Written Communication Team Updates
Mar 26, 2019 - noon - Continued Rubric Review
Attending team members: E. Niemi, T. Williams. N. Pitts, K. Lamb, N. Schurr, A. Roper, C. Gordon, K. Strode
Team members continued the review of the final 2 areas of the rubric. Edits to both areas were discussed with a final agreement on clarifying the expected level of integration for performance levels 2 and 3 of Sources & Evidence. Another edit was made to performance level 1 of Control of Syntax & Mechanics in which the clarifying language was adjusted to read "major erros that may alter meaning or obstruct flow or tone."
Team members were reminded to recruit instructors for the submission of artifacts from fall 2018 or spring 2019. The form to agree to contribute artifacts will be distributed to team members and is located here. This form also allows instructors to identify the primary type of writing assignment and which parts of the rubric to be evaluated using the assignment. Members were also reminded that the team will have a plenary session in August for organizational purposes.
Mar 21, 2019 - noon - Rubric Review
Attending team members: E. Niemi, T. Williams, N. Pitts, K. Lamb, N. Schurr, A. Roper, C. Gordon, K. Strode, L. Matravers
Team members reviewed the artifacts with the greatest discrepancies among reviewers, primarily the ENGL1020 artifact, and discussed whether additional clarifying language was needed in certain areas of the rubric in order for consistent evaluation among all scorers. A change was made in the area of Context and Purpose on benchmark level - word "negligible" changed to "minimal" for consistency. Team members felt that negligible indicated below level 1 performance and wanted consistent language across the descriptors for the level. Another change was made in Genre and Disciplinary Conventions in Milestone 2 where the word "unsophisticated" was replaced with "emerging". Team members agreed that the term unsophisticated implied a performance level lower than Milestone 2 and preffered the term emerging at this level.
Members also discussed whether gathering from contributing instructors the type of paper would assist in evaluating for purpose appropriately. The contributors form will now ask for a classification of the paper in the assignment as either research, reflection/response/narrative, or argumentative/persuasive. The contributors will also be able to mark which criteria of the rubric the assignment assesses so if there were no sources required, the instructor can indicate that the assignment should not be evaluated for Sources & Evidence. Due to time contraints, members will each review Sources & Evidence and Control of Syntax & Mechanics criteria for clarity and bring any suggestions to next meeting (tenatively Tues, Mar 26th).
Feb 21, 2019 - noon - Deploy Rubric Evaluation/Norming
Jan 31, 2019 - noon - Timeline Planning/Final Recruitment
Sept 11 and Sept 13, 2018 - 1 pm - Recruitment and Organizational Meetings
Attending team members discussed recruitment of team members as well as viability of scoring and potential timeline. Gathering interested faculty members is mot critical and proving most difficult.
Aug 21, 2018 - 11 am - Plenary Session - (joint session with Information Literacy)
Team members discussed the plan for scoring and/or a second review year given the disengagement of previous Team Leads during 2017-18 review year. A plan was devised to quickly review results from 2016-17 scoring year, evaluate any need to make changes to rubric, recruit potential scoring and contributing members, norm the rubric, and score artifacts within the fall and spring semesters. IERP developed a Memorandum of Understanding form for potential contributors in an attempt to gather pre- and post-evaluation information as well as provide the potential for "closing the loop" with contributing instructors.