| { |
| "paper_id": "W12-0303", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T04:11:35.281226Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "Aggregated Assessment and \"Objectivity 2.0\"", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Joseph", |
| "middle": [ |
| "M" |
| ], |
| "last": "Moxley", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "University of South Florida", |
| "location": { |
| "addrLine": "4202 East Fowler Avenue Tampa", |
| "postCode": "33620", |
| "region": "FL", |
| "country": "USA" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "moxley@usf.edu" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "This essay provides a summary of research related to My Reviewers, a web-based application that can be used for teaching and assessment purposes. The essay concludes with speculation about ongoing development efforts, including a social helpfulness algorithm, a badging system, and Natural Language Processing (NLP) features.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "W12-0303", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "This essay provides a summary of research related to My Reviewers, a web-based application that can be used for teaching and assessment purposes. The essay concludes with speculation about ongoing development efforts, including a social helpfulness algorithm, a badging system, and Natural Language Processing (NLP) features.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "The essay summarizes research that has identified ways My Reviewers can be used to:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 integrate formative with summative evaluations, thereby enabling universities and teachers to alter curriculum approaches in real time in response to ongoing assessment information, \u2022 assess students' critical thinking, research, and writing skills-aggregating not a small percentage but all of the marked up documents (in our case about 16,000 evaluations by teachers of students' intermediate and final drafts of essays/semester), \u2022 enable reviewers (teachers and students) to provide more objective feedback, facilitating \"Objectivity 2.0,\" a form of evaluative consensus mediated after extensive crowdsourcing of standards, \u2022 provide conclusive evidence that can be used to compare the efficacy of particular curricular approaches, \u2022 enable students and writing programs to track progress related to specific learning outcomes (from project to project, course to course, year to year), \u2022 inform faculty development and teacher response, and \u2022 create an e-portfolio of students' work that reflects their ongoing progress.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 454, |
| "end": 477, |
| "text": "(teachers and students)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "My Reviewers is a web-based application that enables students, teachers, and universities to \u2022 aggregate assessment information about students' critical thinking and writing skills, \u2022 mark up PDF documents (with sticky notes, text box notes, drawing tools, etc.), \u2022 grade documents according to a rubric, \u2022 assign and conduct or grade peer reviews. (My Reviewers enables teachers to see at a glance each student's in-text annotations, end-note comments, and rubric scores), \u2022 use a library of comments and resources tailored to address common writing problems, and \u2022 crowdsource comments and resources. The permissions-based workflow features of My Reviewers enable teachers and students to use a rubric and commenting tools to review and grade student writing while protecting student confidentiality behind a Net ID.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "What is My Reviewers?", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "My Reviewers is founded on the assumptions that language and learning are social practices, and that students can provide valuable feedback to one another based on their backgrounds as readers and critical thinkers.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "What is My Reviewers?", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "By enabling students to track their progress (or lack of progress) according to various evaluative criteria (such as focus, evidence, organization, style, and format), My Reviewers clarifies academic expectations and facilitates reflection and awareness of teachers' evaluations and concerns, thereby helping students grow as writers, editors, and collaborators. Furthermore, the pedagogical materials embedded into the tool-videos, explanatory materials, exercises, library of comments with supporting hyperlinks-clarify grading criteria for both students and teachers. In summary, by aggregating assessment results in innovative new ways, My Reviewers reshapes how teachers respond to writing, how students conduct peer reviews, how students track their development as writers and reader feedback, and how universities can conduct assessments of students' development as critical thinkers and writers.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "What is My Reviewers?", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The FYC (First-Year Composition) Program at the University of South Florida is one of the largest writing programs in the U.S, serving approximately 7,500 students in two composition courses each year, ENC 1101 and ENC 1102. Thanks to funding from USF Tech Fee Funds and CTE21, we have piloted use of My Reviewers for the past three years, using My Reviewers to assess over 30,000 student documents. Over the past eight years, our teachers and writing program administrators have crowdsourced a community rubric by employing various peer-production technologies and face-toface meetings (see Table 1 ). The early stages of our development process are reported in Vieregge, Stedman, Mitchell, & Moxley's (2012) Agency in the Age of Peer Production, an ethnographic monograph published by NCTE's series on Studies in Writing and Rhetoric.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 663, |
| "end": 709, |
| "text": "Vieregge, Stedman, Mitchell, & Moxley's (2012)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 592, |
