|
|
|
Implementing Assessment and Improving Undergraduate Writing: One Department's
Experience
Russell Olwell and Ronald Delph
Eastern Michigan University
|
WHAT HAVE OUR STUDENTS LEARNED? What do they know? A program assessment
which seeks to answer this question is freighted with importance,
because it may entail a shift in departmental focus, energy and
resources. Frequently questions of assessment play a significant
role as part of university-wide accreditation or the accreditation
of programs for the certification of teachers. (The National Council
for the Accrediting of Teacher Education and the National Council
for the Social Studies both have assessment at the core of their
new accreditation procedures.) History departments, however, are
not generally known as hotbeds of assessment activity. Doctoral
programs in history rarely touch the issue of how to assess student
learning, while program review as an idea appears to many historians
as an invasion of their turf by outsiders.
|
1
|
|
At Eastern Michigan University, members
of the faculty in the Department of History and Philosophy have
worked to turn the process of assessment into a tool for improving
the critical thinking, research, and writing abilities of students
in our history program. For the past three years, the department
has completed an annual review of papers produced in its research
and writing methods class, History 300. As a result of this ongoing
process of assessment, faculty who have taught this class have made
a number of changes to their assignments in order to insure that
students leaving the class have the necessary tools to research
and write a solid historical research paper. The information we
gained through assessment has also reshaped the way we have taught
the class. We have moved toward emphasizing research and writing
as a process. This new "writing as a process" model has
replaced the more traditional one that typically saw the student
lurch along nearly unaided toward producing a paper in the final
weeks of the semester.
|
2
|
|
This assessment project focused on
History 300 because the class was created to ensure that all history
majors left EMU with solid research and writing skills. The class
is a requirement (the only upper-level required class) but is neither
a capstone (final class) nor a gateway (first class in the major).1
However, the department has also implemented a series of writing
intensive classes at the upper-level to build on the writing skills
developed in History 300. New faculty have commented that they can
tell the difference between students who have and have not taken
History 300 in their upper-level classes. Unlike those who have
not taken the class who seem lost about where to start or how to
choose a topic, the History 300 veterans are clearly ready to begin
a research paper. While anecdotal evidence for or against the class
could be found, the assessment project was designed to help the
department decide whether the experiment of having a mandatory class
in research and writing should be continued.
|
3
|
|
It would be dishonest to claim that
creating this assessment project has been smooth or easy. For departments
embarking on a path of curriculum or writing assessment, many of
the problems related below could have been avoided had the department
decided in advance to implement changes across our entire curriculum.
As the process unfolded serious disagreements about how best to
teach and evaluate history surfaced. Coming to a compromise early
on these issues would have strengthened the outcome, and saved the
department much effort. Our department also concentrated its assessment
efforts on a single required class, and the results for this were
positive. However, departments attempting this type of project in
the future should consider whether to implement and assess changes
across the curriculum, in order to avoid student (and faculty) complaints
about inconsistency between courses and even among different sections
of the same course.
|
4
|
| |
|
What We Learned from Assessment | |
|
The department's research and writing
methods class, History 300, was created less than a decade ago to
ensure that students graduating the program had at least an apprentice's
grasp of the historian's basic toolkit. Students are encouraged
to take it, the only upper-level required class in the department,
before completing other upper-level courses. It serves history majors,
history majors for secondary education, and social studies for secondary
education students, and at least six sections are offered per academic
year, in classes capped at twenty-five students each. Because we
are a major producer of history and social studies teachers in our
state (over fifty per year of the total including history and social
studies), the department believes that these teachers must know
how to conduct their own in-depth historical inquiries before setting
out to teach secondary students those same historical thinking skills.
|
5
|
|
The History 300 assessment team involved
several faculty members, none currently teaching the class, who
read all the papers turned in by students during the past academic
year. History 300 teachers handed over a copy of all student papers
for that year in early summer, and the assessment team then read
and scored them according to a rubric created by the History Instruction
Committee (See appendix for the original and revised rubrics). The
results of the assessment were communicated both to an annual meeting
of History 300 instructors and to and during a faculty meeting in
the fall.2 Instructors of the course
also meet periodically during the school year to discuss common
problems in student work, and means of addressing these problems.
|
6
|
|
This departmental assessment process
did not evaluate the faculty teaching the coursepapers were only
evaluated on how well they measured up to departmental standards
for research and writing. This lack of focus on faculty performance
was due to our understanding that a weak mix of students in any
particular section could cause papers from that section (and the
faculty members) look bad unfairly. We also believed that readers
of these papers should not be placed in the position of having to
challenge a History 300 instructor's grading scale. Assessors might
not know, for instance, where a paper or idea had started outa faculty
member may have helped a student turn an initially weak beginning
into a moderately acceptable paperand that might be an achievement
reflected in a particular grade on the final draft. In fact, some
faculty have objected to anyone other than themselves reading their
students' papers and have given students the option of not having
the papers read as part of the assessment. This has led to a small,
unrepresentative sample of papers for these sections.
|
7
|
|
Further complicating matters has
been the problem of using a common rubric. We revised the rubric
this summer after faculty raised issues of clarity about the initial
draft. The rubric has also provoked questions about focusshould
faculty teach more about historiography and using secondary sources
in History 300, or should the class retain its goal of getting students
immersed in primary documents. When designing assessment instruments,
it is important to be clear in advance about what is to be measured
and scored, and to choose only categories that are of primary importance.
