The California State University (CSU) approved a system-wide Graduation Writing Assessment Requirement (GWAR) in 1976. Two years later California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) created the University Committee on Writing Proficiency to implement the policy at CSULB. Initially, this committee adopted a two-part Writing Proficiency Examination (WPE) that included two essays and an objective portion comprised of items assessing grammar and usage. In 1999, the objective portion of the test was eliminated and the essay portion was expanded to a single 75-minute essay. Since then, the WPE has remained essentially unchanged.
The current GWAR policy was adopted in June 2004. While the WPE remains the most accessible and widely used form of assessment, assessments connected to upper-division, writing-intensive courses that have been approved in accordance with the policy may also be used to satisfy the GWAR. The policy requires that all students attempt to satisfy the GWAR by first taking the WPE.
The 2004 revisions to the CSULB GWAR policy were prompted primarily by a growing emphasis on student learning outcomes and dramatic changes in the student body. The second factor, in particular, has relevance to the GWAR. For example, the 1999 Student Needs and Priorities Survey (SNAPS), administered every five years on all CSU campuses, indicated that more than 40 percent of students reported that they usually spoke a language other than English at home when they were growing up. This flood of non-native speakers and writers of English into CSU classrooms has added to the challenge of ensuring that all students write competently in English before they graduate. This factor, reflected in disproportionately higher WPE failure rates for English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) writers, prompted the CSULB Academic Senate to expand GWAR policy to include a new option for demonstrating upper-division writing proficiency.
Specifically, the decision to examine writing proficiency was prompted by the following concerns:
Annual surveys of CSULB students confirm the diversity of the campus’ student body. According to results of CSULB’s Annual Language Survey of 2005, new freshmen and transfer students in fall of that year reported speaking nearly 50 varied primary languages, 47 different second languages, and 35 different third languages. The CSULB student population is not only linguistically diverse but also ethnically diverse. CSULB’s Annual Freshman and Transfer Student Survey revealed that incoming freshmen for fall 2006 included the following ethnic representations: 39.8% Caucasian, 5.8% African-American, 2.3% American Indian, 29.2% Asian-American, 33% Latino, and 7.5% other. Transfer student ethnic representation included 45.6% Caucasian, 4.8% African-American, 2.2% American Indian, 27.4 Asian-American, 28.9% Latino, and 7.7% other. The same survey indicated that 25% of freshmen and 28% of transfer students were non-native English speakers.
Moreover, of the students entering CSULB in fall of 2006, 26% of freshmen and 27.3% of transfer students were first generation college students whose parents had never taken a class beyond the high school level. Thus, aside from its linguistic and ethnic diversity, CSULB serves one of the largest first generation college student populations in the nation.
While the WPE was probably a cost-effective and appropriate tool for assessing upper-division student writing in the early decades of its history, it represents a less appropriate assessment tool today, especially for CSULB’s many ESOL writers who face special challenges demonstrating proficiency in a high-stakes, timed-writing assessment. Pass rates on the WPE over the past two years reveal a pattern of above average CSU pass rates for native speakers of English (i.e., 93%), but more limited success for non-native speakers of English (i.e., 51%). Pass rates by college reflect a similar trend. The WPE pass rates in colleges with large numbers of non-native English speakers reflect this pattern, as indicated in the lower pass rates for students in the Colleges of Engineering and Business Administration. Each of these two colleges has a large proportion of non-native speakers of English in its population.
WPE pass rates for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 academic years are summarized in the following tables. Results are cross-tabulated by native English speaking status and by colleges in which student majors reside.
| *Cohort | # Test Takers | # Pass | % Pass |
|---|---|---|---|
Native English Speakers |
6742 |
6342 |
94.1 |
Non-native English Speakers |
3667 |
2223 |
60.0 |
*By College: |
|||
The Arts |
1195 |
950 |
79.5 |
Business Administration |
1685 |
1276 |
75.2 |
Education |
526 |
463 |
88.0 |
Engineering |
868 |
575 |
66.2 |
Heath & Human Services |
1924 |
1667 |
86.6 |
Liberal Arts |
2371 |
2111 |
89.0 |
Natural Sciences & Math |
752 |
627 |
83.4 |
*Self reported membership in cohort and college; cases may be missing. Total N =10,725 with 82.2% pass rate.
