1. Taking it to the Source: Disciplinary Faculty Contribute to, Interpret, and Act upon Local Assessment
WPA 2012:
Pamela Flash
University of Minnesota /

2. Faculty conceptions of writing and writing instruction
WEC
Faculty conceptions of writing and writing instruction
Writing instruction (and assessment) within courses
Student conceptions of writing and writing instruction
Curricular transformation
Improved student writing
Writing-Enriched degrees

3. create implement assess WRITING-ENRICHED CURRICULUM
SECTION I: CHARACTERISTICS OF WRITING?
SECTION II: WRITING ABILITIES?
SECTION III: CURRICULAR SEQUENCING?
SECTION IV: ASSESSMENT?
SECTION V: SUPPORT?
SECTION VI: PROCESS?
create
implement
assess
Meeting #1
Meeting #2
Meeting #3
Meeting #4

4. WEC PROCESS AY0 F1 S1 F2 S2 F3 S3 F4 S4 F5 S5+ Survey & Sample
Create Writing Plan
Implement Writing Plan
Implement Writing Plan
Implement Writing Program
Assessment 1st ed. Plan (“start- up”)
Assessment 2nd ed. Plan (“two- year”)
Assessment Writing Program
Assessment: Rating #1
Assessment: Rating #2

5. 3 sources of productively “disappointing” assessment data
WEC Survey (3 start of Creation phase). Questions: Baseline values, expectations, and evaluation?
Curricular mapping/research (Implementation phase). Questions: Who is teaching with writing in this unit? Where? How? Relevance of outcomes?
Writing Assessment (every three years). Question: What effect is WEC/Writing Plan having on student writing?

6. How important is writing to the scholarly and professional work done in this major’s discipline?
(Computer Science and Engineering Fall 2011)

7. Which three writing abilities do feel it most critical to strengthen in students in the major? (EEB)
Instructor Question 9, Student Question 9

8.  Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior: M1
SH: One thing we haven’t talked about is objectivity—the opposite of expressing feelings, which we didn’t select as one of the abilities we value, but I think that is meaningful because we want the opposite of that; that’s what we strive for.
SL: And it is one of the things I certainly respond most vitriolicly to when I get something to read and it’s all about “I did this…” and “I thought this…”
SH… ugh…it makes your skin crawl. [1:41:50]
PF: So how would you describe this? Because if you say “objective,” no one really knows what that means, do they?
SL: They don’t? Why don’t they?
SH: Remove the writer out of it…They often say “Shaw et al. said this” and the emphasis is on Shaw et al. rather than the result or the finding...
PF: So, you want them to deemphasize the scientists and focus on the science, but... do students in your courses run the danger of accepting the science they report as Truth?
SH: The difference is that if someone else came along and did the exact same study that so and so described that they did they should have gotten the exact same results. So I see scientific writing as not so egotistical…it’s contributive.
JC: That’s a bunch of crap. You’re mixing undergraduate and graduate writing. Replicable yes, contributive no.

9. 3 sources of productively “disappointing” assessment data
WEC Survey (3 start of Creation phase). Questions: baseline values, expectations, and evaluation?
Curricular mapping/research (Implementation phase). Questions: who is teaching with writing in this unit? Any development?
Writing Assessment (every three years). Question: What effect is WEC/Writing Plan having on student writing?
Disappointing to whom?

10. Computer Science undergraduate curriculum

11. SDS= synthesizing disparate sources IS=interrogating sources
Abilities communicated implicitly vs. explicitly
SDS= synthesizing disparate sources IS=interrogating sources
RCW = results centered writing
GRM = grammatically accurate writing
ACE = analyze for cause and effect
RIV = recognize the importance of variability

12. Interrogating Sources Tools

13. Synthesis Tools

14. 3 sources of productively “disappointing” assessment data
WEC Survey (3 start of Creation phase). Questions: baseline values, expectations, and evaluation?
Curricular mapping/research (Implementation phase). Questions: who is teaching with writing in this unit? Any development?
Writing Assessment (every three years). Question: What effect is WEC/Writing Plan having on student writing?

15. ASSESSING WEC: RATING #
College of Biological Sciences (2011)
Sufficient
(N=16) 1
Directly communicates a scientific narrative using an overt logical structure: Moves from problem, to procedure, data, conclusions, and back to target problem.
.76 2
Describes significant gaps in scientific knowledge by articulating a target question or problem and describing its significance.
.71 3
Demonstrates critical analysis of published work.
.35 4
Makes appropriate choices about which data to represent visually.
.48 5
Uses precise terminology.
.83 6
Presents a synthesis of multiple sources, relying predominantly on primary, peer-reviewed sources.
.60 7
Presents conclusions that are based on synthesis of evidence.
.52 8
Uses all components of a scientific paper (Abstract and/or Introduction, Methods and Materials, Results, Discussion).
.73
Expected Writing Abilities are translated into ratable criteria
Iterative rating sessions are held in which 3-4 raters (2-3 from outside the target unit) rate capstone-level papers/projects against faculty-generated criteria. I W D D
3. Rating results (and debrief comments) are presented to faculty, who are asked for their reactions/observations/next moves

16. History
2010
2012
Demonstrates an understanding of the importance of historical context
0.67
0.81 3.
Demonstrates awareness of the particular nature, value, limitations, and incompleteness of historical sources
0.29
0.53 4.
Formulates and expresses viable historical research questions and hypotheses
0.71
0.58 9.
Explains the broader significance of historical events the topic
0.57
0.49
11.
Communicates ideas in lucid, compelling, accessible prose
0.80
0.75

17. interpreting “low” rating scores
Possibilities offered
Questions asked
Criteria was not addressed by capstone assignment.
Should it have been? Where, in the curriculum, are these specific criteria addressed? What sorts of instructional moves might be useful here? How can we help?
Raters did not understand criteria.
Should criteria be revised?
Students require more experience and or instruction in this aspect of writing.
Where in the curriculum should this occur? What form(s) should instruction take?
Uncontrollable variables tied to student/instructor populations.
Maybe…but what makes you think this is the case?

18. Why is disappointing data yielding positive results?
WEC Phase
Instrument
Why is disappointing data yielding positive results?
Writing Plan Creation
online surveys (3)
Function: investigative: discussion fodder
Data source: local stakeholder populations
Criteria: generated by Campus Writing Board
Audience: local faculty
Writing Plan Implementation
curricular maps/research
Function: investigative: baseline status
Data source: local curriculum, course artifacts
Criteria: generated by local faculty
Writing Plan Assessment
longitudinal rating of capstone-level writing
Function: primarily formative: informing future implementation action/requests
Data source: independent faculty panel
Audience: local faculty…..> Provost’s Office?