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.
1
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.
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
Spring 2012 Departmental Assessment
Question #3
Yes
No
Usually
Sometimes
Not Sure
27
10
11
8
0
Question #4**
1
Poetry
5
2
10
3
14
Fiction
22
6
1
Drama
2
14
12
Blank
1
0
3
**4 responses did not rank the genres using the full range of numbers. One ranked
Poetry and Fiction as #1 with Drama as #2; another ranked Fiction and Drama as #1 with
Poetry as #2; another ranked Fiction as #1 with Poetry and Drama as #2; and, the final
one ranked Poetry as #2 with Fiction and Drama as #3.**
New Survey Response
1. Anthology, Film/video, Handouts
2. Reflective writing, Reviews, Timed In-class writing
5. All checked
Argument/persuasion, cause-and-effect, classification, comparison/contrast,
definition, description, division/analysis, example, narration, and process analysis
6. Class discussion, lecture, library research, library visits, tests, writing time
7. Students answer questions in their journals, after reading, and before class discussion
Students have five one-hour exams: (1) first day diagnostic, (2) poetry, (3) fiction, (4)
drama, (5) final exam
Students have five at-home papers: (1) student profile, (2) evaluations of themselves as
readers, (3) poetry, (4) fiction, and (5) drama
Students have six 15-minute quizzes: 2 on poetry, 2 on fiction, and 2 on drama
8. All of the above are important. Since students are graded on their journals (5,000
words minimum for the term), eleven in-class exams or quizzes, and five at-home
assignments, they are guided in improving. Three conferences for each student reinforce
these grades.
3
3/28/12 Assessment Committee
Meeting Results
EN 101 Course Objectives
1. Identify an intellectual question or problem worthy of further study through the process of reading,
research, and writing.
2. Differentiate relevant evidence throughout all writing tasks, including written texts, visual images,
electronic media and such primary sources as observations, interviews, and surveys.
3. Use a variety of writing and revision strategies for generating, revising, editing and proof reading
writing.
4. Determine logical arguments and stylistic approaches appropriate to form or genre of writing:
transitional language, progressive development of ideas, etc.
EN 102 Course Objectives
1. Identify literary terms, techniques, and concepts.
2. Evaluate literary texts and genres within their historical contexts.
3. Apply aesthetic criteria in the evaluation of literary works.
4. Identify an intellectual question or problem worthy of further study through the process of reading,
research, and writing.
5. Differentiate relevant evidence throughout all writing tasks, including written texts, visual images,
electronic media and such primary sources as observations, interviews, and surveys.
6. Use a variety of writing and revision strategies for generating, revising, editing and proof reading
writing.
7. Determine logical arguments and stylistic approaches appropriate to form or genre of writing:
transitional language, progressive development of ideas, etc.
4
English 102 Assessment Project
Updated Final Report
January 22, 2008
Summary Discussion:
a. Findings of the EN-102 Assessment:
•
General Education Objective 13 (“Students will make informed judgments of the
humanities and the arts as aesthetic and intellectual experiences”) is being
achieved.
o Students 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. (See “Data Recording Sheet, Compiled.”
o Students more effectively incorporate multiple interpretations in the
presentation of their own analyses. (See “Data Recording Sheet,
Compiled.”
•
The assessment assignment effectively addresses the Gen Ed objective. (See: EN102 Assessment Project Questionnaire: Summary of Faculty Responses, question
1.”)
•
The rubric designed for the assessment assignment is an effective measure of the
learning outcome. (See: EN-102 Assessment Project Questionnaire: Summary of
Faculty Responses, question 2.)
•
In the course of faculty discussion of assessment project results, it was noted that
there is a student learning “disconnect” between EN-101 and EN-102.
A report prepared by Institutional Research presented a clear difference in retention rates for
students enrolled in EN-101 and EN-102, with more students leaving the latter course. This data
seemed counter-intuitive, since it was reasoned that those students who had passed EN-101 were likely
to be successful in EN-102. (Attrition from EN-101 was expected, given first-semester freshmen
retention trends.)
When findings of the EN-102 assessment were presented to the Department (in one of several
meetings that were held expressly for this purpose), the retention data were offered as a “talking point.”
