GMU Core Competencies - Written Communications
Definition of the Competency
This report incorporates information about writing assessment from George Mason University’s College of Nursing and Health Sciences (CNHS) and School of Management (SOM).
The general education goal for writing is to “develop ability to use written communication as a way of thinking and of discovering ideas and meanings as well as expressing them.” To ensure development of writing competence Mason requires English 100/101 (first year composition), English 302 (advanced writing in the disciplines), a Writing Intensive course in the major, and the new upper level, general education synthesis course. The synthesis course component “requires students to demonstrate advanced skills in oral and written communication before a faculty panel.” All of these requirements are supported by the Writing Across the Curriculum program.
In addition to fulfilling these university requirements, the School of Management (SOM) and the College of Nursing and Health Sciences (CNHS) provide extensive writing related to the major including providing additional writing intensive courses and incorporating significant writing assignments (portfolios [CNHS], case studies, research projects) and informal writing in courses in the major.
Standards of the Competency
SOM and CNHS assessed student writing as “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” based on student demonstrated ability to 1) achieve the purpose for the writing assignment (stated as understand different audiences and purposes [SOM] and achieve purpose [CNHS]) , 2) organize a paper, 3) demonstrate critical thinking (stated as use evidence to support an argument [SOM] and critical thinking [SOM]), 4) use proper grammar and mechanics, and 5) appropriately use academic content.
Methodology
Trained department-based faculty developed criteria for assessing writing, identified and collected appropriate student writing samples primarily from writing intensive courses, and scored a representative sample of student writing based on general and discipline-specific criteria. A total of 14 faculty and 5 staff participated in the writing assessment process for the two units. The writing of a total of 89 students and a total of 175 writing samples were assessed. The random sample represents 30% (n=51 of 170) of graduating seniors and 153 writing samples from students enrolled in the nursing capstone course and 70% (n=38 of 55) of the students enrolled in the SOM keystone course.
Other processes used to assess student writing include pre-/post-test on-line assessment of student writing using WriteplacerTM (SOM), an annual university-wide “Graduating Senior Survey,” and a “Faculty Survey of Student Writing.”
| Results: | Satisfactory or Above | Unsatisfactory | ||
| N | % | N | % | |
| Achieve purpose for writing | 77 | 88% | 11 | 12% |
| Organize a paper | 76 | 85% | 13 | 15% |
| Demonstrate critical thinking | 80 | 90% | 9 | 10% |
| Use proper grammar and mechanics | 71 | 81% | 17 | 19% |
| Appropriately incorporate academic content | 77 | 87% | 12 | 13% |
Results reported above are based on criteria common to the two units. The number and percent of student samples that fall into the “Satisfactory and Above” and “Unsatisfactory” categories for each writing criterion are shown below. As can be seen, the large majority of students (81% - 90%) were judged satisfactory or above in demonstrating each of the writing criteria. Nineteen percent (19%) of students were judged unsatisfactory in meeting the criterion “Use proper grammar and mechanics.” This finding may be influenced by the large percent of students (30% - 40%) in the sample population who can be described as ELS (English as Second Language). (Note: SOM had multiple scoring sessions and did not assess every criteria in every session, thus their total sample sizes varied by criteria [n=37, 38]).
Other writing assessments (e.g., WriteplacerTM, “Graduating Senior Survey”) provide results that are consistent with this faculty assessment of student writing samples.
Summary
Criteria common to units and specific to disciplines were developed by faculty in each department and will be used to improve writing in the following ways: 1) share with faculty the discipline-specific criteria for writing and the results of the writing assessment, 2) refine writing assignments using the identified writing criteria, 3) consider how writing criteria may be appropriately applied to students at different levels (first year to senior), 4) provide workshops for faculty on incorporating more writing into courses, 5) provide students information (e.g., writing assessment criteria, guidelines for using American Psychological Association format) about writing, and 6) develop writing sessions for students that address the identified writing weaknesses.