Standards for Passing Papers in C2 Classes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STANDARDS FOR PASSING PAPERS IN C2 CLASSES Writing Program, UC Santa Cruz, 2007 Preface 2 Educational Objectives of the C Requirement and Specific Goals of C1 and C2 4 Rubric: Assessing Students as Writers at the End of C2 7 Essays with a Rating of 1: “Does not meet C2’s minimum goals” 8 Essay A, “James Surowiecki 9 Essay A Explanation 15 Essay B, “Street Racing” 16 Essay B explanation 24 Essays with a Rating of 2: “Demonstrates satisfactory if at times marginal proficiency” 25 Essay C, “Pig Tales Essay” 26 Essay C explanation 29 Essay D, “Is Our Homeland Security Program Working?” 30 Essay D explanation 37 Essay E, “COINTELPRO in The 60’s” 38 Essay E explanation 49 Essay with a Rating of 3: “Demonstrates clear competency” 50 Essay F, “The Censorship of the Past Versus the Rating System of the Present 51 Essay F explanation 61 Essay G, “Surfrider Foundation” 62 Essay G explanation 72 Essay with a Rating of 4: “Demonstrates sophisticated understanding and execution” 73 Essay H, “William Tecumseh Sherman: The Private Politician” 74 Essay H explanation 85 Essay I, “The Real State of Technology” 86 Essay I explanation 95 C2 Standards - 1 of 95 Preface Between 2003 and 2005, the UCSC Writing Program undertook a multi-faceted assessment project that as one of its many goals set out to clarify the Writing Program Faculty’s standards for evaluating students’ writing at the end of Writing 1, Composition and Rhetoric (now known as Writing 2, Rhetoric and Inquiry). The project began with extensive research on theories and methodologies of assessment, continued with our refining our educational goals for Writing 1/Writing 2 and developing a rubric and protocol for evaluating the quality of students’ essays, and culminated in an ambitious pilot in 2004 in which 17 faculty members scored 54 essays randomly selected from 43 sections of Writing 1. After analyzing the pilot and the usefulness of the data it produced at Writing Program meetings as well as at a conference attended by assessment experts at UC Santa Barbara in January 2005, we revised the rubric, various aspects of the way we collected essays, and the protocol for scoring them. In March, 2005, informed by two years of research, experience, and conversation, we asked 37 writing instructors to provide one essay written by a specific student whose name had been randomly chosen from class lists, stipulating that the essay had to refer to at least one source and had to have been assigned in the last three weeks of the quarter. Thirty instructors provided appropriate essays. Twenty-four Writing Program faculty members met and scored the essays, using the rubric included here. Each essay was read by 3-5 faculty members who did not know how it had been scored by others. Unlike the process used for scoring the Analytical Writing Placement Examination, we did not have any discussion designed to norm ourselves as readers of these essays. The point was rather to see whether the scores would reveal a consensus on the standards for evaluating writing produced by students at the end of Writing 1/ Writing 2. During 2006 – 2007, a sub-committee of the Writing Program Faculty chaired by Jim Wilson and including Sandy Archimedes, Biff Faunce, and Carol Freeman was charged with revising a 10-year-old Writing Program document, “Standards for Passing Writing 1.” Deciding to take advantage of the work accomplished by the Assessment Project, the sub-committee looked at about 20 essays that Writing Program Faculty members in Spring, 2005, had scored the same for “overall quality . in relation to Writing 1’s goals” according to this scale: Rating of 1 – does not meet Writing 1’s minimum goals. Rating of 2 – demonstrates satisfactory if at times marginal proficiency. Rating of 3 – demonstrates clear competency. Rating of 4 – demonstrates sophisticated understanding and execution. The sub- committee then selected two or three essays to represent the range and variety of essays given each of the four ratings and wrote a descriptive explanation of the consensus score. The essays and accompanying explanations were discussed at the Writing Program Fall Faculty meeting in September, 2007, and subsequently in conversations with individuals. What you have here is the revised result of those discussions. C2 Standards - 2 of 95 All the essays included here represent students’ end-of-the-quarter prose without regard to process or improvement or revision. Each essay was written in response to a different assignment by a different instructor; in each case, the student did indeed produce “the sort of essay called for in the assignment,” albeit not with equal success. And, while the Writing Program faculty members who read these essays did not always agree on how to score the abilities