In an expansive discussion, faculty probed possible reasons for the drop-off in retention, and, in this
context, mention was made of a “disconnect” between EN-101 and EN-102. Explanations for the
difference in retention rates included: the difference in skill sets utilized by the two courses; differences
in maturity between first and second semester students; differences in the cognitive approaches applied
in the courses; and differences in course content.
Given these possibilities, a suggestion was made to make those differences between EN-101
and EN-102 more manageable by capitalizing on what has been learned in the college-wide learning
communities and writing intensive course initiatives.
b. Resulting Action Plan:
5
•
•
•
•
•
In the context of EN-101 and EN-102 being declared “Gateway” courses, we will review EN101 and EN-102 syllabi toward revision in the context of the EN-102 Course Assessment
finding that a “disconnect” occurs between the two courses. Department committees will meet
and revise syllabi toward reducing this disconnect.
On the basis of data supplied by Institutional Research, the English Department will increase
the number of theme-based EN-102 classes. Eight to ten (8 - 10) pilot sections of EN-102 will
be offered in the Fall, 2006 semester.
Faculty have revised course outlines aimed at reducing the disconnect between EN-101 and EN102 through theme based courses.
In view of the “disconnect” in retention rates for EN-101 and EN-102, a pilot of a Withdrawal
Questionnaire study will be conducted to determine what motivated students to drop English
classes.
The department will continue to assess theme based EN-102’s and add sections as indicated.
c. 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
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:
•
•
February 14th: 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.
March 14th: Project-based learning: How assigning projects incorporate additional learning
objectives and learning skills, such as writing and technology.
6
•
March 7th: 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.
Attached Documents:
• EN-102 Assessment Project Summary
• Data Recording Sheet, Compiled
• EN-102 Assessment Project Questionnaire: Summary of Faculty Responses
7
END-102 Assessment Project
February 15, 2006
Data Recording Sheet, Compiled
EN-102 Assignment Assessment Rubric Instructions: Please indicate each student’s response to your assignment in the table below.
22 instructor participants
387 student participants (average per criterion)
EN-102 Assignment Assessment Rubric
Criterion
Not
Effectively
The student…
1) responds to all parts of the assignment.
2) uses critical vocabulary/terminology.
3) identifies structural and stylistic elements in the work.
Somewhat
Effectively
Very
Effectively
N/A
92
150
156
23%
38%
39%
0
(classes)
2
93
147
124
26%
40%
34%
79
150
156
21%
39%
41%
4) demonstrates an understanding of the effects (impact/meaning) of
the work.
70
161
170
17%
40%
42%
5) draws thoughtful and accurate connections between identified
structural/ stylistic elements and how they contribute to the overall
(aesthetic/intellectual/ emotional) effect of the work.
91
149
144
24%
39%
38%
6) supports contentions about the work by incorporating and analyzing
quotes from or references to the work.
94
146
151
24%
37%
39%
Top number = total number of students
Bottom number = percentage within row
8
1
0
1
0
EN-102 Assessment Project Summary
October 25, 2005
A) General Education Objective 13:
“Students will make informed judgments of the humanities and the arts as aesthetic and intellectual experiences.”
B) Learning outcome:
“Students will identify and analyze technical, rhetorical, and aesthetic aspects of texts in class discussions and in formal and informal writing
assignments.”
C) Assessment assignment:
In an informal or formal writing assignment, ask students to identify structural and stylistic elements in one or more literary works and analyze how
they contribute to the overall effect of the work(s).
D) Assessment rubric: to measure student learning of the outcome
Criterion
The student…
1
Not
Effectively
2
Somewhat
effectively
1) responds to all parts of the assignment.
2) uses critical vocabulary/terminology.
3) identifies structural and stylistic elements in
the work.
4) demonstrates an understanding of the effects
(impact/meaning) of the work.
5) draws thoughtful and accurate connections
between identified structural/stylistic elements and
how they contribute to the overall (aesthetic/
intellectual/emotional) effect of the work.
6) supports contentions about the work by
incorporating and analyzing quotes from or
references to the work.
9
3
Very
Effectively
N/A