Adjunct Academy Presentation Preparation
Hello.
My name is Cory Lund and I'm the chair of the Outcome's Assessment Writing Focus Group. I've been a part of the WFG since its inception 4 years ago, and slid into the chair's seat this past fall. I was asked by Sue Vaughn to come and talk to you about adapting the WFG's rubric to your own specific disciplinary use.
The rubric itself, which you all have a copy of, was the result of many long hours of committee work. Our task was to devise a way to assess the writing of students on our campus. The groups first task, and, mind you, this was an inter-disciplinary group, was to define for ourselves what we thought good writing is. We spent many meetings debating the definition of good writing, and throughout this long, sometimes prickly, process we came up with some shared and negotiated criteria based on these discussions. This process did not involve the composition people telling others what good writing was, but, rather, the lot of us discussing how we defined it for ourselves and trying to negotiate a shared and agreeable definition.
Once the definition of good writing was agreed upon, we had to figure out a way to assess writing across the curriculum. We needed a tool or instrument. We wanted the writing task or situation to be as real as possible. We did not want to distribute a timed writing prompt, and we did not want a writing sample that was produced outside of a legitimate learning context. After all, assessment, even at the institutional level, should support and reinforce the learning objectives and outcomes set forth for the classroom -- the micro reinforcing the macro.
We decided to collect writing samples with stakes, with a clear connection to the classroom culture which produced them, and we wanted samples where students had the opportunity to revise and work legitimately through the entire writing process -- prewriting, drafting, revising, editing. Once we had determined this, we needed some tool to assess the writing samples.
This is where the rubric comes in. Our original rubric was far more complicated than the one you have in front of you. We discovered during one of the workshops we conducted for the college that the criteria, as we had defined them, were far to complicated to produce reliable results. So we rewrote the rubric and tried heartily to simplify, simplify, simplify.
Things moved fairly quickly once we finalized the rubric. We collected writing samples, gathered raters, conducted norming sessions, and finally ran our assessment.
We found after our first formal assessment that students were learning something about writing here at SWIC, but, of course, not demonstrating the depth of improvement we would like. At that point, the WFG suggested to the rest of the college that we change course prereqs to include English 101 for courses that require writing, and we suggested the adoption of the St Martin's Handbook for such courses as well.
Over the course of the Fall semester, members of the English department, along with a very supportive dean, Paul Wreford, have been working on these initiatives. We negotiated with Bedford/St Martin's exam copies of the SMH for all, adjunct and FT, who wish to adopt the course as either required or suggested and use it within their classes.
I have copies ofthe SMH with me for any who would like to have one and consider adopting the text in any of their courses that require writing.
Where we are at now represents the natural evolution of the process. As I said before, assessment should support instruction, and we are now at the point where it's time for the rubric to evolve. the rubric was written to assess writing across the curriculum, and now we'd like to urge people to use it for their courses specifically, and in order to make the rubric fit into specific courses and disciplines, it needs to be modified.
The original rubric did its job well. We completed a holistic assessment of writing across this campus, and we began to get our message out -- if we want to improve the quality of student writing on this campus, it is everyone's job, not just the English department's. That students have such difficulty with writing should be of concern to all teachers, not just English teachers.
Now, I understand, for professors outside of English, sometimes evaluating writing can be a daunting task. The beauty of the rubric is we've begun to give everyone the language they need to confidently assess student writing. The rubric breaks down writing into 4 specific criterion areas: quality of Thought, structure, style, and conventions. This is not something new, or something we invented. In fact, the ancient Greeks and Romans saw rhetoric as a combination of invention, organization, style, and delivery, the same basic categories.
We hope, this rubric will give you an opportunity to think about your expectations for your students' writing, and begin to negotiate shared criteria with the people around you who assign similar sorts of writing assignments and expect students to learn similar conventions.
I've provided for you some sample adapted rubrics: two from English, one from Math, and one from the paralegal program to give you some ideas about how it might be adapted for your own use. Sadly, none of the other focus group members could make it today, so they cannot explain to you the decisions they've made regarding the modifications to the rubrics. Suffice it to say though, it is readily apparent that using the rubric will allow you to extend and deepen the learning through assessment procedures.
For me, the rubric as I've adapted it, gives students a clear sense of the expectations before beginning the assignment.
If you will all provide me with your e-mail addresses, I will send you a digital copy of the rubric and you may use it as you see fit. Moreover, if anyone would like a copy of the SMH, they are here and free to you and I urge you to take advantage of the text in your own courses. Your students should already have this text, if they have taken any classes offered in the English department, so putting the text on your syllabus is probably not incurring for students any additional expense, butt rather, reinforcing our committment here at SWIC to writing at all levels and within all disciplines.
We're all in this boat together, let's make it smooth sailing.
