence
Control of
Syntax and
Mechanics
Average
1.95
1.86
1.69
1.96
1.88
2.07
1.82
1.97
1.93
1.94
1.94
1.86
1.82
1.71
1.70
1.80
1.78
While the average scores in each area and the overall average score did approximate the score of
a “2” that was expected for this assessment, average scores across the board declined from last
year, with only one area receiving comparable scores (“Content Development”). Faculty
associated with the assessment discussed the apparent decline in scores and noted that a new
prompt was used for this year’s scoring session. Students were asked to engage a pseudoscientific theory and demonstrate the nature of this theory citing scientific research. Because most
students are not science majors and would not have been versed in scientific discourse, the
assignment created a difficulty in the ability of students to respond. While the prompt was one
that necessitated a high level of critical thinking, information literacy, and writing skills, the
students may not have been prepared for the prompt itself.
Faculty discussed the results of the assessment, and adopted a plan for the year as outlined in the
following section.
Indirect Assessment
As this was the second 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.
Difference
between
Indirect
and Direct
Spring
2011
Spring
2012
Context
and
Purpose of
Writing
+0.49
+0.54
Content
Development
Genre and
Disciplinary
Conventions
Sources and
Evidence
Control of
Syntax and
Mechanics
Average
+0.64
+0.56
+0.54
+0.67
+0.59
+0.64
+0.69
+0.87
+0.64
+0.68
While the difference between the direct and the indirect assessments increased, this may be
attributed to the difficulty of the assignment and the decrease in overall direct assessment scores.
The overall average difference in scores in the direct assessment between Spring 2011 and Spring
2012 was a 0.16, though the overall difference in the indirect scores was 0.07, a smaller margin of
difference. Students still do not have a strong sense of their own abilities and the faculty need to
continue to work with them on self-assessment.
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
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
3
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 90 essays scored (not including the 8 essays that were used for norming), 47 were
completed with only two readings (a 52% inter-rater reliability). 31 of the remaining essays were
read a third time (34%) and 10 were read a fourth time (11%). 2 essays had to be read a fifth time
to attain a completed score (2%). While this is an acceptable level of inter-rater reliability
(considering that the expectation for reliability was based on receiving the same score in 3 out of
5 areas), the number of essays needing more readings increased this year, also perhaps due to the
changes in the essay prompt.
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
As no clear pattern emerged in the data other than a slight decline in scores overall, have chosen
not to adopt a critical task that focuses on a single area this year. Working on the assumption that
the complexity of the prompt may be partially responsible for the decline, we will instead strive
to explore, as a faculty, how to craft assignments that require critical thinking and information
literacy, but that still help students develop fundamental writing skills. This focus will bring also
allow us to consider these three aspects of writing in concert as we anticipate the emerging QEP.
We will address how to craft such assignments at two of the faculty meetings and encourage
individuals and teaching cells to work on the idea as well.
Another area of concern was the lack of improvement in student perception of their performance,
in spite of our having adopted critical tasks last year to address this area. As a result, we will ask
faculty for feedback on how to improve the critical tasks adopted last year. We will provide
better training in use of the rubric to the faculty who are providing the papers to be assessed.
Finally, we will engage the entire Composition faculty, at least one time, in a norming session
using the assessment rubric.
Describe how data and recommendations were shared with faculty. (Attach a copy of minutes to
this document if applicable).
A Composition Faculty meeting was held on Friday, August 17 and the results shared with the
faculty (see Appendix I, Meeting Minutes). The meeting affirmed the plan described above. See
Appendix I.
