Shepard Hall Room 101
160 Convent Avenue
New York, NY 10031
Fall 2012 FIQWS ASSESSMENT REPORT
Date of report: / February 21, 2012Course: / FIQWS
Materials used, n: / 39
Rubric/Scoring standard used: / Gen Ed rubrics: writing, critical thinking, info. literacy
Date of assessment: / January 2012
Assessment Team
Members: / Coriel Gaffney, MacAdam Smith, Amy Veach
Coordination/Oversight: / Joshua Wilner, Senior Faculty Advisor for Undergraduate Education
Ana Vasović, Coordinator for General Education
WRITING SKILLS
Writing – average scores *Thesis / Structure and Organization / Evidence and Development / Mechanics and Style
2.38 / 2.47 / 2.51 / 2.56
Thesis:
Strengths:Thesis was present in the majority of papers. Most papers also positioned the thesis at the end of the first paragraph. Seems overall improved compared to previous assessments.
Weaknesses: Few presented a definable argument that could be defended. There was a lack of comprehensive context and many were self-evident; instead of stating a specific position they stated the obvious.
Structure and organization strengths and weaknesses:
Strengths: Most of the papers possessed a clear introduction, middle, and end. Argument became clear by the end of the paper.
Weaknesses: The conclusions were a repeat of the primary ideas throughout the papers and lack a real synthesis of the ideas. The structure often did not adhere to the logic of the argument. Students struggled to use their intros and conclusions to put their topics into a larger context.
Evidence and Development strengths and weaknesses:
Strengths: Primary and secondary sources were used and quoted within the papers to support ideas. Most papers used citations and quotes. Improvement noted on the integration of the sources into the papers overall.
Weaknesses: Many papers did not challenge the sources or make a clear analysis of the material. Many papers were lacking evidence and were heavy on summary, often using text from class too heavily.
Mechanics and Style strengths and weaknesses:
The mechanics and style in the papers seemed to reflect the overall “ability” within the paper. If the thesis was underdeveloped, it was not uncommon for the logic supporting the evidence to be simplified. The same lack of attention could consistently be seen in the mechanics of the writing.
Other Comments:
The thesis seemed to set the entire framework of the essay. If the thesis was unsuccessful and vague, the remaining paper followed the same pattern.
CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS
Critical Thinking– average scores *Explanation of isues / Evidence / Context & Assumptions / Student's Position / Conclusions
2.56 / 2.46 / 2.29 / 2.23 / 2.31
Strengths:
Students mostly answered the prompt.Most papers used sources in one way or another. Evidence was summarized adequately. Conclusions were quite strong.
Weaknesses/Concerns:
Stating the credibility of the source was consistently missing in the papers.There was a lack of analysis, or acknowledging competing ideas or points of views.Integrating sources into the papers could be much more comprehensive–not only with the mechanics, but the significance of why a source is used. It felt as though students chose the first source that was somewhat connected to their topic without really doing the groundwork to see if it is the “best” source to support their thesis.Logic in many cases veered into fallacies or simplified conclusions without considering the full scope or comprehensive context of the situation.Papers relied more on summary than analysis.
Other comments:
Of the three rubrics and areas of evaluation, critical thinking was the most undeveloped; many students seem to struggle with developing their own critical analysis and continue to rely primarily on the analysis of others.
INFORMATION LITERACY SKILLS
Information Literacy – average scores *Understand info needs/ search efficiently / Evaluate info sources / Credibility of sources / Use info ethically
2.55 / 2.35 / 2.59 / 2.13
Strengths:
When the assignments called for sources, the students met the assignment with the necessary sources. Sources are referred to directly; some mentioned credibility of sources. Most bibliographies were correctly formatted.
Weaknesses/Concerns:
While the sources were used with some form of reference, there was an inconsistency on the citations. This seemed most evident regarding the Works Cited and in-text citations. Many students did not establish credibility of sources.
* Scale 1-4 reflects the ability range from the beginning level to the accomplished level – it is meant as a “college span” scale; it is expected that the majority of freshmen would not be at the “accomplished” end of the scale.
1 – beginning2- developing 3 – competent 4 – accomplished
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Provide ongoing faculty development, address the following:What skills are students expected to learn?
Understanding Gen Ed rubrics
How to teach series: Thesis Writing, developing an argument, etc.
2. Create a comprehensive “library” and central point of reference and authority in teaching all matters of academic writing. Similar to Purdue OWL’s website, City College should establish a visible and public presence online. Make this a consistent point of contact for all instructors and students.
•Make this a collaboration with the existing Writing Center.
•“Teaching” resources
•“Student” resources
3. Provide support for ESL students
4. Two semesters of writing proposed: critical thinking should be the centerpiece of both; the first semester students develop core writing skills and compose 1)Argumentative essay 2) Critical Analysis 3) Compare and contrast essay 4) Expository writing. In the second semester students focus on research paper.
5. Make the second library visit later in the semester, so it is more aligned with the “timing” of the students work on the research paper.
6.In class, to be done by instructors:
Ongoing drafting and peer/student commenting
Thesis must submitted beforehand
Outlines are necessary; Point/Counterpoint outlines would be helpful
Discussion on logic of argument—structure felt arbitrary and misaligned
Continued teaching of transition words/compare/contrast language that’s strong
How to refine research and omit redundant evidence
How to select a topic that elicits a refined search (some of these topics were very vague
Intros should summarize the prompt to establish goal of paper more transparently
More analysis of sources, more empowerment to critique to established authors/scholars
In class, critique real sources as students critique peers
Assumptions need to be supported by evidence—go through drafts and write “E” or “C” for evidence or claim. Claims divorced form evidence should be apparent
Lots of low-stakes assignments to get pre-writing out of the way so the paper is on task
Teach students how to cite with the proper citation style.
Prompts should be clearer, research requirements should be super specific
Need to explain importance of naming credibility, relevance of author’s background to topic
Importance of correct citation needs to be explained
Read scholarly journals in course so they have guided exposure