English Department Assessment Report
Spring 2012
Grisel Acosta (gacosta@qcc.cuny.edu)
Kimberly Banks (kbanks@qcc.cuny.edu)
Kiki Byas (tbyas@qcc.cuny.edu)
George Fragopoulos (gfragopoulos@qcc.cuny.edu)
Laurel Harris (lharris@qcc.cuny.edu)
During the spring 2012 semester, the English Department Assessment Committee focused on
surveying faculty about how they teach EN 102 English Composition II. The participation rate was
phenomenal. Fifty six current and former 102 faculty completed the survey. The survey included
questions about texts, genres/modes of writing, relative emphasis on genre categories, rhetorical
strategies, and class activities. Open-ended questions asked faculty to connect their reading and
writing assignments, evaluate the relative value of 101 course objectives for 102, and describe the
unique challenges faced in 102. We collected an enormous amount of data from the survey and the
committee will have to digest this data over a period of several semesters.
Thus far, we have used this data to draft coherent and consistent course objectives for 102 aligned
with the objectives for 101. We have 101 and 102 objectives variously articulated in multiple
departmental and college documents. In order to measure our effectiveness, we need to have a
coherent and consistent set of course objectives corresponding to the general education objectives.
These objectives are also crucial in helping to orient and guide our part-time faculty. Having clear,
refined, measurable objectives for 101 and 102 will help us conduct more reliable departmental
assessment. For example, one of the questions from last year’s assessment was how effectively we
were meeting general education objective #6 in EN 101. The department cannot answer that question
if the course-level objectives are inconsistent or nonexistent.
We found that the most used texts in 102 were handouts (91%), film/video (80%), and anthologies
(66%). That handouts outranked all other texts was a surprising finding.
The most frequent genres/modes of writing were reflective writing (88%), research writing (80%),
timed in-class writing (73%), and free writing (71%). Reflective and research writing were the two
most assigned forms of writing for 102. However, what should be the relative weight of research and
reflective writing was a question that emerged from the open-ended responses and demands further
inquiry.
Faculty who placed equal emphasis on poetry, fiction, and drama were 48%. For those who placed
unequal emphasis on the three genres, fiction ranked #1 39% of the time; poetry ranked #1 9% of the
time; and, drama ranked #1 4% of the time. That the second and third place rankings for poetry (18%
and 25%) and drama (25% and 21%) are roughly equal is worth noting. This discussion is ongoing.
How we value the non-fiction creative essay was a question that emerged from the open-ended
questions.
The rhetorical strategies most stressed were argument/persuasion (91%), comparison/contrast (84%),
and division/analysis (54%). This ranking is not surprising.
In terms of class activities, ten activities ranked 50% or more. The top four activities were class
discussion (100%), group work (100%), writing time (86%), and peer review (84%). We are still
seeking to understand how such activities help the department accomplish learning outcomes.
1
The survey included an analysis of EN 101 English Composition I course objectives and how relevant
faculty thought such objectives were for assessing 102. Respondents rated the six 101 objectives as
equally important; however, the course objective consistent with the first general education objective
received the most support. Several documents provide different formulations for EN 101 and 102
course objectives. The committee is developing a consistent set of objectives to appear in all official
documents of the department and college. Of note is the fact that 101 and 102 only share two general
education objectives, #1 and #6. Otherwise, the other general education objectives relevant for 102
are #2 and #10. Objectives #4 and #7 are only relevant for 101. Examining more carefully how 101
and 102 meet common objectives as well as the challenges of their distinct objectives should give us
more insight into why the retention rate for 101 is much higher than for 102.
Comments about the unique challenges of teaching 102 have helped the committee develop a set of
preliminary course-specific objectives. The committee will finalize 101, 102 and 103 objectives in
the fall. They will be presented to the department and incorporated into Teaching First-Year Writing:
A QCC Handbook.
2
English 101 Assessment Project
Updated Final Report
January 22, 2008
Summary Discussion:
a. Findings of the EN-101 Assessment:
•
•
•
•
The EN-101 final examination is an effective measurement of the first general education
objective, “Students will write, read, listen, and speak clearly and effectively” (see “Faculty
Data Sheet Summary, question 1, attached).
The CPE rubric is an effective measure of student achievement of the General Education Objective
(see “Faculty Data Sheet Summary, question 2, attached).
The opportunity for departmental discussion and reform of the EN-101 curriculum is great (see
discussion below).
In the Fall, 2004 semester, 83% of LS1 students completed the course. 91.1% received a
grade of C or better.
b. Resulting Action Plan:
•
•
Faculty will continue experimenting with assigning various genres of academic writing, such
as ethnography and the literacy narrative.
