WRITING &
Writing Assessment
CRITICAL THINKING
ASSESSMENT
WRITING
ASSESSMENT
READERS: HONRS 150
INSTRUCTORS
Number of papers read:
Number of readers per paper:
Number of readers:
41
2
8
(Gary Hatch, Joyce Adams, Elizabeth Crowe, Lisa Johnson,
Deirdre Paulsen, Kerry Spencer, Kylie Turley)
WRITING RUBRIC
Paper #:
Title:
Traits
Course:
Fails Standard
1
Meets Standard
2
3
Exceeds Standard
4
5
6
Thesis and
Support
 Lacks a clear, recognizable
assertion
 Has a clear, recognizable
assertion that provides focus and
direction to the essay.
 Shows recognition of opposing
views, multiple perspectives, or
location within scholarly literature
Organization
 Lacks clear, transparent
organization. Characterized by
lack of flow and coherence
Clear, transparent organization.
Characterized by coherence and
flow within sections. Transitions
may be formulaic or mechanical.
 Organized conceptually rather
than formulaically. Consistent
coherence and flow. Transitions
move beyond the formulaic or
mechanical.
Rhetorical
Knowledge
 Suggests a lack of
awareness of rhetorical
situation
 Demonstrates an awareness of
subject, audience, occasion, and
purpose. Stylistic choices are
appropriate for rhetorical situation.
 Consistent voice (style, tone,
and point of view appropriate to
subject, audience, occasion, and
purpose).
Use of Sources
 Inappropriate sources that
may be poorly integrated. May
not consistently give
appropriate credit.
 Uses appropriate scholarly
sources that are well integrated in
the essay. Sources are properly
introduced. Gives appropriate
credit for sources.
 Engages the sources.
Demonstrates exceptional depth
of research, such as primary
research data, primary
documents, or visual sources.
Knowledge of
Conventions
 Inconsistent in following
standards of EAE and citation
style.
 Generally follows accepted
standards of edited American
English and details of appropriate
citation style.
 Consistent in following
standards of edited American
English and details of appropriate
citation style.
Notes (only for elements of an essay that aren’t covered by the rubric):
Overall Scores by Standard
N = 41
6 papers
17%
37%
exceeds
meets
fails
16 papers
46%
19 papers
Trait – Knowledge of Conventions
N = 41
5 papers
13%
34%
14 papers
53%
22 papers
Trait - Organization
N = 41
5 papers
12%
EXCEEDS
48%
20 papers
MEETS
40%
16 papers
FAILS
Trait – Rhetorical Knowledge
N = 41
8 papers
21%
41%
EXCEEDS
MEETS
FAILS
17 papers
38%
16 papers
Trait - Thesis
N = 41
11 papers
9 papers
23%
26%
EXCEEDS
MEETS
FAILS
51%
21 papers
Trait – Correct Use of Sources
N = 41
7 papers
16%
38%
16 papers
EXCEEDS
MEETS
FAILS
46%
18 papers
All Traits
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
EXCEEDS
MEETS
40.00%
FAILS
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
know
organization rhetorical
conventions
knowledge
thesis
use of
sources
N = 41
Reader Agreement
Agree
1 Split
2 Split
Conventions
41.46%
51.22%
7.32%
Organization
46.34%
51.22%
2.44%
Rhetorical
Knowledge
39.02%
53.66%
7.32%
Thesis
46.34%
48.78%
4.88%
Sources
43.90%
75.61%
4.88%
OVERALL
43.41%
56.10%
5.37%
Reader Agreement
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
2 Split
50%
1 Split
40%
Agree
30%
20%
10%
0%
Conventions Organization
Rhetorical
Knowledge
Thesis
Sources
OVERALL
Critical Thinking
Assessment
Critical Thinking Readers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bill Baker, Management Communications
Ralph Brown, Sociology
Valerie Hegstrom, Spanish & Portuguese
John Lamb, General Education & Chemistry
Hal Miller, Psychology
Karen Pierotti, General Education
Robert Seegmiller, Physiology & Developmental
Biology
CRITICAL THINKING RUBRIC
Fails Standard
Trait
1
2
Meets Standard
3
4
Exceeds Standard
5
6
● lacks clarity & focus
● fails to clarify
● articulates clearly at early
point & once thereafter
● sustains the argument
● maintains focus on theme
● offers insightful, sophisticated
point of view
Evidence
● lacks sufficient
evidence
● citations improperly
applied/ inappropriate
● uses appropriate, sufficient,
relevant evidence