My name is Cory Lund and I'm the chair of the Outcome's Assessment Writing Focus Group. I've been a part of the WFG since its inception 4 years ago, and slid into the chair's seat this past fall. I was asked by Sue Vaughn to come and talk to you about adapting the WFG's rubric to your own specific disciplinary use.
The rubric itself, which you all have a copy of, was the result of many long hours of committee work. Our task was to devise a way to assess the writing of students on our campus. The groups first task, and, mind you, this was an inter-disciplinary group, was to define for ourselves what we thought good writing is. We spent many meetings debating the definition of good writing, and throughout this long, sometimes prickly, process we came up with some shared and negotiated criteria based on these discussions. This process did not involve the composition people telling others what good writing was, but, rather, the lot of us discussing how we defined it for ourselves and trying to negotiate a shared and agreeable definition.
Once the definition of good writing was agreed upon, we had to figure out a way to assess writing across the curriculum. We needed a tool or instrument. We wanted the writing task or situation to be as real as possible. We did not want to distribute a timed writing prompt, and we did not want a writing sample that was produced outside of a legitimate learning context. After all, assessment, even at the institutional level, should support and reinforce the learning objectives and outcomes set forth for the classroom -- the micro reinforcing the macro.
We decided to collect writing samples with stakes, with a clear connection to the classroom culture which produced them, and we wanted samples where students had the opportunity to revise and work legitimately through the entire writing process -- prewriting, drafting, revising, editing. Once we had determined this, we needed some tool to assess the writing samples.
This is where the rubric comes in. Our original rubric was far more complicated than the one you have in front of you. We discovered during one of the workshops we conducted for the college that the criteria, as we had defined them, were far to complicated to produce reliable results. So we rewrote the rubric and tried heartily to simplify, simplify, simplify.
Things moved fairly quickly once we finalized the rubric. We collected writing samples, gathered raters, conducted norming sessions, and finally ran our assessment.
We found after our first formal assessment that students were learning something about writing here at SWIC, but, of course, not demonstrating the depth of improvement we would like. At that point, the WFG suggested to the rest of the college that we change course prereqs to include English 101 for courses that require writing, and we suggested the adoption of the St Martin's Handbook for such courses as well.
Over the course of the Fall semester, members of the English department, along with a very supportive dean, Paul Wreford, have been working on these initiatives. We negotiated with Bedford/St Martin's exam copies of the SMH for all, adjunct and FT, who wish to adopt the course as either required or suggested and use it within their classes.
I have copies ofthe SMH with me for any who would like to have one and consider adopting the text in any of their courses that require writing.
Where we are at now represents the natural evolution of the process. As I said before, assessment should support instruction, and we are now at the point where it's time for the rubric to evolve. the rubric was written to assess writing across the curriculum, and now we'd like to urge people to use it for their courses specifically, and in order to make the rubric fit into specific courses and disciplines, it needs to be modified.
The original rubric did its job well. We completed a holistic assessment of writing across this campus, and we began to get our message out -- if we want to improve the quality of student writing on this campus, it is everyone's job, not just the English department's. That students have such difficulty with writing should be of concern to all teachers, not just English teachers.
Now, I understand, for professors outside of English, sometimes evaluating writing can be a daunting task. The beauty of the rubric is we've begun to give everyone the language they need to confidently assess student writing. The rubric breaks down writing into 4 specific criterion areas: quality of Thought, structure, style, and conventions. This is not something new, or something we invented. In fact, the ancient Greeks and Romans saw rhetoric as a combination of invention, organization, style, and delivery, the same basic categories.
We hope, this rubric will give you an opportunity to think about your expectations for your students' writing, and begin to negotiate shared criteria with the people around you who assign similar sorts of writing assignments and expect students to learn similar conventions.
I've provided for you some sample adapted rubrics: two from English, one from Math, and one from the paralegal program to give you some ideas about how it might be adapted for your own use. Sadly, none of the other focus group members could make it today, so they cannot explain to you the decisions they've made regarding the modifications to the rubrics. Suffice it to say though, it is readily apparent that using the rubric will allow you to extend and deepen the learning through assessment procedures.
For me, the rubric as I've adapted it, gives students a clear sense of the expectations before beginning the assignment.
If you will all provide me with your e-mail addresses, I will send you a digital copy of the rubric and you may use it as you see fit. Moreover, if anyone would like a copy of the SMH, they are here and free to you and I urge you to take advantage of the text in your own courses. Your students should already have this text, if they have taken any classes offered in the English department, so putting the text on your syllabus is probably not incurring for students any additional expense, butt rather, reinforcing our committment here at SWIC to writing at all levels and within all disciplines.
We're all in this boat together, let's make it smooth sailing.
posted by CA Lund at 9:19 AM
0 comments