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
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 2012
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 2012
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 2012
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 2012
8
Appendix E – Final Scores
Essay
Number
Context of
and Purpose
for Writing
Content
Development
Genre and
Disciplinary
Conventions
Sources
and
Evidence
Control of
Syntax and
Mechanics
Average
score
1
2
2
1.5
2
2
1.9
2
2
1.5
1.5
2
1
1.6
3
2.5
2
1.5
2
2
2
4
1.5
2
1.5
2
2
1.8
5
1.5
2
1
1
2
1.5
6
2
1.5
1.5
1
2
1.6
7
2.5
2
2
2
2
2.1
8
2.5
2
2
2
1.5
2
9
2
2
2
1.5
2
1.9
10
not scored
0
11
not scored
0
12
2.5
2
2
1.5
2
2
13
1
1
1
1.5
1.5
1.2
14
1
1.5
1
1
1.5
1.2
15
1
1.5
1
1
1.5
1.2
16
2.5
2
2
2.5
2
2.2
17
2
2
2
1.5
1
1.7
18
1
2
2
1.5
2
1.7
19
2
2
2
1.5
2
1.9
20
not scored
21
22
0
2
2
1.5
1.5
2
not scored
1.8
0
23
2
1.5
2
1
1
1.5
24
1.5
1
1
1
1.5
1.2
25
3
3
2.5
3
3
2.9
26
1.5
1
1
1
1.5
1.2
27
1.5
1
1
1.5
1
1.2
28
2.5
2
2
2.5
2
2.2
29
1
1.5
1.5
2
2
1.6
30
2.5
2.5
2
2
2
2.2
31
1.5
1.5
2
2
2
1.8
32
1.5
2
2
2
2
1.9
33
2
2
1.5
2
1.5
1.8
34
1
1
1.5
1.5
1
1.2
35
2
2
1.5
2
1.5
1.8
36
2
2
2
1.5
1.5
1.8
37
1.5
1.5
1
2
1
1.4
38
2
2
1
1
1
1.4
39
1.5
2
1
1
1.5
1.4
40
1
2
1.5
2
1
1.5
41
not scored
0
42
1
1
1
1
1.5
1.1
43
2
2
1.5
2
2
1.9
44
2
1
1
1
1
1.2
45
not scored
0
46
2
2
1.5
1.5
2
1.8
47
1.5
2
2
1
1.5
1.6
48
1
1
2
2
1
1.4
49
2
2
2
2
2
2
50
1
2
1
2
1.5
1.5
51
2
2
2
1
2
1.8
52
2
1.5
2
1.5
2
1.8
53
54
not scored
0
2.5
2
2
1
2
1.9
55
not scored
0
56
not scored
0
57
3
3
2
3
3
2.8
58
3
2.5
2
1.5
2
2.2
59
1
1
1
1
1
1
60
not scored
0
61
not scored
0
62
1
1.5
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
1
2
1
1.3
10
63
not scored
0
64
not scored
0
65
not scored
0
66
1
2
1
1.5
1
1.3
67
1
1.5
2
1.5
2
1.6
68
not scored
0
69
3
2
2
2
2
2.2
70
2
2
2
2
2
2
71
1
1
1
1
1.5
1.1
72
1
1
1
1
1
1
73
2
2.5
2
2
2
2.1
74
1
1
1
1
2
1.2
75
3
3
3
2.5
2
2.7
76
2
2
2
1.5
2
1.9
77
not scored
78
0
2
1.5
2
1.5
2
1.8
79
not scored
0
80
not scored
0
81
82
2.5
2
2
2.5
2
not scored
2.2
0
83
3
2.5
3
2.5
2
2.6
84
1.5
1
1
1
1.5
1.2
85
1
1
1.5
1
1.5
1.2
86
3
2
2
2
3
2.4
87
2.5
2
2
2
2
2.1
88
1.5
2
1
1.5
2
1.6
89
3
2
2
2
1.5
2.1
90
2.5
2
2
1.5
2
2
91
not scored
0
92
not scored
0
93
2
2.5
2
2
2.5
2.2
94
2
2
2
1.5
2
1.9
95
1.5
1
2
1
1.5
1.4
96
1
1.5
1
1
1.5
1.2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
11
97
2
2
1.5
1.5
2
1.8
98
2
2
2
2
2
2
99
2
1.5
1
1.5
2
1.6
100
1.5
2
1.5
2
2
1.8
101
not scored
0
102
2.5
3
2
2.5
2
2.4
103
3
3
3
2.5
2.5
2.8
104
1
1
2
1
2
1.4
105
2
2
2
2.5
2.5
2.2
106
3
3
2.5
3
2
2.7
107
1
1
1
1.5
1
1.1
108
1
1
1.5
1.5
2
1.4
109
3
2.5
2.5
3
3
2.8
110
1.5
1
2
1
2
1.5
111
2
2
1
2
1.5
1.7
112
2.5
3
3
2.5
3
2.8
113
2
2
2
1
2
1.8
114
2
2
2
1.5
1.5
1.8
115
1
1
2
2
2
1.6
116
2
2
2.5
2
2
2.1
117
2
1.5
2
2
2
1.9
118
1
2
1.5
2
1.5
1.6
119
2.5
2
2
2.5
2
2.2
120
2
2
2
1
2
1.8
Content
Development
Genre and
Disciplinary
Conventions
1.82
1.71
Context of
and Purpose
for Writing
Average
score
1.86
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
Sources
and
Evidence
1.70
Control of
Syntax and
Mechanics
Average
1.80
1.78
12
Appendix F – Individual Scores
Context of
and Purpose
for Writing
Content
Development
Genre and
Disciplinary
Conventions
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
3
1
2
2
2
2
LR
AHW
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1.5
1
2
1
1.5
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
AHW
LR
EV
3
3
3
2
3
2
2.5
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
AHW
LR
AT
4
4
4
1
2
1
1.5
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1.5
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
AHW
LR
AT
5
5
5
3
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
AT
LR
EV
6
6
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
2
1
1.5
1
1
1
2
2
2
LR
AT
7
7
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
LR
LR
8
8
8
2
3
2
2.5
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1.5
LR
AT
EV
Essay
Number
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
Sources
and
Evidence
Control of
Syntax and
Mechanics
Scorer's
Initials
13
9
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
LR
AT
12
12
12
1
3
2
2.5
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1.5
1
2
2
2
LR
AT
GW
13
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
2
1
1.5
AT
EV
14
14
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
AT
EV
15
15
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
AT
EV
16
16
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
AT
GW
17
17
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
1
1
1
AT
GW
18
18
18
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
GW
AT
LC
19
19
19
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
GW
AT
LC
Final
10
Not Scored
11
Not Scored
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
14
20
Not Scored
21
21
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
AT
GW
23
23
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
AT
GW
24
24
24
2
1
2
1.5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
GW
AT
EV
25
25
25
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
LC
GW
EV
26
26
26
2
1
2
1.5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
GW
AT
LR
27
27
2
1
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
1
1
1
GW
AT
28
28
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
GW
LC
29
29
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
GW
LC
30
30
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
GW
LR
Final
22
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Not Scored
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
15
Final
2.5
2.5
2
2
2
31
31
31
3
2
1
1.5
3
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
GW
LR
LC
32
32
32
3
2
1
1.5
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
GW
LR
LC
33
33
33
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1.5
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
LR
GW
LC
34
34
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
2
1
1.5
1
1
1
GW
LR
35
35
35