| *Cohort | # Test Takers | # Pass | % Pass |
|---|---|---|---|
Native English Speakers |
6582 |
6188 |
94.0 |
Non-native English Speakers |
3509 |
2110 |
60.1 |
*By College: |
|||
The Arts |
1114 |
902 |
80.1 |
Business Administration |
1667 |
1268 |
76.1 |
Education |
514 |
464 |
90.3 |
Engineering |
969 |
634 |
65.4 |
Heath & Human Services |
2021 |
1721 |
85.2 |
Liberal Arts |
2345 |
2099 |
89.5 |
Natural Sciences & Math |
752 |
592 |
78.7 |
*Self reported membership in cohort and college; cases may be missing. Total N =10,544 with 81.8% pass rate.
The external review of the CSULB GWAR Program completed in October 2006 pointed out that passing the WPE has, to some extent, replaced the larger goal of improving student writing at CSULB. This nearly exclusive focus on writing assessment rather than writing instruction is, perhaps, inevitable given the relative cost-effectiveness of the WPE compared to the resources needed to fund writing-intensive courses across the disciplines. However, this narrow focus on a single form of assessment has undoubtedly diminished essential faculty and student discourse about writing and its function as a learning tool.
The long-term effects of a narrow focus on one assessment have been two fold. First, the test has come to represent an attempt to meet an instructional need by assessment rather than instruction. While the WPE has consistently identified ESOL writers, it has not contributed to development of their English writing proficiency. This barrier is, perhaps, most poignantly expressed in connection with International students, some of whom complete all degree requirements except the GWAR and must return to their countries of origin without degrees. Second, the focus on testing has also diminished campus-wide commitment to incorporating writing instruction across the disciplines and has diverted attention from the need to expand opportunities for students to develop their writing proficiency.
In part in response to the special challenges faced by ESOL writers, the campus has become increasingly aware of several limitations inherent in the WPE itself. First, current research on writing assessment suggests that no single essay score, no matter how reliably it is graded, is reliable enough to serve as the exclusive basis for decisions about students’ writing ability. Second, while considerable time and effort are invested in generating and pilot testing WPE writing prompts, a review of these prompts suggests that they may not be commensurate and that some may be biased from both gender and cultural perspectives. Finally, the nature of the assessment (i.e., high-stakes, timed, on-demand writing) presents extra challenges for ESOL writers that likely interfere with test performance. Thus, in the absence of other accessible means of satisfying the GWAR, the assessment’s limitations may constitute a barrier to successful demonstration of writing competence.
Paradoxically, while the WPE appears too difficult (i.e., a timed, impromptu, high-stakes test) for ESOL writers, it also appears to be a too-easy minimum-proficiency test for native English speakers, 93% of whom pass on the first attempt. The consequence of this limitation is that the assessment does nothing to help weaker writers improve their competence before graduating.
The focus on assessment and reliance on the WPE, have tended to direct writing instruction and resources to preparing students to pass the WPE. Because these courses are remedial and test-centered, they may not provide students with authentic upper-division writing experience. Historically, these instructional resources have consisted of the following:
Implementation of the 2004 revisions in the GWAR policy has progressed slowly. By spring 2007, only two courses had been approved for fulfilling the GWAR. While funding issues may partially account for the slow implementation of GWAR courses, a lack of confidence in the effectiveness of WPE alternatives is also a likely factor. Thus, to fully implement the 2004 GWAR policy revisions, which were intended to increase the availability of writing instruction and to provide alternative forms of assessments more appropriate for CSULB’s linguistically diverse student body, the campus must develop confidence in the soundness of the policy.