Otherwise, the rubric can drive the evaluation process, and the
goals of a class can be changed in midstream to match the assessment.
|
8
|
| |
|
The Problem of a Lack of a Thesis
in Student Papers | |
|
Our assessment process revealed that
students do not necessarily believe their papers need a thesis.
Part of this problem is the result of their general intellectual
development, and many students enter even upper-level classes with
what educational researchers call a concrete level of analysis.
That means in their history classes they are still convinced that
history essentially consists of names, dates, facts and events,
all of which can be easily classified as true or false. It is part
of our job as historians to combat this tendency and to show students
that the best practitioners of history view the study of the past
as a series of problems that must be analyzed critically to ascertain
the central issues and motives that shaped events, ideas and peoples'
actions. An analytical rather than a narrative approach lends itself
much more readily to the development of a central thesis followed
by logical supporting arguments. It also forces students to read
sources and view evidence with a more critical eye, and engages
them in a higher level of thinking as they work through their writing.3
|
9
|
|
Not surprisingly, many history papers
read by the assessment committee lacked a thesis, and this was reported
to History 300 instructors at a meeting in the summer of 2000. This
led instructors to reformulate their assignments so that students
would focus more on the development of a strong thesis and evidence
to back up that thesis. This also meant that the class needed to
be restructured to insure that students were thinking critically
about history and had developed a thesis out of their research before
they began writing the first drafts of their papers.
|
10
|
|
In defense of our students, we must
note that this lack of a thesis should not be taken as a sign of
student ineptness or apathy. Even books on how to write a history
paper offer little attention to this topic. In fact, it is assumed
in our field that undergraduates know how to formulate a thesis,
in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. This problem with
thesis driven writing led the department to develop a "writing
process" model for History 300 research papers. This model
ensures that students have mastered the basics of critical analysis
and research before moving on to their papers.
|
11
|
|
While some faculty have objected
that narrative history should not be ruled out of the History 300
curriculum, the department has agreed that even papers that primarily
seek to tell a story still need a point. Without a thesis, student
papers usually fall into what King and Kitchener describe as focused
on facts, rather than ideas. For these students, history is names
and dates, and a paper is a chronological retelling of some major
event or the life of a major figure. A research and writing class
that demands a thesis confronts students at this level with a crisis.
In order to come up with a provable thesis, they first need to rethink
their philosophy of history and come to a deeper understanding of
historical argumentation. However, this can be a painful and existential
experience for students during the term, and some drop the class
rather than change their conception of history.
|
12
|
| |
|
Adopting a "Writing Process"
Model | |
|
By adopting a "writing process"
model for History 300 the department chose to emphasize research
and writing as a semester long endeavor, building upon studies done
in English composition, as well as upon scholarship from the Writing
Across the Curriculum movement.4
Studies from both of these fields emphasize that writing should
be a multi-staged process in which the author constantly rethinks
the topic as he/she works along toward a finished product. Unfortunately
many of our students practice a very abbreviated writing process
in which they research, outline, write and revise all in the same
forty-eight hour period before a paper is due. This "onslaught
approach" to producing a research paper generally precludes
any substantial feedback from the instructor, and hence obviates
the possibility of using the research and writing process as viable
learning experience.5
|
13
|
|
A semester long writing process model
requires students to approach the researching and writing of a paper
as a series of incremental steps that are spaced throughout the
entire semester. Under this model students need to identify a historical
problem weeks before their paper is due and to compile an annotated
bibliography on the topic before they begin to write. Moreover,
midway through the semester students must submit at least one draft
or detailed outline of their paper and this is quickly returned
with detailed comments from the instructor. At each crucial step,
the instructor can intervene with constructive criticism through
oral or written comments on the sequential assignments.6
|
14
|
|
In our own department we were fortunate
that Ron Delph attended a week-long "writing across the curriculum
workshop" hosted by our university in the summer of 1999. As
a result of this workshop, he was able to share with department
members a revised plan for how students in his upper level medieval
history class should go about the process of researching and writing
research papers. This process included students identifying two
historical problems from the period, typing out a half page description
of each problem, and then meeting with him to discuss the feasibility
of working on each topic. Accompanying the half page description
of each topic was a bibliography. Midway through the term, Prof.