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1.5
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1.5
LC
EV
GW
36
36
36
36
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1.5
1
2
1
2
1.5
EV
LC
GW
LR
37
37
2
1
1.5
1
2
1.5
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
EV
LC
38
38
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EV
LC
39
39
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
EV
LC
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
16
Final
1.5
2
1
1
1.5
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
1
1
1
EV
LC
42
42
42
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
LC
EV
LR
43
43
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
EV
GW
44
44
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EV
GW
46
46
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
EV
GW
47
47
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
48
1
1
2
2
1
NORM
49
2
2
2
2
2
NORM
50
50
50
50
50
3
3
2
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
40
40
Final
41
Not Scored
Final
Final
Final
45
Final
Final
Final
Not Scored
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
LC
LR
LR
AHW
EV
LC
AT
17
51
51
51
51
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
LC
GW
LR
AHW
52
52
52
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
1
2
2
2
LC
LR
AHW
2
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
LC
AHW
AT
Final
Final
53
54
54
54
Final
Not Scored
55
Not Scored
56
Not Scored
57
3
3
2
3
3
NORM
58
58
58
58
2
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2.5
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
1.5
1
1
2
2
2
LC
AT
AHW
LR
59
1
1
1
1
1
NORM
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
AHW
LC
AT
Final
60
Not Scored
61
Not Scored
62
62
62
Final
63
Not Scored
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
18
64
Not Scored
65
Not Scored
66
66
66
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1.5
2
1
1
1
AHW
LC
AT
67
67
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
LC
AHW
69
3
2
2
2
2
NORM
70
70
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
LC
AHW
71
71
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
AHW
AT
72
1
1
1
1
1
NORM
73
73
73
73
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
AHW
EV
AT
GW
74
74
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
AHW
AT
75
75
75
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
AT
AHW
GW
Final
Final
68
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Not Scored
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
19
76
76
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
AHW
EV
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1.5
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1.5
2
1
2
2
2
AHW
EV
LR
AT
2
2
3
2
2.5
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2.5
1
2
2
2
2
EV
LR
AHW
AT
Final
77
Not Scored
78
78
78
78
Final
79
Not Scored
80
Not Scored
81
81
81
81
Final
82
Not Scored
83
83
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
AHW
EV
84
84
1
2
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
AHW
EV
85
85
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
AHW
EV
86
86
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
JW
GW
87
3
2
1
1
1
EV
Final
Final
Final
Final
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
20
87
87
87
3
3
2
2.5
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
LC
JW
LR
88
88
88
2
2
1
1.5
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
3
2
2
2
AHW
AT
LC
89
89
89
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
1
3
2
2
1
2
1.5
AHW
AT
GW
90
90
2
3
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
AHW
AT
JW
AHW
EV
Final
Final
Final
Final
91
Not Scored
92
Not Scored
93
93
93
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2.5
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2.5
94
94
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
JW
AT
95
95
1
2
1.5
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
LC
LR
96
96
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
LC
LR
97
97
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
3
1
3
Final
Final
Final
Final
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
LC
AHW
21
97
97
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
LR
GW
98
98
98
98
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
JW
EV
AHW
LR
99
99
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
1
1
1
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
JW
AT
100
100
100
100
100
Final
2
3
1
1
2
1.5
2
3
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
1.5
1
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
EV
GW
AT
LC
AHW
GW
EV
LC
Final
Final
Final
101
Not Scored
102
102
102
Final
3
3
2
2.5
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2.5
3
2
2
2
103
103
103
Final
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2.5
2
2
3
2.5
104
1
1
2
1
2
105
105
Final
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2.5
3
2
2.5
106
106
Final
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2.5
3
3
3
2
2
2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
GW
EV
AHW
NORM
JW
GW
JW
EV
22
107
107
107
Final
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1.5
2
1
1
1
LR
AHW
AT
108
108
Final
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
LR
AHW
109
109
Final
3
3
3
3
2
2.5
2
3
2.5
3
3
3
3
3
3
LR
AHW
110
110
Final
1
2
1.5
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
JW
LR
111
111
Final
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
JW
LC
112
112
112
112
Final
3
1
2
3
2.5
2
2
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
1
2
2
3
2.5
2
1
3
3
3
AT
EV
LC
AHW
113
113
113
Final
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
LC
AT
EV
114
114
Final
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
1
2
1.5
AT
EV
115
115
Final
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
JW
LR
116
2
1
1
2
1
JW
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
23
116
116
Final
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2.5
3
1
2
2
2
2
LC
AHW
117
117
117
Final
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