| "end": 599, |
| "text": "Table 1", |
| "ref_id": "TABREF2" |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Context and Methods", |
| "sec_num": "3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Since moving from a requirement for our instructors to use a printed version of the community rubric to using My Reviewers, which enables teachers to view the rubric while grading and associates rubric scores with marked-up texts, we have observed some benefits: While we may have 500 sections of the 1101 and 1102 courses, we want all of these sections to focus on shared outcomes. We have found our use of My Reviewers helps ensure students have a more comparable experience than when paper rubrics were used. Back in the days of the printed version of the rubric, at the end of the semester when we surveyed students about usage, about half of our students reported they were unfamiliar with the rubric. One of the advantages of an online tool like My Reviewers for universities is that it enables writing program administrators to better ensure instructors and students are keeping up with our shared curriculum. Also, by using a single analytic rubric tool across sections, we can assess progress by student, teacher, section, and rubric criteria. As rhetoricians, we understand the value of using rubrics that address the demands of specific rhetorical contexts. When addressing different genres, audiences, disciplines and when using multiple media to remediate texts (Twitter, podcasts, movies, print documents), students clearly benefit from receiving feedback related to conventions in those genres, disciplines, and media. Given this, we clearly understand why Peter Elbow, Chris Anson, William Condon, among other assessment leaders, fault universities for employing a generic rubric like our community rubric to assess texts across projects, genres, courses, media and so on. Like Elbow (2006) , Anson (2011) , and Condon 2011 criteria for specific projects, and we understand grading criteria change along with changes in different rhetorical situations. Plus, as compositionists, we understand that writers need different kinds of feedback when they are in different stages of the composing process. Using a rubric like our community rubric early in the writing process can clearly be overkill. There is no point in discussing style, for example, when the writer needs to be told that his or her purpose is unclear or not satisfactory given the assignment specifications. Nonetheless, we have found-as we discuss below-some benefits for using our community rubric to assess multiple projects, even ones that address different audiences, genres, and media.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 1694, |
| "end": 1706, |
| "text": "Elbow (2006)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1709, |
| "end": 1721, |
| "text": "Anson (2011)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Context and Methods", |
| "sec_num": "3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "While we are currently seeking funding to add administration features that would enable users to write their own rubrics or import rubrics, My Reviewers employs a single community rubric (see Table 1 ) that has been validated by an independent assessment conducted by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness at the University of South Florida in the spring of 2010. To conduct the assessment, 10 independent scorers reviewed the third/final drafts of 249 students' ENC 1101 Project 2 essays and these same students' ENC 1102 Project 2 essays. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness settled on this odd number-249-because it represented 5% of our total unique student head count (4,980 students) for the 2009/2010 academic year. The scorers used the same scoring rubric to evaluate all 498 essays according to eight criteria delineated in our community rubric. Scorers did not provide comments nor did they have access to the markup and grading provided by the students' classroom instructors.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 192, |
| "end": 199, |
| "text": "Table 1", |
| "ref_id": "TABREF2" |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Independent Validation of the Community Rubric by the USF Office of Institutional Effectiveness", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Before the raters scored the randomly chosen student essays, an assessment expert from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness led a brief discussion of the rubric and asked the scorers to read sample essays. He then computed an interrater agreement of .93. Confident our scorers understood our rubric and encouraged by our inter-rater reliability, raters subsequently scored the 498 essays over a three-day period.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Independent Validation of the Community Rubric by the USF Office of Institutional Effectiveness", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Naturally, we were pleased to see that our assessment results suggested students were making some progress on all measures of writing and critical thinking, that their 1102 Project 2 scores were higher than their Project 2 scores in 1101, although we were underwhelmed by the degree of improvement. We also were not really surprised that we were able to reach a high level of inter-rater reliability among raters.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Independent Validation of the Community Rubric by the USF Office of Institutional Effectiveness", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "However, this study did reveal a counterintuitive and remarkable result: by comparing the rankings of the independent scorers with the rankings of these students' classroom teachers, we found no statistical difference on seven of the eight rubric criteria. In other words, when it came to scoring eight criteria, the only difference between the independent scorers and the classroom teachers was \"Style (Basics),\" a criterion that represents a 5% grade weight when the rubric was used to grade student papers. This discrepancy may suggest that the independent scorers were being more lenient regarding the students' grammatical and stylistic infelicities than the students' classroom teachers.