Abstract

Two community colleges and two state universities in central Massachusetts developed a collaborative partnership of faculty assessment teams using institutionally developed rubrics and the LEAP VALUE Written Communication rubric to compare the scoring results and record perceptions of the scoring process itself. Qualitative analysis revealed that while there were differences in interpretations of terminology impacting the assessor confidence and voice when applying both the national and local rubrics to score student work, the process of explicating what goes into selecting a score was central to the process of judging student artifacts. Despite the differences in interpretation of language, quantitative data demonstrated that the LEAP VALUE rubric in its original form or slightly modified allowed assessors to detect significant differences in freshman and sophomore writing samples. By creating a shared partnership for assessment using a mixed-methods approach faculty were able to discuss the requisite level of proficiency in written communication for successful transfer. Translating this knowledge into the types of assignment prompts and assessments needed to measure and communicate a student’s proficiency may help to maximize the transfer success for academically at-risk students—indeed, for all students.

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
2160-6757
Print ISSN
2160-6765
Pages
pp. 52-84
Launched on MUSE
2014-12-29
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.