Delph required that students turn in the opening paragraph of their
paper, in which they stated the general problem on which they were
working as well as the thesis around which they were going to focus
their arguments. Additionally, students had to present in outline
form the major arguments that they intended to use to support their
thesis, and to identify specific works from which they would draw
these arguments. These two page outlines were handed back with Delph's
comments, which students then used to craft the full version of
their papers. After the completed papers were handed in and graded,
students then had the option to revise the paper further if they
chose, before the end of the term. Several instructors in History
300 adopted Delph's general timeline and assignments, in the hope
that they would help students become more focused on the process
of developing a thesis and pursue an analytical analysis in a timely
fashion.
|
15
|
|
This structure was found to help
guide students through a process that for many, could be overwhelming.
It also seemed to insure that the instructor knew how the individual
student was doing on the paper long before the final draft came
in. Though reading short drafts or correcting detailed outlines
proved to take time, the grading at the end of the term was far
more manageable, because the instructor was really looking for improvements
in previous drafts and already had a strong familiarity with the
topic, thesis, and evidence that the student was presenting. Moreover,
through early feedback the instructor could help the student correct
any major weakness in research, thesis organization or writing style
at a preliminary stage. This approach proved to be particularly
effective for students who were less experienced with research and
writing, offering support which helped reassure them that they were
on the right track.
|
16
|
|
Adopted in required History 300,
however, this process model could infuriate some students. For students
who anticipated a class, the requirement of which was only handing
in a single research product at the last possible minute, the point
system of a writing process-based class could seem punitive. Now
their final work would loose points for the absence or weakness
of the outline, draft, and other preliminary material. This could
offend a student's sense of fairness, and lead (as it did) to a
threatened grade grievance over the lower than expected grade (including
a dreaded parent phone call of complaint to the department chair
that one instructor was the target of). History 300 students had
a point they were given a greater workload in this than in some
other courses and were being held to a higher standard by the process
model. Our experience shows therefore, that if departments adopt
this model they would be wise to adopt it across the entire curriculum
as a defensive measure, so that students do not find that different
history classes have entirely different philosophies of writing
and grading.
|
17
|
| |
|
Class Themes As a Way to Build a Learning Community | |
|
Another approach that helped students
with less experience writing papers was the development of a general
class theme by History 300 instructors. Daryl Hafter had students
in her History 300 class focus on the history of the town of Ypsilanti,
the local community of which Eastern Michigan University is a part.
Students wrote about early settlement, local elections, and the
community impact of the local bomber plant during World War II.
The class ended with students giving a public presentation to an
audience that included the Mayor, as well as University officials
and members of Phi Alpha Theta, the History Honors society. This
kind of involvement with the community offers students excellent
raw historical material to work with, and aids in reconnecting the
university with a community that may perceive the university as
distant and aloof from the local citizens.
|
18 |
|
Other class themes have also worked
to build a community of interests among students. Pam Graves had
her students focus on women and work in the southeast Michigan area.
Russell Olwell taught one class that had as its general theme education
in the metro Detroit area, while another class looked at immigration
and migration issues. Ron Delph, in attempting to incorporate a
multicultural element into students' research, had one History 300
class identify topics deriving from the Europeans' encounter with
Muslims during the crusades and another to find topics relating
to the encounters of Europeans with Native Americans in the sixteenth
century. Providing a theme for the class to research gave students
an important shared interest and this common link allowed them to
encourage and help one another as they researched and wrote their
papers. This structure also helped weaker students find a theme.
In a fifteen week term, many students are better off working on
one topic from the beginning of the term, regardless of what it
is, rather than switching several times during the term. Several
of the class themes had the added benefit of producing interactions
between the students and the local community, because students interviewed
local government and educational leaders. Some sections of History
300 have no theme however, and many students enjoy the freedom of
this approach. Those who have special interests that do not match
a class theme are encouraged to take one of the non-themed classes
which are offered each term. This choice insures that students do
not feel "stuck" writing about something they dislike
or have no interest in.
|
19
|
| |
|
Some Key Components of a History
Research and Writing Class | |
|
The following is a list of assignments
and structures that worked well in many of our History 300 sections.
They are not presented as definitive, but are certainly ideas to
keep in mind as you develop a departmental program for teaching
historical research and writing. |
20 |
1) Make each assignment count.