labeled A through H on the rubric, they did agree on how to rate these essays’ “overall quality.” We offer these essays as an informative snapshot of the Writing Program’s current standards and also as materials for continuing conversation. Carol Freeman 2007 C2 Standards - 3 of 95 EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES OF THE C REQUIREMENT AND THE SPECIFIC GOALS OF C1 AND C2 In completing UCSC’s two-quarter General Education Requirement in Composition, students learn how to become effective participants in university discourse, spoken as well as written. To this end: 1. Students learn -- when reading, writing, listening, or speaking -- to analyze rhetorical situations so as to understand that different purposes and contexts call for different strategies, different conventions, and different techniques. 2. Students learn to recognize and discuss propositions (their own as well as others’) that cannot be merely demonstrated -- that is, to analyze, evaluate, and argue matters of opinion and interpretation as well as to describe matters of fact. 3. Students learn to develop effective processes for writing in different contexts and to use a variety of strategies for discovering, developing, and analyzing data and ideas, for making sense, for revising, and for editing. 4. Students learn to produce writing that: • Establishes and maintains an appropriate purpose or coherent set of purposes in relation to the assignment and the audience. • Employs appropriate strategies of development that accomplish their purpose in relation to the assignment, its context, and its audience. • Uses sources’ information and ideas accurately and effectively and cites sources appropriately. • Communicates in accurate, appropriate, effective prose. 5. Students learn strategies for becoming accurate readers and critical analysts of all texts including their own. 6. Students learn how to collaborate with others (including their peers) in doing research, generating and evaluating ideas, and revising texts. Composition 1, Introduction to University Discourse As they make the transition from writing in the schools to writing in a variety of academic and professional contexts, students learn to apply rhetorical principles rather than rely on rule-driven formulas. They also experience and come to understand the connections among composing, thinking, and learning, C2 Standards - 4 of 95 Students will: 1. Write at least five relatively short essays (up to 1250 words) and read a variety of texts, including a significant amount of nonfiction that employs argument and analysis. 2. Learn strategies for reading challenging texts -- that is, to understand a text’s purpose or purposes and to follow its train of thought, to begin to be aware of nuance and emphasis, and to be able to relate specific examples and statements to larger topics or claims. 3. Learn strategies for analyzing and criteria for evaluating opinions, interpretations, and arguments (propositions about things that cannot be proved) and learn the academic uses of words such as argument, hypothesis, theory, assumption, claim, etc. 4. Learn to analyze their processes as writers, develop strategies for enhancing those processes, and evaluate the results, all in relation to the particular demands of particular assignments. Students’ attention to process includes: • Learning specific strategies for invention and revision in relation to the quality of content as well as its clarity and accuracy. • Learning the importance of a writer’s purpose and audience and relevant conventions in relation to focus, coherence, and effectiveness. • Learning to take charge of their proof reading and editing in standard professional English by analyzing their weaknesses and developing a plan for eliminating error. 5. Learn oral communication skills for effective participation in discussions as well as for formal presentations. Composition 2, Rhetoric and Inquiry Students in Composition 2 build on their progress in Composition 1 by learning strategies for becoming more effective readers, writers, and speakers in the context of assignments that require independent research. They deepen their comprehension of how their writing and that of others can add to the understanding of vital issues and sustain meaningful inquiry through responsible persuasion. Students will: 1. Write a series of at least five essays (including one of at least 1500 words) and read a variety of texts that provide occasions for analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating data and arguments. 2. Learn methods of research and approaches to using sources (i.e., the information, theories, arguments, and texts of others) that provide students with the knowledge and confidence to actively participate in the act of inquiry by composing comparative analysis, interpretation, and reasoned argument.