What do the assessors say?
Recall from the methodology section that each student portfolio was assessed by one reader. This is an important point to recognize in the results section of this assessment study. Knowing this, reminds us that to understand the value of this assessment, we must be careful about the analytical claims we make from the comments. Since each course (LTWR 309A, LTWR 325, and LTWR 604) was read predominately by one reader, we must analyze the assessors’ comments across all three classes and not over emphasize one assessor’s comment of a single class.
LTWR 309A Comments: The assessor’s written responses to the LTWR 309A are consistent with the average score attributed to this set of student papers. In response to the twenty-four (24) portfolios, the assessor repeatedly pointed to the need for analytic development. Of the total set of portfolios, in response to twenty-three (23) of them, the assessor explicitly or implicitly points to the need for development. The assessor makes comments such as these:
“Some awkward sentences and analysis that could have gone further. Needed clearer connections between ideas.”
“Although purpose is clear, essays often seem disconnected, mar[r]ed by punctuation errors and incomplete analysis.”
“Limited analysis, more of a history.”
“Lacks paragraph development.”
In addition to commenting on idea-development in the portfolios, the assessor notes writers’ difficulty in integrating outside sources. While this repeated comment could be read as a surface-level writing issue, we argue that writers’ inability to connect their analysis to the scholastic conversations surrounding their topic of exploration suggests the writers’ struggle to develop fully their thoughtful arguments.
In the especially successful papers, the assessor makes comments such as the following:
“Creative essays. Some awkward sentences and analysis that could have gone further. Needed clearer connections between ideas.”
“Creative: in the form of two (2) letters. Could have benefited from additional analysis. [The second piece in this portfolio] works diligently to look closely at Moby Dick.”
“[The first essay] retells the history collected at the mission. [The project] would benefit from more analysis. [In the second project, the writer] works diligently to integrate an analysis of Moby Dick and other U.S texts into an argument about the representation of slavery and evilness in the texts.”
These comments taken together with those comments
given to the majority of the papers reveal the intellectual potential evident in
so many of the portfolios. In
comments made about the majority of the portfolios and the more successful
portfolios, it is interesting to note that the assessor consistently suggests
that the limitation of the texts is not weak ideas but that the ideas are not
fully developed. Comments such as “limited analysis” and “could
have benefited from additional analysis” imply that the students are working
with potentially strong ideas. Our
students are working towards powerful texts.
However, many of their ideas are underdeveloped which suggests that the
writing process has not been fully engaged.
There is clearly more writing to do.
LTWR 325 Comments: Arguably LTWR 325 is quite distinct from both LTWR 309A and LTWR 604 in that the student portfolios represent a collection of “creative,” as opposed to thesis-driven, analytical pieces. Interestingly, in response to the majority of the portfolios, the assessor’s comments point to writing concerns similar to those expressed of the other two courses. The assessor points to the need for further idea development with comments such as
“The writing lacks concrete connections; the characterizations are weak and underdeveloped; the plots are so predictable as to be unlikely.”
“Needs more sentence variety and concrete details.”
“The stories lack a central focus—why should I care about these characters and why they do?”
“Writing lacks focus.”
Unlike the other two sets of portfolios, the assessor of this set notes students’ attention to revision. Successful revision is clearly applauded:
“Writing is good and does reflect some thoughtful revision.”
“No early draft included—no evidence of revision….”
“No early drafts included, but what there is reflects a lack of attention to revision.”
“While revision is evident, this writer needs to spend more time on editing.”
“Writing has been revised but needs more revision.”
“The poetry is often very good and revised.”
Also, unlike the comments directed at the other two sets of portfolios, in this set, the assessor more often points to surface-level issues. Repeatedly, the assessor notes that texts are plagued by sentence level problems, punctuation and grammar errors, and typos.
The assessor’s comments on especially successful portfolios, those that earned a fourteen (14) or fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15) using the creative writing rubric, reinforce the hallmarks of strong writing as outlined by the creative writing rubric. The comments directed towards the strong portfolios include the following:
“Excellent character development, description…. This writing has clear focus and clearly makes the ‘human connection through astute language use.”
“Writing is often excellent with occasional areas that need development.”
Writing is good and does reflect some thoughtful revision. The last story does suffer from some typos and problematic sentences that hurt the quality.”
The assessor’s attention to revision noted in both sets of comments combined with the comments directed at the successful portfolios points to the potential evident in many of the portfolios. Like the LTWR 309A and LTWR 604 portfolios, the LTWR 325 portfolios reveal the writers’ engaged, but not yet complete, writing process.
LTWR 604 Comments: While the set of papers collected from LTWR 604 is especially small (only seven portfolios), an important claim emerges from the assessor’s text specific comments. In nearly every case, the assessor draws attention to the organization and development of the writing. In response to texts 46 and 51, the assessor identifies the writing as “murky.” In other words, the critical issue(s) the writer intends to explore are not consistently contextulaized and developed. In response to text 47, the assessor’s comments suggest that what the writer promised in the project’s thesis is not fully delivered in the body of the paper. The assessor explains,
[The] paper seems to have more to do with Joyce’s transformation of religion (active) than Joyce’s influence by religion (passive)….Essentially, I’m asking for a compare/contrast approach to show the writer-priest at work in the stories and novel.
The comparative point that the assessor makes suggests that the writer made explicit an intent to comment only on “Joyce’s influence by religion,” not on his role in changing religion. The assessor’s suggestion for a comparative piece implies that the paper is pointing to two significant ideas that if compared carefully, could result in an especially rich paper.
Similarly, text #51 provides evidence for Janet Emig’s claim in “Writing as Mode of Learning” that writing is a way of knowing. In other words, writing allows thinkers to develop new ideas. In the case of text #51, according to the assessor, the thesis that best captures what the writer develops comes on the last page of the project. In the words of the assessor, “It seems the writer discovers her true thesis on the last page, that Joyce’s departure from Catholicism is matched by a movement toward art as his new religion, and idea not articulated in the front pages.” Unfortunately, according to the assessor, it appears that the writer is not aware of the clearly expressed, new idea that emerges on the final page, an idea that if recognized by the writer could reframe the paper’s larger argument in valuable ways.
The assessor’s interest in idea development is expressed again in response to text 52, not with a statement but with questions. “Essay goes beyond a detailed analysis to link Joyce’s aesthetic on words to her own. Could paper benefit by explicitly considering the differences between the way Joyce’s characters use words? Is there an emerging arc to the theme?” Taken together, the LTWR 604 assessor’s comments express genuine interest in the ideas explored in texts 46-52. The writers have ideas to express, but in most cases, the ideas and the relationships between ideas are not always recognized by the writers. Therefore, the intellectual connections are often not made throughout the texts.
| 3. What might the results suggest? |
| 4. What do the assessment results teach
or remind the LTWR
department about how to strengthen the writing component of our curriculum? |
| 5. Do these results complement composition and rhetorical research? |