The Department will hold an exploratory meeting on uses of the e-portfolio.
c. Post-Assessment Findings:
As a result of both the EN-101 and EN-102 Assessment Projects, the English Department has taken or will
take the following courses of action:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Meet with Anna May Jagoda (Director, Institutional Research) to determine the consistency of
the withdrawal rates for EN-101 and EN-102 courses
Administer a Pilot Withdrawal questionnaire to determine why students withdraw from EN-101
Consider a further step in redesigning the EN-101 research project to reflect students’ need to become
familiar with the various genres of academic writing across the curriculum
Develop writing assignments based on ethnographic approaches
Pilot reflexive writing genre for anticipated e-portfolio installation
Experiment with and participate in the e-portfolio pilot project
Continue with assigning various genres of academic writing including ethnography, literacy
narratives, and project based learning and with other samples of student writing that will be
incorporated into e-portfolio
d. Additional Post-Assessment Findings:
The English Department engaged in several discussions resulting from data generated by the
EN-101 and EN-102 course assessment projects. The disparity between the completion rates of these
3
courses has generated significant discussion about linkages between them, and these conversations
formed the basis of both department and composition committee meetings. Discussions focused upon
topics that concerned both course objectives (genre, first day writing assignments, “the essay”) and
pedagogy (e-portfolios, ethnography, literacy narratives, project-based learning). Of course, the
interrelationship of course objectives and pedagogy informed all discussions.
Fall 2006:
•
The pedagogy of an EN-101 class based upon ethnography was the basis for a departmental
conversation about the relationships among pedagogy, product, and instructor response. It
became evident that instructors need to be clear with students about what we value as
readers/writers/teachers/evaluators and that these values be reflected in our written course
objectives.
•
Examination of a student essay stimulated a discussion/debate about an instructor’s objectives
in assigning writing: the need for clear assignment instructions, the sometimes-fine line
between teaching students how to write the “college essay” genre and limiting creativity, and
the tension between deep revision and the loss of initial inspiration.
•
A discussion of the multiple types of genre assigned evolved into a conversation about how
the definition of a “paper” (a genre often only vaguely representing “real” genres in the “real”
world) is instructor-specific and is dependent upon individual pedagogy, academic discipline,
and education.
Spring 2007:
•
The pedagogical implications of a first-day writing assignment: how it immediately
establishes varied course objectives, including focus upon writing, active participation, and
the improvement of writing skills. Literacy narratives were presented as a model first-day
assignment and as a possible e-portfolio project.
•
Project-based learning: How assigning projects incorporate additional learning objectives and
learning skills, such as writing and technology.
•
The e-portfolio initiative. Susan Lambert spoke with the Department about the college’s
progress in instituting e-portfolios, her role in the project, and the possible role of English
department faculty in the future.
e. Attached Documents:
•
•
•
EN-101 Course Assessment Project Tables 1 - 5
Faculty Data Sheet Summary
CUNY Proficiency Examination Scoring Guide
4
QCC INDIVIDUAL COURSE ASSESSMENT PROJECT
FALL 2002
Department: English Course: 101 Curriculum: Liberal Arts
1. Educational Context
Course: English 101: Freshman Composition I
Curriculum: Associate in Arts (A.A.) Degree in Liberal Arts
English 101 is an entry-level course required by all curricula. Students work on
acquiring writing skills and on developing a critical sensibility that will enable them
to learn such essentials of writing as purpose, situation, audience, form, tone, and
style. The focus is on learning to write effective essays, both personal and
expository. In addition, students learn to see the connections between reading and
writing and the ways in which research extends both.
3. General Education Objectives
General educational objectives
addressed by this course
Briefly describe activities in the
course which help students meet
each of these general education
objectives
1. Students will write, read,
listen, and speak clearly and
effectively.
Students compose and revise
multiple drafts of essays.
Students summarize, analyze, and
synthesize texts.
Students demonstrate an ability
to find sources of information.
Students evaluate, cite, and
document sources.
Students analyze texts and ideas
from multiple points-of-view.
Students assert and support their
own texts and ideas and evaluate
the implications of those texts
and ideas.
2. Students will use information
management skills effectively for
academic research and lifelong
learning.
3. Students will differentiate and
make informed decisions about
issues based on value systems
(ethical, philosophical, religious,
cultural, and political).
4. Course Objectives: Desired Student Learning
What should students be able to do by the time they finish the course?
5
Write the major learning objectives for students in this course (no
more than 10).
Note that each objective should begin with an action verb, completing the
sentence, “Students will _________________. ” See excerpt from Lion Gardiner
workshop materials below.
1. Students will compose and revise multiple drafts of essays.
2. Students will summarize, analyze, and synthesize texts.
3. Students will demonstrate an ability to find sources of information.
4. Students will evaluate, cite, and document sources.
6
5. Student Learning Outcomes
Course objectives
(Note:
copy objectives from table above. )
Learning outcomes
(Note that each outcome should begin with an action verb,
completing the sentence, “Students will ____________. ”)
1. Students will compose and revise multiple
drafts of essays.
2. Students will read texts critically in order
to analyze ideas from multiple points of view.
3. Students will expand their thinking
through informal and formal research.