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Independent Validation of the Community Rubric by the USF Office of Institutional Effectiveness", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Overall, the high level of agreement among the classroom teachers and the independent scorers suggests My Reviewers (perhaps by clarifying the grading criteria for teachers and students) enables diverse reviewers to mediate a shared evaluation of texts, to reach an unprecedented level of inter-rater reliability among large groups of readers-what we might call \"Objectivity 2.0.\"", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Independent Validation of the Community Rubric by the USF Office of Institutional Effectiveness", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In a recent exchange on the Writing Program Administrator Listserv, Chris Anson, this year's Chair of the Conference on College Composition and past president of the Writing Program Administrators writes: \"[the] Problem with [generic] rubrics is their usual high level of generalization (which makes them worthless).\" In a subsequent co-authored essay, \"Big Rubrics and Weird Genres: The Futility of Using Generic Assessment Tools Across Diverse Instructional Contexts, \" Anson et. al. (in press) write: \"Put simply, generic, all-purpose criteria for evaluating writing and oral communication fail to reflect the linguistic, rhetorical, relational, and contextual characteristics of specific kinds of writing or speaking that we find in higher education.\"", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 470, |
| "end": 496, |
| "text": "\" Anson et. al. (in press)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Independent Validation of the Community Rubric by the USF Office of Institutional Effectiveness", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "While we share Anson's preferences for rubrics that are designed to address the particular conventions of specific genres, audiences and media, and while we hope to secure the funding we need to add greater flexibility to My Reviewers-so we can better account for different rhetorical situations and media-, our research demonstrates the value and credibility of using a community rubric to assess multiple genres, even ones that are quite distinct, such as the personal narrative essays versus third-person based research reports. Perhaps our results suggest that the eight criteria defined by our rubric are generalizable enough across disciplines, genres, and media that university faculty can recognize them and employ them in meaningful ways to reach Objectivity 2.0.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Independent Validation of the Community Rubric by the USF Office of Institutional Effectiveness", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To be completely frank, we are somewhat astounded by the inter-rater reliability we have been able to achieve among such diverse readers, and we wonder whether a rubric such as our community rubric can be used meaningfully to overcome the \"courseocentrism\" that Gerald Graff (2010) has described as undermining education in the U.S. Perhaps a tool such as My Reviewers can be used to leverage communication across departments, perhaps generaleducation wide, to address the common characteristics of academic prose that faculty across disciplines value.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Independent Validation of the Community Rubric by the USF Office of Institutional Effectiveness", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa have received worldwide attention for their evidence and argument in Academically Adrift (2011) that undergraduates fail to learn much despite their coursework. In contrast, by comparing students' scores from project to project, we have been able to demonstrate students' development as writers, researchers, and critical thinkers. Note, for example, our evidence, shown in Figure 2 , of student development over one academic semesterbased not on a small sample size but on all students in ENC 1102 that semester. ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 404, |
| "end": 412, |
| "text": "Figure 2", |
| "ref_id": "FIGREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Assess Undergraduate Learning", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As any seasoned teacher or administrator knows, not all curricular materials are equivalent. On occasion, students perform poorly not because of a lack of innate inability but because of poor curricular planning on the part of the teachers (e.g., inadequate scaffolding of projects). Figure 3 illustrates ways My Reviewers can be used to improve the curriculum in light of evidenceillustrating ways assessment results can be used to inform curriculum changes. In this example, program administrators made changes to the historiography project (Project 2) from the Spring 2010 semester, and, subsequently, in the Fall 2011 semester students scored significantly better on most measures (Langbehn, McIntyre, Moxley, 2012) . ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 686, |
| "end": 720, |
| "text": "(Langbehn, McIntyre, Moxley, 2012)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 284, |
| "end": 293, |
| "text": "Figure 3", |
| "ref_id": "FIGREF2" |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Make Evidence-Based Curriculum Changes", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Use of a community rubric across genres, courses and disciplines can also be used to chart student progress, or lack of progress, or to indicate distinctions between the levels of difficulty imposed by unique projects/genres. On occasion, the lack of student success can be linked to issues pertaining to curriculum design as opposed to a particular student deficit. Figure 4 shows the comparison of student scores in two alternative courses, taken in succession by students at our university-results that suggest we need to once again rethink our curriculum for 1101 despite our intuition that the course was well designed and well received:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 367, |