Each assignment in the research and writing process should be
assigned points and graded to make sure that students recognize
the importance of each step. Use each assignment to give feedback
to the student at every step of the process. This is crucial in
helping students to learn as they go.
|
21 |
2) Hold office hours
in the library. Holding office hours in a highly visible spot
in the library during class time enables the instructor to solve
a variety of problems that students encounter when they first begin
research for their papers. Judicious on the spot intervention can
frequently save the student much time and frustration. It is also
possible for students to develop a paper topic from a single source
of historical evidence or information that they encountered with
the aid of the instructor during office hours in the library. |
22 |
3) Assign mandatory
meetings with students about paper topics early on in the term.
For example, during a twenty-minute office visit, Ron Delph requires
students to present two topics, each written up as a one half-page
paper with a initial bibliography attached. This enables him to
focus during the office visit on helping the student work out a
viable topic and to talk about sources. Requiring students to prepare
ahead of time for this office visitand requiring proof of this preparationavoids
the futile "I don't know what to write about" meeting.
|
23 |
4) Help students
locate local primary sources. For example, Daryl Hafter took
her students to the Bentley Historical Library at the University
of Michigan to help them learn archival methods and locate sources
for a paper. Pam Graves focused her History 300 class on local industry
and workers, increasing ties between university students and the
surrounding Ypsilanti community. |
24 |
5) Bring in outside
help for students. For example, Russell Olwell invited another
department member who works on Michigan history, JoEllen Vinyard,
to talk to his class about locating a variety of sources in southeastern
Michigan, and to describe the process that she uses as she writes
and thinks about history. |
25 |
6) Use oral history.
For example, Daryl Hafter developed an assignment in which students
interviewed someone about their topic and someone in the community
knowledgeable about the topic, to develop interview questions, and
then to analyze critically this information for use in the paper.
|
26 |
7) Offer peer editing.
For example, Russell Olwell offered students extra credit if they
would read and discuss a draft of their paper with another member
of the class. Students were enthusiastic about this part of the
process, and this step caught many problems before the draft was
handed in to the instructor. |
27 |
8) Bring the community
into the picture. Daryl Hafter's History 300 class not
only drew on local history, but presented information back to the
community in the form of a presentation at the end of the term.
Events such as these help the university and its students connect
to the community, which often feels slighted by the institution.
|
28 |
9) Use writing process
to prevent plagiarism. Papers done for classes that teach research
and writing methods seem especially prone to plagiarism and other
forms of academic dishonesty. By extending and monitoring the writing
process closely throughout the semester, as well as by using a class
theme, an instructor can help lower incidents of plagiarism. |
29 |
| |
|
Conclusions
| |
|
One of the frustrations of assessment
efforts is that they do not always yield clear outcomes. One of
the key findings of all our assessment activities was that despite
all our efforts, student papers could vary greatly from year to
year. Differences in student quality and effort from year to year
make attempts to "grade" our improvement almost impossible.
(See "Appendix 1: Table" for year by year results) Our
data also suggests that standards can "creep up" over
the yearsfaculty may expect more historiography in papers, or better
use of evidence. Paradoxically, by assessing papers more systematically,
a department can look worse than if those papers were handed back
or put in the trash. While we still have work to do in helping all
our students acquire satisfactory skills in research methods and
analytical writing, we have already made great strides in that direction.
|
30 |
|
On a more positive note, a survey
showed that one hundred percent of the students leaving our department
to enter secondary history teaching reported that our department's
efforts to teach research and writing served as a model for their
own future teaching. While the department continues to wrestle with
ways to further improve History 300 by incorporating more historiography,
stressing greater critical thinking, and using a wider range of
research materials, the course assessment experiment has brought
a rare degree of collaboration among our faculty in our efforts
to develop our history students' research, writing and critical
thinking skills.
|
31 |
|
Notes
1. In our large department
(over 800 majors, many transfers or night students) making the
class a gateway could easily delay majors taking other upper-level
classes. Likewise, it is not realistic right now for every senior
to be guaranteed the class at a time when they could take it.
2. For creation of
rubrics, see Barbara Walvoord, Barbara E. Fassler, and Virginia
Anderson, Effective grading: a tool for learning and
assessment. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998).
3. Patricia M. King
and Karen S. Kitchener, Developing reflective judgment: Understanding
and promoting intellectual self-growth and critical thinking in
adolescents and adults (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994).
4. For an excellent
overview of the Writing Across the Curriculum movement, see Charles
Bazerman and David Russell, eds., Landmark essays on writing
across the curriculum, (Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press, 1994.)
5. For an insightful
view of how students really write their papers, see Lee Ann Carroll,
Rehearsing new roles: How college students develop as writers.
(Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2002.) esp.
Chapter 4, "Supporting writing development."
6. For an overview
of Writing Across the Curriculum practices at several colleges,
see Barbara Walvoord, et. Al., In the long run: A study of
faculty in three writing across the curriculum programs. (Urbana,
Il: National Council of Teachers of English, 1997.)
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|