GW
LC
AHW
118
118
118
Final
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1.5
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.5
GW
LC
AHW
119
119
Final
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
GW
LC
120
2
2
2
1
2
NORM
Normed
8
2 reads
3 reads
4 reads
5 reads
47
31
10
2
90
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
52.2%
34.4%
11.1%
2.2%
100.0%
24
Appendix G – Student Self Evaluations (Indirect Assessment)
Student
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
10
Indirect
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Sources
and
Evidence
Control of
Syntax
and
Mechanics
Average
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2.6
2.4
2.8
2.4
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.8
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.4
2.8
2
3
3
2
2.6
2
2
3
1
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2.4
3
2.2
3
2.6
2
2.8
2.6
2.8
2.6
2
2.2
Context of and
Purpose for
Writing
Content
Development
Genre and
Disciplinary
Conventions:
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
No indirect
assessment
two submitted
under 11
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
unreadable file
3
no submission
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
25
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
45
Indirect
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
55
Indirect
56
Indirect
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
64
Indirect
65
Indirect
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
2
2
2
3
2
no submission
3
2
3
No indirect
assessment
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
unreadable file
2
No indirect
assessment
No indirect
assessment
2
2
no submission
no submission
2
unreadable file
No indirect
assessment
No indirect
assessment
2
3
unreadable file
3
3
3
2
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.4
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.8
2.6
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
1
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2.8
2.6
1.8
3
2.6
2.2
2.4
1
2
2
2
1.8
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2.4
3
2
3
2
2.4
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2.2
2.6
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2.6
2.8
2.6
26
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
80
Indirect
81
Indirect
82
Indirect
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
2
2
3
2
no submission
2
no submission
No indirect
assessment
2
No indirect
assessment
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
no submission
unreadable file
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
no submission
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
2.6
2.6
2.8
2
3
2
3
2
2.4
3
3
3
2
2.6
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
3
3
2.2
2.4
2.4
3
2.4
2
3
2.4
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2.6
2.2
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2.8
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.2
2.4
27
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2.43
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2.46
2
3
2
1
3
2
2
3
2.40
2
2
3
1
2
3
2
2
2.57
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2.44
2
2.8
2.4
1.8
2.2
2.8
2.2
2.6
2.46
28
Appendix H – Prompt and Sample Scored Essays
ENC 1102: Composition II
Paper Three
In today’s world of easily accessed information and investigative television programs, we are bombarded
with information that may or may not be scientifically sound. Your purpose for this paper, then, is to
serve as a filter for your audience. You must convince them that a topic which is surrounded by
skepticism and misinformation is indeed a pseudoscientific claim, and you must to do by supporting your
argument with scientifically or academically sound evidence. Get ready to be a mythbuster!
In approximately 3-5 pages, you will investigate a topic and, with valid scientific research, you will
debunk a myth (or myths) about that topic. In order to successfully accomplish this purpose, you will
have to sort out scientific evidence from pseudo-scientific evidence.
In order to debunk a myth and support your claim, you must cite at least four sources using standard
MLA format. At least three of these sources must originate from FGCU academic databases (scholarly
journal articles or books). You may not use Wikipedia or television shows. You must cite valid scientific
and academic research in your essays to support your argument. If you cannot find valid scientific
research and academic discussion of your topic, find a new topic.
Your paper will be graded on how well you have explained the pseudoscientific myth at hand, how well
you have articulated and supported your argument debunking that myth, how well you have conducted
your research, and overall, how coherent, unified, and persuasive your essay is, among other things.
Additional guidelines include the following:





Follow MLA guidelines for the formatting of your paper, especially in the citation of your
sources. Include in-text citations for all summaries, paraphrases, and quotes, and include a Works
Cited page with all cited sources.
Proofread carefully for spelling, punctuation, and mechanical errors. Your papers should be free
of these.
Write in a clear and professional tone that is appropriate for a college-level paper. Do not use first
or second person (“talking to the reader”).
Thesis statements/claims are required for this paper and should be underlined.
Before turning in your paper, you must submit a digital version of it to Turnitin via the dropbox
on the class’s Angel page.
Possible Pseudoscience Topics:
(Please, no topics on creationism/evolution, UFO’s in general, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, religions, the
Bermuda Triangle, or the Loch Ness monster)
If you have a topic you’d like to write about that does not appear below, you must consult me for
approval. Also, remember that you need to be able to find sources that claim “scientific” validity.