4. Students will evaluate, cite, and document
sources.
a. Students will write essays using various rhetorical strategies.
b. Students will revise essays based upon self-reflection and
feedback from instructors and/or peers.
a. Students will identify rhetorical elements and summarize key points
in texts.
b. Students will compare different readers’ understanding and
interpretation of texts.
a. Students will collect ideas and information through personal
interview, reading, library, and Internet research.
b. Students will evaluate and synthesize information with their
thinking on a subject and properly cite research with MLA and/or
APA documentation.
a. Students will judge the value and relevance of source materials and
avoid plagiarism by documenting them.
b. Students will use MLA and APA documentation to cite sources.
7
EN-101 Assessment Project
Faculty Data Sheet Summary
(1) How well does your final examination assignment measure the General Education learning objective
“Students will write, read, listen, and speak clearly and effectively.”
Write
Read
*25
25
Listen Speak
17
10
* Number of positive faculty responses
(2) How well does the CUNY Proficiency Examination Scoring Guide measure your students’ performance
on the final examination assignment?
Not At All
0
Somewhat
Well
4
12
Very Well
12
Number of participating faculty: 28
8
A
Develops an essay that
presents a focused
response to the writing
assignment, making
appropriate and
coherent connections
among all parts of the
assignment.
B
Demonstrates
understanding of the
readings through
summary and
explanation of
relevant material.
C
Incorporates, as
support for own
thoughts, references
to the readings,
identifying the
sources formally or
informally.
D
Communicates clearly
and effectively, using
appropriate
conventions of
language (e.g.,
grammar, spelling,
punctuation).
8
9
7
4
5
3
9
11
Question
(3) With regard to
the CUNY
Proficiency
Examination Scoring
Criteria, which area
did your students
perform best on?
(4) Which CPE area
was the weakest for
your students?
Number of participating faculty: 28
Number of participating students: 560
9
CUNY Proficiency Examination Scoring Guide
A. Develops an essay that presents a
focused response to the writing
assignment, making appropriate and
coherent connections among all parts of
the assignment.
B. Demonstrates understanding of the
readings through summary and
explanation of relevant material.
C. Incorporates, as support for own
thoughts, references to the readings,
identifying the sources formally or
informally.
D. Communicates clearly and effectively,
using appropriate conventions of
language (e.g., grammar, spelling,
punctuation).
6 Addresses the writing assignment fully,
analytically, and perhaps critically or
imaginatively, with superior focus and
coherence.
6 Demonstrates superior and perhaps
critical understanding of readings through
accurate summary, full explanation, and
insightful analysis of relevant sections.
6 Makes insightful connections and
distinctions between readings and own ideas;
integrates references smoothly into own
essay and identifies them consistently and
correctly.
6 Communicates with precision and enhanced
expression through highly effective use of
vocabulary and sentence variety; infrequent,
if any, lapses in use of conventions.
5 Addresses the writing assignment fully and
analytically, with strong focus and coherence.
5 Demonstrates strong understanding of
readings through accurate summary, with
appropriate explanation and analysis of
relevant sections.
5 Makes analytical connections and perhaps
distinctions between readings and own ideas;
integrates references into own essay and
identifies them consistently and correctly.
5 Communicates effectively throughout the
essay, with few lapses in use of conventions.
4 Addresses all parts of the writing
assignment with adequate focus and
coherence throughout.
4 Demonstrates overall understanding of
readings through appropriate summary and
explanation, with some analysis.
4 Makes and explains appropriate
connections between readings and own ideas;
identifies references consistently and
correctly.
4 Communicates clearly throughout the essay;
sentences may contain some lapses in use of
conventions, but these rarely impede
comprehension.
3 Addresses all or most parts of the writing
assignment adequately, but focus may lapse
briefly or connections may be missing.
3 Demonstrates generally accurate
understanding of readings although
summary or explanation may be
incomplete or not fully relevant.
3 Makes some connections between readings
and own ideas but they may not all be
appropriate or adequately explained;
identifies most references consistently and
correctly.
3 Generally communicates clearly throughout
the essay although lapses in use of
conventions may at times impede
comprehension or prove distracting.
2 Addresses some parts of the writing
assignment or addresses all parts
superficially; focus or coherence may break
down at several points.
2 Demonstrates partial understanding of
the readings through summary or
explanation, but understanding is flawed or
explanation is incomplete.
2 Makes few or unwarranted connections
between readings and own ideas; may
identify references inconsistently or
incorrectly.
2 Communicates clearly at times, showing
some ability to use conventions, but whole
sections are unclear or errors frequently
impede comprehension.
1 Shows little or no ability to address the
writing assignment; may not link thoughts
between paragraphs.
1 Demonstrates little or no understanding
of text.
1 Makes no reference to background reading
or makes no distinctions between
background reading and own ideas.
1 Communicates little because few sentences
demonstrate appropriate use of conventions.
Number of participating faculty: 28
Number of participating students: 560
10