Writing plays a vital role at Moody: both in student formation and in students’ demonstration of truth to the larger world. To help students grow as effective communicators, we commit as an institution to supporting students’ growth in five areas, identified as Student Writing Outcomes (SWI). Together, they form the acronym POINT (Purpose, Organization, Information, Necessary Steps, and Technical Details).

Purpose:                     

Articulate a clear purpose and follow it throughout the paper                           

(e.g., articulate a question/respond with a thesis and support)

Organization:             

Logically arrange ideas in ways appropriate for the genre and that flow from the purpose                                              

Information:              

Locate, evaluate, and critically engage others’ ideas

Necessary Steps:        

Manage students’ own thinking and writing process, respond effectively to feedback, and proactively use school resources

Technical Details:     

Apply standard citation styles throughout the paper

Write clear, precise sentences that demonstrate reasonable proofreading

 

Each outcome represents a research-identified type of writing expertise necessary for success in college. As a result, this framework can apply to the whole of undergraduate education.[1]

Since these are undergraduate school-wide educational goals, they are similar to the goals of the core curriculum. They are shared commitments to ensure that students continuously grow toward excellence in these areas and that supports are put in place to aid that ongoing growth.

To assess student performance in these outcomes, the Writing Across the Curriculum task force will develop measurable benchmarks for each, describing basic to advanced mastery.

 

[1]  These five types of writing expertise are adapted from Anne Beaufort’s influential College Writing and Beyond, which is based on a 6-year developmental study that followed student writers from their first year of college writing through their first few years of post-graduation workplace writing. Her study confirms and extends an earlier body of research on long-term student writing growth in Composition and Rhetoric (see, for example, Carroll’s Rehearsing New Roles and Herrington and Curtis’s Persons in Process). Her framework also largely aligns with the Writing Program Administrators’ Outcomes for First-Year Writing and the AACL&U’s VALUE rubric for written communication.