Holocaust denial
Plant Perception (AKA The Backster Effect)
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
29
Aromatherapy
Acupuncture (focused on specific claims)
“We only use 10% of our brain” claims
Spontaneous human combustion
Cellular memory
Diet supplements
Benefits of body “cleansing” regimens/products
Distance healers/Therapeutic Touch
The Atlantic Paranormal society (Ghost hunters)
Full Moon “Lunacy”
Nostradamus’s prophecies
Psychic pets
Near death experiences
Hollow Earth theories
Anti-Vaccination Movement
Hypnosis (as a cure, focused on specific claims)
Mozart Effect
“Brain Gym”
Eugenics
Claims about causes/cures for homosexuality
Trickle-Down Economics
9/11 Conspiracies – the “truthers”
Moon landing faked
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
30
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).
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.
#59
ENC 1102
14 October 2012
Nostradamus’s Prophecies: Fact or Faked?
In today’s world pseudoscience is everywhere. The definition states that pseudoscience is a
system of theories about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific; but in fact, are not
("pseudoscience" ). Millions of companies campaign everyday trying to sell their product, in which they
believe is better than the opposing product. But what makes their product better than the next one?
Millions of people around the world are telling others their life stories. But what makes their stories true?
What are some ways to find out if the source is being truthful or if the source even knows the subject
well? There are many people out there that will believe anything they hear; and they will be the same
ones that go out and buy the product that is being sold or believe the story that is being told. However,
some others are different and do not believe things unless they have proof or documentation to back up
the product or the story. The point to be made here is that everyone wants proof.
Michel de Nostradame or better known as Nostradamus(December 14, 1503-July 2, 1566) was a
physician, an astrologer, and he was also a prognosticator; which is what he is most widely known for.
Nostradamus has gained worldwide recognition nearly 500 years after his death due to his "predictions"
of catastrophic events that would take place on earth. Nostradamus put his forebodings into several books
and almanacs that he wrote during his lifetime. The book Centuries was a full series of prophecies written
in quatrains ("quatrains"), that dealt with events from the time that Nostradamus was alive to the end of
the world in the year 3797 (Roberts xvi). Nostradamus's prophecies often involved political, religious, and
civil unrest and turmoil. Nostradamus had thousands of prophecies but a few are more well-known than
others. Many people have tried and continue to try to draw similarities between what Nostradamus has
prophesized and the actual events that unfold. The only problem is that they have no scientific facts or
proof present. With no evidence or support it is impossible to prove your claim. A few of the more
popular prophecies/predictions include the Attack on 9/11, the Apocalypse in 1999, and the Uprising of
Hitler during WWII.
"Earthshaker, fire from center of the earth,
Shall make the new city's environs tremble;
Two great rocks for a long time will make war;
Then Arethusa will redden a new stream (Smoley74.)"
This is the quatrain that people are saying Nostradamus predicted the attacks of 9/11 with. Many
believers of the Nostradamus prophecies state that the new city that is mentioned in line two is meant to
be New York. However, the events that took place on September 11, 2001 were planes crashing into two
buildings. There was no earth shaker or earthquake that took place; neither was there any fire from the
center of the earth making an appearance in New York City. Nostradamus mentions in the third line that
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
31
"two great rocks for a long time will make war." It seems as if Nostradamus was predicting meteors or
asteroids to collide, when on 9/11 airplanes were high jacked and flown into the buildings of the World
Trade Center. There is no real evidence to show and prove that Nostradamus predicted the attacks on 9/11
nor is there a timeline or reference of time to tell exactly when he predicted this event to take place.
"In the year 1999 and seven months,
From the skies shall come an alarmingly powerful king,
To raise again the great King of the Jacquerie,
Before and after, Mars shall reign at will (Roberts 336.)."
This quatrain is the one that Nostradamus enthusiasts and followers would agree on to say that he
predicted the Apocalypse to come in 1999. It was said that the 'Beast of the Apocalypse' would come and
turn the 1999 upside down to 666 which is the number of the beast. It is also believed that Nostradamus
was tying in the idea of an alien invasion in the last line when he mentions "Before and after, Mars shall
reign at will." From this quatrain it is obvious that Nostradamus was predicting some sort of apocalypse
right before the new millennium; but as everyone knows it is the year 2012, the human race is still alive,
and the world is still intact.
After researching Nostradamus long enough and looking over and analyzing each prophecy and
prediction, it seems that some of them repeat each other.
"The walls shall be turned from brick into marble,
There shall be peace for seven and fifty years,
Joy to mankind, the aqueduct shall be rebuilt,
Health, abundance of fruits, joys and a mellifluous time (Roberts 341.)."
The prediction for this quatrain is that a golden age for humanity is coming after a great
calamitous war among nations. Now just ten quatrains later it seems as if the same type of prophecy has
occurred...
"At last the wolf, the lion, ox, and ass,
The gentle doe, shall lie down with the mastiffs.
The manna shall no more fall to them,
There shall be no more watching and keeping of mastiffs (Roberts 345.)."
The broken down version of this quatrain states "This reiterates previous prognostications of a
period of peace and plenty and elimination of war (Roberts 345.)."
