WAC Newsletter

Four Levels for Rating Students’ Overall Writing Competence

by Sarah Baker, WAC/OIA Liaison

In spring 2007, the State Council of Higher Education in Virginia (SCHEV) asked all Virginia state institutions to report on the value added by our academic programs to students’ performance in six competency areas, including writing. Because we were already assessing students’ writing competence in upperdivision writing-intensive courses through a workshop process, the WAC director, the composition director, the WAC/OIA liaison, and the director of the Office of Institutional Assessment designed a similar approach focused on researched essays from English 101: Introductory Composition. To distinguish the “emerging competence” of first-year writers from the competence expected of upper-division writers in the majors, the program directors formulated the four-level definition below.

Although departments will continue to generate their own assessment criteria, they will use these levels for the overall score. Only English 101 students, however, can be given an “emerging competence” score. (The “emerging competence” rating was further refined for English 101 scoring into two categories, “Emerging competence--consistent” and “Emerging competence—inconsistent,” for programmatic planning and faculty development purposes.) More information on the value-added plan and the rubric developed for scoring English 101 can be found at http://wac.gmu.edu/assessing/state_mandate.php.

Overall Rating	Definition
Highly Competent	The writer demonstrates a strong and clear understanding of audience, purpose, genre, discipline- or course-content, and the thinking processes appropriate to an intermediate or advanced college course, as evidenced by the use of appropriate format, tone, and vocabulary; clear organization and thorough development of argument/information; credible evidence integrated and documented accurately; and standard edited American English. The writing makes a substantive, original argument or other contribution to the field; it demonstrates strong sentence-level fluency and/or has a clear authorial voice.
Competent	The writer demonstrates a competent understanding of audience, purpose, genre, content, and the thinking processes appropriate to intermediate college-level coursework, as evidenced by the use of appropriate format, tone, and vocabulary; clear organization and development of argument/ information; and credible evidence integrated and documented accurately. While all of these rhetorical elements are present, some may be less developed or uneven. Though an argument may be clearly stated, it may lack originality and/or depth. The writing may contain some errors in standard edited American English but readability is not compromised.
Emerging Competence	The writer demonstrates an emerging understanding of audience, purpose, and content, and the thinking processes appropriate for an introductory level of college writing competence, as evidenced by the use of appropriate format, tone, and vocabulary; organization of argument/ information; and integration and documentation of supporting evidence. While these rhetorical elements have been attempted, some may be less-than-satisfactorily accomplished. The writing may contain some errors in standard edited American English that do not consistently compromise readability.
Not Competent	The writer demonstrates little understanding of audience, purpose, format, and/or the thinking processes appropriate to college-level writing. A majority of these rhetorical elements are weak or absent, as evidenced by an unclear sense of audience and/or purpose; confusing organization and/or format; weak, inappropriate, and/or undocumented evidence. Writing that displays frequent errors in standard edited American English that consistently compromise readability may be rated at this level particularly if other key rhetorical features are weak or absent.