Matthew Lau, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of English
Queensborough Community College
Assessment Institute 2015
22 December 2015
English Course Assessment Report – English 203, Readings in Drama, Fall 2015
Introduction
As facilitated by its departmental curriculum committee, the English department at
Queensborough Community College regular performs assessment of student writing in its core
courses, English 101 and 102. The department’s current focus on writing in the two courses that
virtually every student at the college takes is understandably justified. In light of this regular
assessment of writing, my assessment plan and report focuses on other aspects of
communication, specifically speaking and reading, in a section of an elective course, English
203, Readings in Drama. This report summarizes and analyzes two assessments of a class of
students who have completed English 101 and 102 or the equivalent and are now enrolled in an
English elective course.
Student Learning Outcomes and General Education Objectives
This assessment focused on the following Student Learning Outcomes:



Engage in class discussion to share and support their thoughts and opinions;
Read texts critically by identifying rhetorical elements, summarizing key points in texts,
analyzing ideas found in texts, comparing different interpretations of texts, and
evaluating the implications of texts and ideas;
Articulate, orally and in writing, what effects a text has on them as readers, and how they
believe the writer achieved these effects. They should be able to discuss literary strategies
such as tone, diction, allusion, and figurative language.
Within in these learning outcomes, the focus of this assessment plan will be upon “discussion,”
reading texts “critically,” and articulating “orally” their analysis of literature, specifically poetry.
This assessment focused on the following General Education Objectives:




Communicate effectively through reading, writing, listening and speaking;
Use analytical reasoning to identify issues or problems and evaluate evidence in order to
make informed decisions;
Differentiate and make informed decisions about issues based on multiple value systems;
Apply aesthetic and intellectual criteria in the evaluation or creation of works in the
humanities or the arts.
Within these objectives, the focus of this assessment was primarily upon communicating
effectively through speaking and reading.
Description of the Assignment
Students recited poems and/or song lyrics from memory that correspond to dramatic
works of literature studied in the course. For example, while reading Bertolt Brecht’s Life of
Galileo, students recited a poem or song by Brecht; while reading Luis Valdez’s Zoot Suit,
students recited a poem by Juan Felipe Herrera, Corky Gonzalez, or Alurista. In addition to
memorizing and reciting the poem, students presented a commentary about the meaning of the
poem either before or after their recitation. Their commentaries identifed what they believe are
the main themes of the poem and any particularly interesting tropes, figures of speech, or phrases
for establishing the themes and the tone of the poem. They were given an opportunity to
rehearse their poem and their commentary in the class meeting prior to the recital. Two
recitations took place: near the beginning and end of the term, respectively. The recitals counted
as the completion of the assignment.
List of Tools
 The primary tool for this assessment is an analytic poetry recitation rubric with the
following criteria for both the recitation and commentary:
o Physical Presence
o Voice and Articulation
o Dramatic Appropriateness (specific to the recitation)
o Level of Difficulty
o Evidence of Understanding
o Overall Performance
The possible range for each criteria is: very weak, weak, average, good, excellent, and
outstanding. Detailed descriptions correspond to each measurement.
Evidence
The scored analytic rubrics for each student’s performance of their poem are the evidence
gathered and evaluated (see appendix A). An analysis of their performances on each aspect of
the rubric is attached in Appendix B. Samples of the individual rubrics are in Appendix C.
Analysis and Summary
Appendix B summarizes the scoring of each of the recitals (see below).
Appendix B:
Summary of Results 1st Recital
Very
Weak
Physical
Presence
Voice and
Articulation
Dramatic
Appropriateness
Level of
1
Difficulty
Evidence of
Understanding
Overall
Performance
Weak
Average
Good
Excellent Outstanding
7
7
7
7
9
5
10
7
4
4
5
6
4
1
6
8
6
7
9
4
Weak
Average
Good
Excellent Outstanding
2
7
4
6
2
4
10
4
1
8
3
6
1
5
11
3
1
Total Participants: 21
Summary of Results 2nd Recital
Very
Weak
Physical
Presence
Voice and
Articulation
Dramatic
Appropriateness
Level of
Difficulty
Evidence of
Understanding
Overall
Performance
Total Participants: 19
2
5
6
5
1
2
6
7
3
1
Discussion
These recitals primarily addressed aspects of “learning outcomes” regarding discussion,
critical reading skills, and articulating orally students’ analysis of literature. The rubric
categories of “dramatic appropriateness,” “evidence of understanding,” and “overall
performance” were meant as measures of these aspects of the “learning outcomes.” “Dramatic
appropriateness” is specifically a way of qualitatively measuring students understanding of the
literary concept of “tone.” Could they affectively represent what they perceive the tone of the
poem to be? “Evidence of understanding” was an aggregate measure of both their performance
of the poem and their spoken commentary upon the poem prior to the recital in which they were
asked to identify themes, figures of thought/speech, and say more generally why they selected
the poem. Both “dramatic appropriateness” and “evidence of understanding” were factors in
measuring “overall performance.” In the first recital, a super majority of students (17) scored
“average” or “good” on “dramatic appropriateness,” with four scoring “excellent” and none
scoring in the more extreme categories. Approximately the same pattern holds for “evidence of
understanding” and “overall performance,” with the caveat that a few more students scored
“excellent” in the former category and there was one “outstanding” in “overall performance.”
By comparison, in the second recital there was a wider range of scores for these key
measures. In particular there were more scores of “weak.” This result may seem
counterintuitive. With the benefit of experience, would not students be less likely to score
“weak” the second time around? In my estimation, the key factor in this change from the first to
the second recital is that the poems to choose from for the second performance we more difficult.
Many were in both English and Spanish. They had more obscure words. They were on average
longer, and they did not rhyme or contain more conventional/familiar poetic devices that
facilitate memorization. Nonetheless, almost all students were average or above in their overall
performance in the second recital despite the increased difficulty of the material performed.
With this in mind, paradoxically, it could be argued that the increased number of “weak” scores
relative to the high number of high difficulty poems actually measures overall improvement in
student performance.
Assessment Results:
In regard to student performance in the selected subcategories and the overall
improvement (or lack thereof) in students’ ability to communicate the meaning of a poem, a key
factor that emerged from my study is the importance of the difficulty of the poem chosen by the
student. Students picked difficult poems for a variety of reasons. Some liked them more; some
were ambitious and I encouraged that. Others chose them simply because I told them they could
not choose a poem only, or primarily, on account of its short length and other qualities perceived
intuitively as “easy.” I also tried to stress to them in our preparations that a shorter poem is not
necessarily an easier poem to recite in terms of tone and demonstrating understanding. Those
who picked difficult poems and performed weakly learned a valuable lesson in setting more
realistic expectations for themselves when they are given freedom of choice in their college
studies. At the same time, it was good to see them challenge themselves when they did not
necessarily have to. Picking the “right” poem turns out to be highly determinate of the overall
project performance.
I will be sharing the results of this assessment report with my department’s assessment
committee. Currently the committee is justifiably more focused on assessing student writing in
our general education courses. But I think my report will be both suggestive and useful as the
committee expands its work in coming years. Similarly, as the college moves to revise and
streamline the learning outcomes and education objectives, oral communication is likely to take
on even great significance across multiple disciplines. In light of this likely future circumstance,
my report will be potentially useful to stakeholders at QCC beyond the English department as
well.
Respectively submitted,
Matthew Lau, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of English
Queensborough Community College – CUNY