University of Idaho - Research Portal

Taking into account the ripple effects of exports from Magic Valley agribusinesses in 2010, agribusiness in the Magic Valley contributed close to 60% of the region's sales, 45% of its gross regional product and more than a third of its jobs. This publication provides additional detail on methodology and the contributions of individual sectors.

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7wp2j31t

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8nq5w3t0

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0tk2f4fw

This research focuses on ePortfolio assessment strategies that yield important accountability and reporting information. Under foundational categories of reliability, validity, and fairness, we present methods of gathering evidence from ePortfolio scores and their relationship to demographic information (gender, race/ethnicity, and socio-economic status) and criterion variables (admission tests and course grades) as a means for stakeholders to ensure that all students, especially traditionally underserved students, strengthen their connection to the academy. Data is drawn from two sources: University of Idaho first-year writing program's ePortfolio student certification assessment (n = 1,208) and its relationship to the State of Idaho's K-20 longitudinal data collection system; and New Jersey Institute of Technology's longitudinal ePortfolio-based first-year writing program assessment (n = 210). Following results and discussion of these two case studies, we conclude by offering guidelines for quantitative reporting based on fairness as a framework for integrative and principled action.

This policy review provides an overview of the creation, launch, assessment, and reception of the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) in the United States public school system. In terms of context, the review is situated within the broader background of school accountability and testing, with special attention to the connections and implications for postsecondary writing instruction. Put directly, the implementation of the CCSSI and associated assessments constitute a pivotal event in the history of US public education. Efforts culminating in 2009 mark the first time a majority of states adopted common standards for mathematics and English language arts across the entire elementary and secondary system.

Of particular interest to writing program administrators and writing studies scholars is the elevation of writing as its own content area in CCSSI English language arts (ELA). States that adopted the CCSSI for ELA have teachers teaching writing in all grade levels; students practice writing in all grade levels; and writing is emphasized in other content areas--history/social studies, science, and technical subjects--from grade six onward. The fact that the majority of American public school children across a significant number of states and US territories are now engaged in a system of public education that has elevated writing instruction to be one of the core areas is no small feat. Since the future of the CCSSI is unclear given the significant political fallout that has occurred over its brief existence, now is the time to take stock of the benefits and challenges of a national curriculum in a time of uncertainty.

In this review, I will provide context about the CCSSI for those working in the multiple array of writing program administration contexts so that we can continue to participate in these discussions that hold deep implications for those of us in postsecondary writing settings. I begin with the origin of the CCSSI and then describe the launch and assessment of the initiative. In concluding with the educational and political reaction to the initiative, I offer three opportunities for WPAs: professional networking with elementary and secondary colleagues; continued research and advocacy on career and college readiness; and assuming the role of public intellectual. As you read this review, keep these expansive opportunities in mind. The following policy review covers an area in which creative tension plays a role for all of us. If a policy review is to examine the origin and present state of a given policy, then the goals and frustrations involved in the CCSSI are best understood by WPAs who are, in turn, in excellent positions to meaningfully contribute to the ongoing discussions and decisions related to the costs and benefits associated with standardization and assessment of writing.

Connections between the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and writing are often framed through the lens of accountability. Recently, Paul Anderson et al. detailed a large-scale study examining the relationship between writing and engagement across multiple institutions, an important perspective in the current assessment and accountability climate. Their study provides a high-level view of what students report learning across multiple disciplines and institutions, and provides evidence for the value of writing and engagement practices in postsecondary settings. George Kuh, one of the creators of NSSE, states "student engagement ... has emerged during the past fifteen years to become one of the most important 'organizing constructs for institutional assessment, accountability, and improvement'" ("Conceptual and Empirical Foundations" 5). In "What is NSSE?," Charles Paine et al. explain NSSE's definition of engagement as "a construct that represents the degree to which (1) students devote time and effort to educationally purposeful activities, and (2) schools, programs, and teachers organize curricula to support and encourage students to devote time and effort to these activities (267). Additionally, Charles Paine details the work of the CWPA/NSSE Consortium, a collaboration which created twenty-seven additional writing-focused questions administered with the regular NSSE survey to establish writing-specific benchmarks comparable across institution types. Addison and McGee note that such data provide "more information on writing instruction in the United States [and] also an understanding of the extent to which engaging in certain types of writing instruction measures up to NSSE's benchmarks" (152). However, all of the NSSE survey questions (including the twenty-seven Consortium items) are self-reported student responses about their connection to and engagement with writing. NSSE results do not reflect actual writing performance. Paine et al. offer valuable suggestions for how WPAs might use NSSE data in their work, but the use only considers writing and engagement data parallel to each other, and never in direct relationship.