Some of the prophecies fall under the category of having retroactive clairvoyance, which is when
someone's bias effects the claimed events or predictions. Some of the predictions are just too broad,
meaning it is impossible to pin it on a certain event. For example the quatrain that states...
"The new ship shall make a voyage,
Into the place and thereby transfer the empire,
Beaucaire, Arles, shall keep the hostages,
Near them shall be found two columns of porphyry."
The debriefing of this prediction states that "A government shall change not only its political and
economic structure, but shall move to a new city and establish new headquarters there (Roberts 343.)."
The quatrain is too broad to foreshadow a certain event, that could shadow several events due to the fact
that governments can change their structures at any moment.
So could Nostradamus foresee the future and predict events that would happen around the world?
It's highly doubtful! There is no scientific evidence whatsoever of his predictions matching up with actual
events; just the thoughts and ideas of one's imagination...


Works Cited
"pseudoscience." The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third
Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 17 Apr. 2012. <Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pseudoscience>..
"quatrain." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 17 Apr. 2012.
<Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quatrain>.
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
32




Roberts, Henry. The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus. Revised ed. Oyster Bay:
Nostradamus Co., 1982. xvi.
Roberts, Henry. The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus. Revised ed. Oyster Bay:
Nostradamus Co., 1982. 336.
Roberts, Henry. The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus. Revised ed. Oyster Bay:
Nostradamus Co., 1982. 343.
Smoley, Richard. The Essential Nostradamus. New York: the Penguin Group, 2006. 29
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 49
ENC 1102.
17 April, 2012
Ghost Hunters; Debunked.
The Atlantic Paranormal Society, creators of the popular show Ghost Hunters, is one of the most
well-known and deeply believed professional “ghost hunting groups” in the United States. A 2005 Gallup
poll found that 37 percent of Americans believe in haunted houses, and even more believe in the Ghost
Hunters. (Radford) But, has the claim about seeing and communicating with the paranormal world
actually truth? Or has there been underlying evidence of specific camera lenses and machines used to
create the paranormal photos and noises that are seen today? Although one may disagree, The Atlantic
Paranormal Society uses faulty evidence and non-tested science to produce their pseudoscientific claim
about ghost hunting.
The Atlantic Paranormal Society, TAPS, was founded in 1990 by Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson.
Over the years passed, these two men have had their eyes set on helping people experience paranormal
activity in the real world. On their show Ghost Hunters Hawes and Wilson introduce the “haunted house”
they will be searching for the paranormal beings that are thought to be seen there. With the use of infrared
camera lenses and Electromagnetic Field detectors they produce images that the world wants to see which
makes it easier for the human eye to believe. But, even though a picture is worth a thousand words the
scientific evidence and proof is not available. Many people don’t stop and ask the question of how the
images are taken or why they cannot see the paranormal beings with their naked eye. In an article written
by Benjamin Radford, a writer of Skeptical Inquirer it states that, “Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson say
that they approach ghost hunting from a scientific point of view. Yet, in their 2007 book Ghost Hunting:
True Stories of Unexplained Phenomena from The Atlantic Paranormal Society, Hawes allots a grand
total of four paragraphs (within 273 pages) to a chapter titled "The Scientific Approach." He doesn't have
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
33
much to say about science or scientific methods, and in fact it's the shortest chapter in the book”
(Radford). The Atlantic Paranormal Society may believe that they are creating a valid scientific claim but,
without any hard evidence or proof all they are really doing it setting up the pseudoscientific side to their
claim.
Many people may think that it is hard to not believe something that someone can show them in
picture. But, for The Atlantic Paranormal Society it is all just the turn of a lens and in-depth editing. The
amount evidence to disprove the pseudoscientific claim that paranormal activity is able to be sited is
larger than the minute evidence, if any, that the “ghost hunters” have. In a scientific survey done by
Sharron Hill, she found that through the use of ARIGS, a survey used to examine areas on which no
organized academic research or inquiry is focused--perceived paranormal events, there are 879 groups
that claim to be ghost hunters and 81 paranormal groups. (Hill) With this evidence and the use of the
survey it is already slightly proven that TAPS is nothing but a group of non-scientific personnel trying to
say that what they are conducting is legitimate. People may be thinking, “If this isn’t real then how do
they come up with the pictures?” Well, The Atlantic Paranormal Society and most of the other groups that
hunt ghosts use specific camera lens and coatings to produce the pictures that they want. An article
written by Gary Peterson states “A feature or shape at the focal plane of a camera or other optical
instrument that is not present in an actual scene, or an unfocused duplicate image that is overlaid upon a
desired image. Ghost images, or ghosts, are caused by reflections from the surfaces of lenses or windows”
(Peterson). This evidence debunks the pseudoscientific claim by proving that the pictures that are
produced are merely reflections of the windows that the pictures are near.