Information regarding the capacity of the CSULB GWAR program was collected from the following sources:
The CSULB GWAR policy is the primary means of ensuring writing proficiency. The policy mandates that all students must demonstrate upper-division competence in academic writing in English to obtain a degree or certificate from CSULB. To ensure that students have sufficient opportunity to develop the necessary skills to demonstrate proficiency, the policy specifies that continuing students attempt to satisfy the GWAR no later than the semester in which they complete 65 units and that transfer and graduate students attempt the assessment during their first semester of enrollment.
Under the current policy, assessments connected to upper-division, writing-intensive courses that have been approved in accordance with the policy may also be used to satisfy the GWAR. The policy requires that all students attempt to satisfy the GWAR by first taking the WPE. After taking the WPE, students who do not receive a “Pass” may attempt to satisfy the GWAR by means of any the following forms of assessment:
Current GWAR policy also requires students who fail any approved GWAR assessment two times to obtain a diagnostic assessment of their writing skills from a designated faculty or staff advisor in the Learning Assistance Center (LAC) and to pursue the prescribed corrective measures before attempting GWAR assessment a third time.
The GWAR policy created the GWAR Committee to carry out implementation of the policy. The GWAR Committee is comprised of faculty members representing each CSULB college and the University Library and ex officio members representing the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, Testing and Evaluation Services, the Assistant Vice President for Enrollment Services, the Academic Advising Council, the Composition Program or Writers Resource Lab, and the Associated Students, Inc. Faculty members, who are nominated by the Nominating Committee of the Academic Senate and approved by the Academic Senate, serve staggered three-year terms. The committee elects a chair, vice chair, and secretary each year. The GWAR Committee reports to the Curriculum and Educational Policy Council of the CSULB Academic Senate.
The GWAR policy also provides for a WPE Development Committee. This committee is charged with duties associated with developing WPE test items; recommending changes in content, form, and administration of the WPE; studying the reliability and validity of the WPE; training, certifying, and monitoring the scoring consistency of WPE readers; and consulting with relevant campus entities regarding issues of access and equity in WPE test items and administration. The committee is comprised of faculty members representing a variety of disciplines who satisfy specified criteria for knowledge of test development, knowledge of testing statistics, and ESL teaching expertise and experience. The Director of Testing and Evaluation Services serves in an ex officio capacity. Members, who are nominated by the Nominating Committee of the Academic Senate and approved by the Academic Senate, serve staggered three-year terms. The committee elects a chair and secretary each year. The WPE Development Committee reports to the GWAR Committee.
Finally, the GWAR policy created the position of GWAR Coordinator to oversee the implementation of the policy. The GWAR Coordinator is a faculty member with appropriate experience and qualifications who is appointed by the Provost and Senior President for Academic Affairs in consultation with the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate. The GWAR Coordinator is an ex officio member of the GWAR Committee and reports to the Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies.
From its adoption in 1978 until its revision in 2004, CSULB’s GWAR policy relied exclusively on one form of assessment─the WPE. This assessment is typically administered to about 10,000 students each year. Over the past 28 years, the CSULB faculty and administration have invested substantial time, energy, and resources in evolving a process for training WPE readers, developing essay prompts, administering exams, and scoring essays. Those practices are well established and codified in WPE training and operational manuals. The practices associated with the development, certification, implementation, and monitoring of assessments associated with upper-division, writing-intensive courses are still evolving. Aside from practices directly connected to administration of the WPE and implementation of GWAR courses, other important practices have been established to carry out the intent of the GWAR policy.
CSULB GWAR policy requires that continuing students attempt to satisfy the GWAR by their junior year (i.e., at the completion of 65 units) and that upper-division transfer and graduate students must attempt the assessment early in their first semester in residence. Enrollment Services automatically places course registration holds on the records of undergraduate students who have not complied with these requirements by the deadline. The Office of Testing & Evaluation monitors GWAR compliance allows each student one appeal to comply with the policy. The appeal process allows students to have a course registration hold lifted and contracts them to attempt the WPE, the GRE, or the GMAT within a certain time frame. The Testing Office works with students on a case-by-case basis and collaborates with academic advisors to assist students with GWAR compliance. This practice has produced extremely high compliance rates.