| "end": 375, |
| "text": "Figure 4", |
| "ref_id": "FIGREF3" |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Compare Alternative Curricular Approaches", |
| "sec_num": "7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Writing programs can use tools such as My Reviewers to compare alternative curriculums. We are currently providing three alternative approaches to teaching writing in university settingsthe traditional approach, where students meet three hours each week in class; an online model; and a collaborative model, which requires students to use My Reviewers to conduct two cycles of peer review and two cycles of teacher feedback-as illustrated partially in Figure 5 .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 452, |
| "end": 460, |
| "text": "Figure 5", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Develop and Compare New Models for Teaching and Learning", |
| "sec_num": "8" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We are currently implementing a library of comments, which we developed by analyzing approximately 30,000 annotations and 20,000 endnotes; we are in the process of developing resources to help students better understand teacher and peer comments. We are seeking additional funding to develop an algorithm and badging system to inspire more effective peer-review. By enabling students to earn badges according to the quality of their feedback, as measured by their peers and students, we are hoping to provide a further incentive for quality feedback. We would like to tie the badges to the number of substantive and editorial critiques that the document authors account for when revising, by endorsements by teachers for peer feedback, and by overall rankings of peer reviews.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "NLP Features Under Development", |
| "sec_num": "9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Eventually we hope to add NLP (Natural Language Processing) tools that identify repeated patterns of error-as identified by past and present teachers who have used the tool. For example, students could be informed when they have received similar feedback in the past, and they could be offered hyperlinks back to past, similar comments. We can imagine features that highlight for teachers common comments on specific sets of papers or projects. Perhaps OER (Open Education Resources) such as Writing Commons, http://writingcommons.org, could be suggested as teachers and peers make comments.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "NLP Features Under Development", |
| "sec_num": "9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In his seminal work, The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler wisely remarks, Different technologies make different kinds of human action and interaction easier or harder to perform. All other things being equal, things that are easier to do are more likely to be done, and things that are harder to do are less likely to be done. 17My Reviewers, and other tools like it that are in development, shatter pedagogical practices by making it easier to provide comments, easier to organize and grade peer reviews, and easier to conduct assessments based on whole populations rather than randomly selected groups. The Learning Analytics embedded in tools like My Reviewers can empower students, teachers, and administrators in meaningful ways. ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusions", |
| "sec_num": "10" |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Project Development has been a deeply collaborative effort. Terry Beavers, Mike Shuman, and I-the chief architects of My Reviewers-have benefitted from the contributions of many colleagues. We thank Michelle Flanagan, for her ongoing development work; Dianne Donnelly; Hunt Hawkins; Janet Moore; Steve RiCharde; Dianne Williams; Nancy Serrano, Megan McIntyre; Nancy Lewis; Brianna Jerman; Erin Trauth.Finally, we thank the University of South Florida Technology Fee Grant Program and the Center for 21st Century Teaching Excellence for funding our project.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Acknowledgments", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Re: Rubrics and writing assessment", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chris", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Anson", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2011, |
| "venue": "WPA-L Archives. Council of Writing Program Administrators", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Chris M. Anson. 2011. Re: Rubrics and writing assessment. In WPA-L Archives. Council of Writing Program Administrators. Message posted to http://wpacouncil.org/wpa-l", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "press. Big Rubrics and Weird Genres: The Futility of Using Generic Assessment Tools Across Diverse Instructional Contexts", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Deanna", |
| "middle": [ |
| "P" |
| ], |
| "last": "Anson", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Pamela", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Dannels", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "&", |
| "middle": [ |
| "A L H" |
| ], |
| "last": "Flash", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Gaffney", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Figure 5: Cycle 1 for Peer Review Process Chris M. Anson, Deanna P. Dannels, Pamela Flash, & A.L.H. Gaffney. In press. Big Rubrics and Weird Genres: The Futility of Using Generic Assessment Tools Across Diverse Instructional Contexts. Journal of Writing Assessment.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Academically Adrift", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Richard", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Arum", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "& Josipa", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Roksa", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2011, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Richard Arum & Josipa Roksa. 2011. Academically Adrift. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "The Wealth of Networks", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Yochai", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Benkler", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2006, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Yochai Benkler. 2006. The Wealth of Networks. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Re: Rubrics and writing assessment", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "F", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "William", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Condon", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2011, |