To further debunk TAPS’ pseudoscience claim scientist have uncovered the mystery behind the
noises that have been recorded. Sharon Hill, writer of the Skeptical Inquirer, says “Ghost hunter groups
rely on their equipment to record spiritual evidence” (Hill).This should be the case because they want to
have actual proof of the claim that they are trying to produce. But, Hill then continues to say that “no site
and in no ghost investigation reference book did I encounter a coherent, referenced explanation for the
various equipment used and data gathered. ARIG as matter-of-factly state that the equipment records
environmental disturbances related to paranormal activity without considering normal variance or
calibration” (Hill). Without this hard evidence there is not proof of the paranormal beings having been
captured, seen, or even heard.
The last bit of debunking of The Atlantic Paranormal Societies claim is that there is no sign of
any alternative explanation for the “unexplained” phenomena. (Radford) In a scientific experiment there
always is an explanation for any other possibilities that could come about. In this pseudoscience claim
there seems to be no alternative view which is not a sound part of their experiment. Benjamin Radford of
the Skeptical Inquirer states “Ghost reports are filled with phrases like "one investigator heard a young
girl singing softly" or "the shadow of an old man appeared in the hallway." How, exactly, does the ghost
hunter know for a fact it was a young girl's voice or an old man's shadow?” (Radford) The people in these
ghost hunter groups just make assumptions about what they think they hear or think they see. Science is
not about making assumptions; it is about having evidence and proof through the use of the scientific
method. That is why the claims of the Atlantic Paranormal Society are not sound, there is no scientific
method used when they are finding their “ghosts.”
After deep investigations of the claim that is presented, through scientific evidence and disproval
of faulty science, The Atlantic Paranormal Society is proven to be pseudoscientific. The very little
evidence that they produce that paranormal activity actually does happen has been disproven with hard
evidence. TAPS merely produces these pictures and noises, not to show proof, but to give the Ghost
Hunters audience what they want to see with the use of non-scientists, rigged camera lenses no alternative
views and equipment that captures environmental sounds.
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
34
Works Cited
Hawes, Jason. TAPS: The Atlantic Paranormal Society. Syfy Channel,
Web. 11 Apr. 2012
Hill, Sharon. "Amateur paranormal research and investigation groups doing 'sciencey' things: a study of
1,000 websites shows how amateur groups use technical jargon and equipment as symbols of what is
'scientific' while actually promoting the paranormal and not adhering to any real scientific principles of
investigation."
Skeptical Inquirer Mar.-Apr. 2012: 38+. General OneFile. Web. 11 Apr. 2012.
Peterson, Gary L "Ghost image (optics)," in AccessScience, ©McGraw-Hill Companies, 2008,
Web. 11 Apr. 2012.
Radford, Benjamin. "Ghost-hunting mistakes: science and pseudoscience in ghost investigations: there are
thousands of amateur ghost hunters around the world whose techniques are modeled after hit cable
television shows such as ghost hunters, which claim to use good science. but a close examination of
typical ghost-hunting methods reveals them to be mostly pseudoscience."
Skeptical Inquirer Nov.-Dec. 2010: 44+. General OneFile. Web. 11 Apr. 2012.
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 57
ENC 2011
17 April 2012
Urine: Miracle Medicine or Placebo Effect?
When one is in need of a thirst-quenching drink, the list of choices seems obvious. Water, juice
and soda are appropriate liquid refreshments. But how about adding a nice cup of urine to the list?
Perhaps, the majority of the population would gag at the thought of drinking urine, or become grossed out
just thinking about it. However, believe it or not, there are people who drink and lather themselves with
their own urine. This practice is called urine therapy, and it has gained a certain following. “What is
certain is that urine is antiseptic – capable of killing micro-organisms” (Green 182). In fact, urine was
used to clean surgical instruments during the Civil War and into the twentieth century (Green 34).
Proponents of this type of immune therapy believe that this is some sort of miracle medicine, rather than a
potentially harmful waste product.
This so-called, “water of life,” has been used for acne, to promote general health, and to fight
infections in modern times (Green 38). Depending on the culture of the user or the naturopathic
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
35
community, this practice can be known by terms like “auto-urine therapy, amaroli, and shivambu”
(Gardner 15). In ancient times, the Chinese, Aztecs, Hindus and Egyptians used urine to treat or cure
diseases or injuries. Additionally, some doctors in Central America currently use urine injections as
vaccines claiming that the substance can treat or cure illnesses like cancer, arthritis, herpes, skin rashes,
colds, blood clots, chicken pox (McNulty).
Urine is a waste product that carries water and toxins out of the body. Drinking waste is not
logical, and there are side effects. First time practitioners are warned to begin with 5-10 drops of the first
morning stream (Green 77). Otherwise, vomiting, headache, fever, and many other symptoms may arise.
Normally, these symptoms occur when some foreign or venomous virus or bacterial infection attacks, and
the body’s immune system kicks in to fight and heal.
