|
The Writing Program asks that faculty evaluate the
writing of all students periodically throughout a student’s CC career.
Writing Evaluations stand separate from a student’s course grade
and are not part of a student’s official transcript. Through Writing
Evaluations, we identify both students who need to develop better writing
skills and outstanding writers who might serve as peer consultants for
our Writing Center. Writing Evaluations also serve as institutional assessment,
allowing the college to monitor the writing of students across the curriculum.
Faculty completing Writing Evaluations offer an overall assessment of
a student's writing in a given course: excellent, good, acceptable, or
inadequate. Holistic evaluation of a student’s writing is based
on performance in three categories - quality of thought, rhetorical sophistication,
and mechanics. If a student receives two less-than-acceptable evaluations,
the Writing Program Director sends a personal letter to the student's
academic adviser and to the student prior to spring pre-registration.
Students and advisers then determine if the student might benefit from
enrollment in a Writing Intensive course, an extended format or writing
adjunct course, or regular Writing Center use. Students receiving a single
less-than-acceptable Writing Evaluation during FYE will be notified in
regard prior to spring semester.
Criteria driving writing assessment will vary both across and within
disciplines—this is to be expected and anticipated in all college-level
work. But certain generic features characterize almost all academic writing,
and assessment of these features combine (in not always neat or quantifiable
ways) in evaluation of written performance. The three categories we ask
faculty to consider in arriving at a holistic assessment include:
Quality of Thought -- This category focuses on development
of ideas and includes the writer's use of the following: topic focus;
thesis/argument; organization and development or ideas; logic; coherence;
unity; evidence/support; analysis; conclusions.
Rhetorical Sophistication -- This category focuses on
style and includes the writer's use of the following: polish; flow; transitions;
clarity; brevity; tone; originality; flair; word choice; voice (appropriate
use of active and passive voice); integrating sources/quotes; audience
analysis; placement of information; visual rhetoric (graphs and figures).
Mechanics -- This category focuses primarily on grammar
and syntax; it includes the writer's use of the following: appropriate/required
format; sentence structure; grammar; usage; punctuation; bibliography/citation
form (when required).
Guided by consideration of issues noted above, faculty are invited to
offer an overall evaluation of a student's writing in a given course.
Suggested guidelines for assigning a holistic assessment follow:
Excellent: Outstanding work. The student writes as well
as the top 10% of CC students. The writer's argument or point is clear,
focused, and coherent. She/he establishes context, purpose, and point
of view. Paragraphs are logical, coherent, unified, and developed with
appropriate evidence. The writer displays a clear understanding of audience,
defines and elaborates on general or abstract terms, and explains essential
concepts. She/he incorporates source material meaningfully and effectively,
employs clear sentence structure and idiomatic English, and has control
over grammar and diction. There are no significant mechanical errors.
Good: Solid work. The student's writing is more than
competent but not quite all together yet. The writer consistently has
an argument or makes a point, but her/his arguments may not be as compelling
as those of the excellent writer. Paragraphs develop the main idea without
significant lapses in coherence of argument, clarity of the presentation
of information, or organization of ideas. The writer develops her/his
point with evidence or examples, though these may lack the depth, detail,
or dynamics of the best student writing. Writing displays evidence of
consideration of audience and context and an understanding of how to effectively
utilize and incorporate other texts. The writer uses clear, fluent and
generally idiomatic English, though sentence structure (in simplicity
or complexity) may not always reflect the logical relationships of its
discrete parts. The writing displays evidence of editing and control over
grammar and diction. There may be minor mechanical errors or repetition
of a single error.
Acceptable: Average work. The student writes well enough
to communicate and will not embarrass herself/himself in the outside world.
The writer has a focus for her/his writing and usually uses appropriate
evidence to support her/his points. However, main ideas may be simplistic
or the analysis underdeveloped, displaying few examples and a weak sense
of audience. The writer may not grasp completely the concepts she/he is
discussing. Organization may be repetitious or random; individual paragraphs
may not consistently develop a unified idea. The writer has adequate control
of sentence structure, grammar, and diction, but writing displays many
features of a rough draft. There may be a pattern of mechanical errors
that suggests the writer needs to edit her/his work more carefully.
Inadequate: Insufficiently coherent work. The writer
has trouble establishing context, purpose, or point of view. She/he may
not have a clear main idea or may attempt to present too many unrelated,
general ideas. Individual paragraphs are fragmented; there are few real
connections between paragraphs. The writer uses virtually no evidence
to support her/his ideas. Individual sentences may be short and choppy,
long and incoherent, or even incomplete. The writer has poor control of
sentence structure, grammar, and diction. Her/his word choice is unidiomatic.
Mechanical errors frequently abound.
Back to top |