| "venue": "WPA-L Archives. Council of Writing Program Administrators", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "William F. Condon. 2011. Re: Rubrics and writing assessment. In WPA-L Archives. Council of Writing Program Administrators. Message posted to http://wpacouncil.org/wpa-l", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "Do We Need a Single Standard of Value for Institutional Assessment? An Essay Response to Asao Inoue's 'Community-Based Assessment", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Peter", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Elbow", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2006, |
| "venue": "Pedagogy'. Assessing Writing", |
| "volume": "11", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "81--99", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Peter Elbow. 2006. Do We Need a Single Standard of Value for Institutional Assessment? An Essay Response to Asao Inoue's 'Community-Based As- sessment Pedagogy'. Assessing Writing, 11:81-99.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Under review. Using Real-Time Formative Assessments to Close the Assessment Loop", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Karen", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Langbehn", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Megan Mcintyre & Joseph", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Moxley", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "Digital Writing Assessment", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Karen Langbehn, Megan McIntyre & Joseph Moxley. Under review. Using Real-Time Formative As- sessments to Close the Assessment Loop. In Heidi McKee & Danielle Nicole DeVoss (Eds.), Digital Writing Assessment.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "In press. Agency in the Age of Peer Production. Studies in Writing and Rhetoric Series", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Quentin", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Vieregge", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Kyle", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Stedman", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Taylor", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Mitchell", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Joseph", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Moxley", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Quentin Vieregge, Kyle Stedman, Taylor Mitchell, and Joseph Moxley.. In press. Agency in the Age of Peer Production. Studies in Writing and Rheto- ric Series. National Council of Teachers of Eng- lish, Urbana, IL.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "Sample Document Markup and Rubric" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "1102 Final Project Scores" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF2": { |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "Comparison of Project 2 for the Spring 2010 vs. Fall 2011 Semesters" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF3": { |
| "num": null, |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "text": "1101 (left) vs. 1102 Final Project Results" |
| }, |
| "TABREF1": { |
| "text": ", we see enormous value in clarifying specific grading", |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>Criteria</td><td>L e v e l</td><td>E m e r g i n g</td><td>1</td><td>Developing</td><td>3</td><td>Mastering</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>0</td><td/><td>2</td><td/><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Focus</td><td colspan=\"2\">Basics Does not meet assign-</td><td colspan=\"2\">Partially meets assignment</td><td colspan=\"2\">Meets assignment re-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>ment</td><td colspan=\"2\">requirements</td><td colspan=\"2\">quirements</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>requirements</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>Critical</td><td>Absent or weak thesis;</td><td colspan=\"2\">Predictable or unoriginal the-</td><td colspan=\"2\">Insightful/intriguing the-</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Think-</td><td>ideas are underdevel-</td><td colspan=\"2\">sis; ideas are partially devel-</td><td colspan=\"2\">sis; ideas are convincing</td></tr><tr><td/><td>ing</td><td>oped, vague or</td><td colspan=\"2\">oped and related to thesis;</td><td colspan=\"2\">and compelling; cogent</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>unrelated to thesis;</td><td colspan=\"2\">inconsistent analysis of subject</td><td colspan=\"2\">analysis of subject rele-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>poor analysis of ideas</td><td colspan=\"2\">relevant to thesis</td><td colspan=\"2\">vant to thesis</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>relevant to thesis</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>Evidence</td><td>Critical</td><td>Sources and supporting</td><td colspan=\"2\">Fair selection of credible</td><td colspan=\"2\">Credible and useful</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Think-</td><td>details lack credibility;</td><td colspan=\"2\">sources and supporting de-</td><td colspan=\"2\">sources and supporting</td></tr><tr><td/><td>ing</td><td>poor synthesis of pri-</td><td colspan=\"2\">tails; unclear relationship</td><td colspan=\"2\">details; cogent synthesis</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>mary and secondary</td><td colspan=\"2\">between thesis and primary</td><td colspan=\"2\">of primary and