According to Bradley, “Urine is at least 95 percent water, but the remaining 5 percent is not very
good for you--that's why your body is getting rid of it”(93). The 5 percent carries “excess urea, vitamins,
minerals, enzymes, hormones, proteins, and antibodies along with electrolytes, such as chloride, sodium
and potassium” (Gardner 15). However, too much sodium draws water out of cells, dehydrating the body,
and too much potassium may lead to heart ailments. "Think about it like drinking ocean water," says Jeff
Giullian, a nephrologist (kidney doctor) at South Denver Nephrology Associates in Colorado. "It's going
to dehydrate you and do significantly more harm than good”(Horl 112).
Many western medical doctors believe that practicing urine therapy has no known scientific
benefits to the body, and no notable cures for illness. Indeed, the only supporting evidence for the curative
powers of urine therapy rests on the testimony of the practitioners. Yet the practice is growing.
Ayurvedists, homeopaths and some naturopaths admit that urine is waste, and that it contains
elements that the body did not need. For example, excessive amounts of certain vitamins, like Vitamin C,
which are not absorbed, exit the body through urination. Seemingly, once one puts the excess elements
back into the body using urine, the process would only repeat itself (Bradley 98).
Nevertheless, every spring residents of DongYang, China, eat eggs “soaked and cooked in the
urine of young boys, preferably below the age of 10” (Chan 1). The so-called “virgin boy eggs” protect
one from heat stroke, “promote better blood circulation, and just generally reinvigorate the body” (Chan
2). Evidently, this practice is a tradition that has been passed on for centuries. But some Chinese medical
experts wonder about the health benefits “warning about sanitary issues surrounding the use of urine to
cook the eggs” (Chan 2).
Possibly, the entire issue of urine therapy is cultural. Eastern medicine versus Western medicine
is not new. Nature versus pharmacology is controversial. Some believe that urine is a product of blood
filtration not waste. Even urea, an element in urine, is being produced in modern labs and is used in
creams for dry and itchy skin. These products are being produced in labs. These products do not contain
human urine, and are effective and sanitary (Bradley 98).
Therefore, like some of the Chinese medical experts and Dr. Weil recommend, when one is faced
with an illness or condition, consider rest and clear fluids from the refrigerator or cupboard. Even though
millions of people use their own urine “to cure what ails them,” most may want to consider a glass of
water. Maybe, Mom was right! Drink fluids and get plenty of rest.
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
36
Works Cited
Bradley, Ryan. “Is It Okay to Drink Your Urine?” Popular Science. Apr. 2011 : 92-99. Print.
Chan, Royston. “’Virgin Boy Eggs’ Cooked in Urine are Spring Delicacy.” Huffington
Post/Reuters. 29 March 2012: 1-2. Web. 30 March 2012.
Gardner, Martin. “Urine Therapy.” The Skeptical Inquirer. May/June 1999: 13-18. Web. 15 March 2012.
Green, Gerald. Breaking Through the Untouchable Diseases. Monmouth, UK: Sagax,
2008. Print.
Horl, Walter H. “The Medicinal Use of Urine.” American Journal of Nephrology. Mar/Apr 1999: 110121. Print.
McNulty, Mary. “Urine Therapy.” The Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine.
Ed. Laurie Fundukian. Detroit: 2009. Web.
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
37
Appendix I – Meeting Minutes
Fall Composition Faculty Meeting
Friday, August 17th
1:30-2:30

Adam Musolino of First Year Advising presented Eagle Flight Plan. Faculty will work with Advising to
schedule times for representatives to speak to first year Composition students.

Anna Haney-Withrow presented the results of last year’s Composition Program Assessment and discussed
the challenge of crafting assignments that build critical thinking capacity as well as elicit good writing. She
stated that this challenge would be a program-wide focus this year, adding that there would be
professional development and further discussion throughout the year.
Anna then reviewed the critical tasks that must be included in all Composition classes and asked for
feedback on how we can support faculty to implement them successfully.

Anna Haney-Withrow addressed the part-time faculty and reviewed the observation and evaluation
process.


Carol Bledsoe updated the faculty about the hours and services of the Writing Center
Linda Rowland made several announcements as follows.
 Linda introduced new colleagues: Instructors, TAs, Part Time Faculty
 Faculty were asked to visit the Composition Angel Required and include syllabus
statements
o Attendance, Plagiarism, etc…
o Grade Distribution (C-)
o Incompletes (Contract)
o Learning Outcomes
o Critical Tasks
 Linda reminded the faculty of our Adjudication Policy to formally reports cases of
plagiarism.
 Linda shared how excited students have been about the First Year Reading Project and
shared details about the Tim O’Brien Speaking Engagement (Friday, November 9 th) as
well as Art on the Green, an event to honor the 50th anniversary of the publication of
Silent Spring (Rachel Carson).
 Linda reminded the faculty that the Drop / Add : Deadline Friday, August 29 th and that
the Composition Program does not allow over-enrollment of classes.
 The Gulf Coast Reader 2nd edition was unveiled.
 An invitation to any faculty member to join the Comp Steering Committee was issued.
 Faculty were asked to seriously limit copying and use ANGEL

Faculty were reminded to send electronic syllabus copies by Friday, August 24th.
Composition I and II Assessment/Spring 2012
38