● cites sources properly
● makes effective use of strong,
well-placed, extensive, and
relevant resources
Logic
● uses weak, narrow,
shallow argumentation
● does not make
connections
● does not recognize
assumptions, inferences
● uses faulty logic
●demonstrates reasonable
development, discernible
connections, coherent thinking
● recognizes assumptions/
inferences
● brings argument to a logical
conclusion
● achieves strongly reasoned
development
● provides analysis of assumptions
or inferences
● makes strong connections
● provides compelling
commentary or synthesis
Alternative Points of
View
● presents biased,
unbalance, or narrow
thinking
● reflects poor awareness
of critical context
● presents counterarguments/
alternatives
● recognizes weakness(es) of
own viewpoint
● shows sensitivity to other
perspective
● locates argument within current
critical discourse (context)
● reflects mature balance in point
of view
Main idea/claim/
argument/hypothesis
NA
Trait - Ideas
Main idea/claim/argument/hypothesis
1 paper
5%
2 papers
N = 11
27%
Exceeds
Meets
Fails
Not Applicable
68%
8 papers
Trait - Evidence
1 paper
N = 11
5%
32%
Exceeds
7 papers
3 papers
Meets
Fails
Not Applicable
63%
Trait – Logic/Assumptions
1 paper
N = 11
9%
Exceeds
32%
59%
7 papers
3 papers
Meets
Fails
Trait – Alternative Points of View
N = 11
0%
1 paper
9%
32%
3 papers
59%
7 papers
Exceeds
Meets
Fails
N/A
All Traits
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Exceeds
Meets
50%
Fails
40%
Not Applicable
30%
20%
10%
0%
Ideas
Evidence
Logic/
Assumptions
Counter
Arguments
All Traits: Writing & Critical Thinking
Writing
Critical Thinking
100.00%
100%
90.00%
90%
80.00%
80%
70.00%
70%
60.00%
60%
50.00%
EXCEEDS
MEETS
50%
40.00%
FAILS
40%
30.00%
30%
20.00%
20%
10.00%
10%
0.00%
Exceeds
Meets
Fails
Not Applicable
0%
know
organization rhetorical
conventions
knowledge
thesis
N = 41
use of
sources
Ideas
Evidence
Logic/
Assumptions
N = 11
Counter
Arguments
Critical
Thinking &
Writing
Assessment
In the future
Assessment via Final Exams
Collecting final exam information during FGEC
Reviews
 A copy of a final exam
 Student performance on final exam
Purpose
 Verify that the exams line up with the foundation documents and
learning outcomes.
Assessment via Advanced Writing
During Fall and Winter semesters, the GE office will collect
about 150 papers from different departments who teach
advanced writing.
Paper Criteria
1. Single-author papers and some collaborative papers (when using
collaborative papers we would need to know how the collaboration
was set up for the collaborative groups.)
2. A paper using library resources that has real research associated
with it
3. The paper should be about 8-15 pages long, double-spaced.
4. There should be no mark up on the papers by instructors
5. Preferably the paper should be in electronic format (Word program
is preferred.)
Assessment via Advanced Writing
Course Choice
 GE office will collect papers from various departments
– 75% of the papers will come from different sections of courses in
the English, Philosophy and Management Communication
departments;
– the other 25% will come from other departments that teach only
one or two sections of a course, e.g. Chem 391.
Choosing Papers
 GE Office will request a chosen course’s class roll to randomly pick
5 juniors or seniors in the course
 GE will provide release/permissions sheets to the chosen students
so we have permission to use their papers for the study.
Assessment via Advanced Writing
Submitting the Papers
 Electronically to Karen Pierotti, Administrative Assistant, General
Education
Distribution of Papers to Assessment Committee
 Student’s name, instructor’s name, and course will be eliminated
from the paper
 Paper will receive a number before it is given to the committee
Assessment
 During spring term, two committees will assess the papers for
writing and critical thinking
GE Web Site
Statistical Results
Annotated copies of papers for both
writing & critical thinking
WRITING &
Writing Assessment
CRITICAL THINKING
ASSESSMENT