ä¸‹è¼‰å ¨æ›¸ - The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Stephen J. Friedman, Outcomes, Learning, and Assessment in General Education 31WOI papers now solidly in the “adequate” range and 101 in the “limited”range. However, three new raters were added to the three original raters.Despite efforts to calibrate all of the raters before the papers were scored, thenew raters tended to score papers higher than the original raters. Still, whenlooking at the scores assigned by the original raters, the scores of students inboth 101 and WOI had improved.The culminating iteration relied on a single instructor who taught both101 and WOI and was interested in designing the curriculum in both classesso that students would be supported in developing their final papers on thesame theme: the person that the student most admired. The results were fairlyconsistent with those of the previous year. Moreover, due in part to furthercalibration of the raters, the scores between the new raters and the originalraters showed greater agreement. Below are descriptions of the two writingscenes that were developed:Scene 1: 101First-year students were provided with the following prompt with nopreparation on the first day of class:Write a developed, thoughtful, short response (200–300 words) to the following:Identify and discuss the public figure you most admire. You may select a livingperson or a historical one. For what reasons do you admire this person?Further, explain how this person’s private character and virtues are a finemodel for public values. Provide reasons/examples. Use the reverse side ofthe paper if needed.