In the late 1990s, the University Committee on Writing Proficiency reinstated WPE advising and tutoring at the Learning Assistance Center (LAC) and initiated other practices to improve writing proficiency. To better respond to repeated failures, the WPE Development Committee instituted a two-time fail rule that requires students who had failed the WPE twice to confer with a WPE advisor at the LAC before attempting the assessment again. Students are advised to bring their most recent failing WPE essay to help advisors identify skills that needed improvement. During the past few years, mandatory conferences with WPE Advisors and consequent referrals for tutoring at the LAC have necessitated rapid expansion of LAC resources.
The GWAR reviewers highlighted several challenges associated with the current GWAR program. These challenges can be summarized as follows:
The CSU GWAR was originally intended to measure upper-division writing competence, but the CSULB assessment has evolved to a minimum proficiency assessment focused largely on surface errors rather than on the higher level critical-thinking, problem-solving, and research skills characteristic of upper division writing. (This conclusion is supported by the disparate pass rates for native and non-native English writers.) That is, the single impromptu essay that comprises the WPE can not reflect the type or quality of writing that should be required in upper-division courses. As long as the WPE remains the primary means of satisfying the GWAR, genuine improvement in writing proficiency will be difficult to promote and achieve.
While substantial resources and effort have been directed toward passing the WPE, this focus on the test has diverted attention from the larger, more fundamental goal of improving student writing. These two goals are not the same. Inevitably, the narrow focus on the WPE has diminished necessary faculty and student discourse about writing itself and its function a tool for learning.
Current writing assessment research has demonstrated that no single essay score, no matter how reliably graded, is reliable enough to serve as the sole basis for important decisions about a student’s academic success. Too often, bright, talented, and otherwise academically successful undergraduates and graduate students are forced to leave CSULB having satisfied all requirements for their degrees except the GWAR. These cases illustrate the disparity between a single essay impromptu essay and authentic academic writing. The current use of the WPE as the primary measure of students’ academic writing competence is neither justified nor responsible. Rather, writing assessment research recommends providing multiple forms of assessment, particularly for non-native speakers of English.
The structure and funding of support centers for student writing may be problematic. The LAC, which is funded by the Division of Academic Affairs, is the primary provider of tutoring services for all disciplines. The Writers Resource Lab, which is operated by the Department of English and funded by the College of Liberal Arts, provides writing tutoring services. Current GWAR policy requires students who have failed the WPE twice to obtain advisement from WPE Advisors located in the LAC. WPE Advisors typically recommend language tutoring at the LAC or writing tutoring at the Writers Resource Lab, depending on their analysis of the students’ needs. The LAC is theoretically and practically committed to oral language skills development, and the Writers Resource Lab is committed to written language skills development. There is no mechanism for engaging these competing centers in collaborative planning or needs assessment, and students frequently encounter waiting lists for appointments at both centers.
The 2004 revision to the GWAR policy introduced the possibility of alternative GWAR assessments connected with upper-division, intensive-writing courses. Unfortunately, few of these courses have been proposed and approved, and demand always exceeds enrollment capacity. During Fall 2007, four GWAR certified courses were offered, and two more may be added in Spring 2008. The reluctance to propose GWAR courses is probably a consequence of two factors. First, the requirement for students to attempt and fail the WPE before enrolling in a GWAR course is a disincentive. This requirement defines these courses as remedial, and few instructors are willing to take on this burden in the absence of instructional support or other incentives. Secondly, although there is widespread support for and participation in WPE assessment, there is relatively little for writing instruction. Writing instruction is generally perceived to be the responsibility of the English writing faculty rather than a university-wide responsibility.
Most major universities in the United States have instituted writing across the curriculum (WAC) programs to promote opportunities for writing, both in general education courses and in the disciplines. These university-wide programs are typically staffed by full-time professional writing specialists. In Fall 2007, CSULB took its first step toward developing a WAC program by expanding the duties of the GWAR Coordinator to include promoting and advocating writing instruction across the university curriculum. Shifting the university’s focus from high-stakes testing to writing across the curriculum will involve changes in attitudes as well as instructional practices and will likely take time.