secondary</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>sources/evidence rele-</td><td colspan=\"2\">and secondary</td><td colspan=\"2\">sources/evidence relevant</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>vant to thesis; poor</td><td colspan=\"2\">sources/evidence; ineffective</td><td colspan=\"2\">to thesis; clever synthesis</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>synthesis of</td><td colspan=\"2\">synthesis of sources/evidence</td><td colspan=\"2\">of visuals/personal ex-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>visuals/personal ex-</td><td colspan=\"2\">relevant to thesis; occasionally</td><td colspan=\"2\">perience/anecdotes rele-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>perience/anecdotes</td><td colspan=\"2\">effective synthesis of</td><td colspan=\"2\">vant to thesis;</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>relevant to thesis;</td><td colspan=\"2\">visuals/personal experi-</td><td colspan=\"2\">distinguishes between</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>rarely distinguishes</td><td colspan=\"2\">ence/anecdotes relevant to</td><td colspan=\"2\">writer's ideas and source's</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>between writer's ideas</td><td colspan=\"2\">thesis; inconsistently distin-</td><td>ideas.</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>and source's ideas</td><td colspan=\"2\">guishes between writer's ideas</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">and source's ideas</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">Organization Basics Confusing opening;</td><td colspan=\"2\">Uninteresting or somewhat</td><td colspan=\"2\">Engaging introduction,</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>absent, inconsistent, or</td><td colspan=\"2\">trite introduction, inconsistent</td><td colspan=\"2\">relevant topic sentences,</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>non-relevant topic</td><td colspan=\"2\">use of topics sentences, se-</td><td colspan=\"2\">good segues, appropriate</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>sentences; few transi-</td><td colspan=\"2\">gues, transitions, and medio-</td><td colspan=\"2\">transitions, and compel-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>tions and absent or</td><td colspan=\"2\">cre conclusion</td><td colspan=\"2\">ling conclusion</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>unsatisfying conclusion</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>Critical</td><td>Illogical progression of</td><td colspan=\"2\">Supporting points follow a</td><td colspan=\"2\">Logical progression of</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Think-</td><td>supporting</td><td colspan=\"2\">somewhat logical progression;</td><td colspan=\"2\">supporting points; very</td></tr><tr><td/><td>ing</td><td>points; lacks cohesive-</td><td colspan=\"2\">occasional wandering of ideas;</td><td colspan=\"2\">cohesive</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>ness</td><td colspan=\"2\">some interruption of cohesive-</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>ness</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>Style</td><td colspan=\"2\">Basics Frequent gram-</td><td colspan=\"2\">Some grammar/punctuation</td><td colspan=\"2\">Correct grammar and</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>mar/punctuation er-</td><td colspan=\"2\">errors occur in some places;</td><td colspan=\"2\">punctuation; consistent</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>rors; inconsistent point</td><td colspan=\"2\">somewhat consistent point of</td><td colspan=\"2\">point of view</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>of view</td><td>view</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>Critical</td><td>Significant problems</td><td colspan=\"2\">Occasional problems with</td><td colspan=\"2\">Rhetorically-sound syntax,</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Think-</td><td>with syntax,</td><td colspan=\"2\">syntax, diction, word choice,</td><td colspan=\"2\">diction, word choice, and</td></tr><tr><td/><td>ing</td><td>diction, word choice,</td><td colspan=\"2\">and vocabulary</td><td colspan=\"2\">vocabulary; effective use</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>and vocabulary</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">of figurative language</td></tr><tr><td>Format</td><td colspan=\"2\">Basics Little compliance with</td><td colspan=\"2\">Inconsistent compliance with</td><td colspan=\"2\">Consistent compliance</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>accepted documenta-</td><td colspan=\"2\">accepted documentation style</td><td colspan=\"2\">with accepted documenta-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>tion style (i.e., MLA,</td><td colspan=\"2\">(i.e., MLA, APA) for paper</td><td colspan=\"2\">tion style (i.e., MLA, APA)</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>APA) for paper format-</td><td colspan=\"2\">formatting, in-text citations,</td><td colspan=\"2\">for paper formatting, in-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>ting, in-text citations,</td><td colspan=\"2\">annotated bibliographies, and</td><td colspan=\"2\">text citations, annotated</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>annotated</td><td colspan=\"2\">works cited; some attention to</td><td colspan=\"2\">bibliographies, and works</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>bibliographies, and</td><td colspan=\"2\">document design</td><td colspan=\"2\">cited; strong attention to</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>works cited; minimal</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">document design</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>attention to document</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>design</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>", |
| "html": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF2": { |
| "text": "", |
| "num": null, |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "content": "<table/>", |
| "html": null |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
