Queensborough Community College
DEPARTMENT:
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Academic Literacy
A. DEPARTMENT SERVICES/ACTIVITIES REPORT IN 2014-15
1.
Department-sponsored services (fall and spring semesters combined)
Area of Service
NEH Challege Grant
Cary Lane received the 2014-2015 NEH Challenge Grant and executed a large-scale interdisciplinary grant entitled,
“Testimony across the Disciplines: Cultural and Artistic Responses to Genocide.” This year’s NEH KHRCA
Colloquia Series involved seven academic disciplines, with eight colloquia, five visiting scholars, a cohort of 20
QCC faculty and 300 participating QCC students. The capstone student project was presented on April 16th, 2015 at
QPAC and at the KHRCA.
Adjunct Faculty
Adjunct faculty taught approximately 60% of the courses in the department during the 2014-2015 academic year,
with outstanding pass rates for upper-level courses, as well as in several ALP courses. Adjunct faculty continue to
teach 100% of their courses with high-impact teaching practices aimed at accelerating exit-from-remediation, with
primary mentorship coming from Cary Lane, the adjunct faculty supervisor. Faculty development this year has
included the effective use of collaborative teaching strategies, service-learning projects, undergraduate research in
developmental instruction, thematic approaches to teaching, diversity and global learning, writing-intensive
approaches, and the use of capstone projects with the goal of improved learning outcomes and accelerated exit-fromremediation.
BE17 July 2014 Writing Multiple Repeaters Workshops1
BE18 July 2014Reading Multiple Repeaters Workshops 1
July 2014 USIP BE20 2
July 2014 USIP BE21
July 2014 USIP BE22
July 2014 USIP BE23
Number Served
20 Faculty
members
300 students
30
36
22
47 CATW
73 ACT Reading
39 CATW
34 ACT Reading
43 CATW
37 ACT Reading
39 CATW
1
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
3
December Early Exit Reading
December Early Exit Writing 4
BE17 January 2015 Writing Multiple Repeaters Workshops 5
BE18 January 2015 Reading Multiple Repeaters Workshops 6
BE15 January 2015 Accelerated Immersion Program for Writing Students 7
BE 16 January 2015Accelerated Immersion Program for Reading Students 8
Experimental BE112 PNET Course Spring 2015 9
Committee on Instructional Technology
The department’s technology committee was responsible for proposing and receiving funding for mobile
instructional technologies for departmental use. The committee also proposed funding for new monitors for the
ALLC, new e-podia for two if its classrooms, and new computers for its faculty.
CUNY Reading Discipline Council New CUNY Reading Exam
Professors Cary Lane and Jilani Warsi continue to serve as QCC faculty representatives on the CUNY Reading
Discipline Council under the direction of Raymond Moy, the CUNY Assessment Director. This CUNY-wide
committee is currently being tasked with authoring and introducing the new reading exit examination that will be
used across all CUNY campuses beginning in the Fall semester of 2015.
The Reading Final Exam consists of two passages and comprehension questions on the theme of nutrition. Dr. Warsi
collaborated with CUNY faculty members who teach reading and created multiple-choice questions for an
introductory college level text approximately 800 words in length and a magazine article approximately 400 words
in length
BE18 Spring ACT Reading Multiple Repeaters Workshop 10
BE17 Spring CATW Multiple Repeaters Workshop 11
BE26 Early Exit Writing Spring 2015 12
BE25 Early Exit Reading Spring 2015 13
BE16 June 2015 Accelerated Immersion Program for Reading Students 14
BE15 June 2015 Accelerated Immersion Program for Writing Students 15
BE17 June 2015 CATW Multiple Repeaters Workshop 16
BE18 June 2015 ACT Multiple Repeaters Workshop 17
Dr. Warsi and Cary Lane also served on the CUNY Reading Discipline. On this committee they developed
measurable learning objectives for upper level reading courses in CUNY.
The Department of Academic Literacy participated in the field test for the New CUNY Exit from
Year: 2014- 2015
41 ACT
31
45
27
15
20
18
12
12 full time
faculty
30 adjunct
faculty and All
remedial reading
students in
CUNY
18
13
34
9
7
5
16
22
All remedial
reading students
in CUNY
300 students
2
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Remediation Test in the Fall 2014
The Department of Academic Literacy participated in the field test for the New CUNY Exit from
Remediation Test in the Spring 2015
Dr. Carroll’s NEH Grant Holocaust Themed Reading Classes- Fall 2014 18
Dr. Carroll’s Hatred, Intolerance, and Violence against Women 19
Dr. Warsi actively participated in the NEH Challenge Grant in the fall 2014 semester. His BE226 students conducted research
on the themes of genocide and empathy and prepared a PowerPoint presentation, which is on display at the Kupferberg
Holocaust Resource Center and Archives.
Dr. Warsi offered two workshops for Paul Marchese, Interim Vice President for Academic Affairs, to help
Associate Professors who were applying for promotion to full professor. What follows is a list of
recommendations he prepared for the applicants:
Considerations for Promotion to the Rank of Professor
It is important that you apply for promotion to full professor at least five years after becoming associate professor.
Year: 2014- 2015
270 students
75 students
50 students
75 students
Approximately
10 full time
faculty members
at
Queensborough
1. Teaching:
 Student evaluations (both fall and spring semesters)
 Observation reports (one for each academic year)
 Annual evaluations written by your chair (set realistic goals for next year)
 High impact practices (service learning, learning community, etc.)
 Co-teaching
 Designing and teaching on-line courses
2. Scholarship:
 Articles published in peer-reviewed journals
 Chapter(s) published in a book
 Textbooks published by reputable publishers
 Creative work (short stories, poems, novels, etc.)
 Chairing and presenting sessions at local and national conferences
3. Service:
 Collaborative research with QCC and other CUNY colleagues
 Serving and chairing on QCC committees
 Serving on CUNY committees
3
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College





Year: 2014- 2015
Collaborating with CETL on professional development programs (organize lectures, panel
discussions, colloquiums, best practices)
Becoming a certified CATW reader and rating student essays at borough centers
Writing reports for department chair
Observing junior faculty and writing observation reports
Serving on department P & B Committee
4. Collegiality:
 Subbing for colleagues on short notice
 Reviewing papers and dissertations written by junior faculty
 Assisting department chair with departmental affairs
 Participating in college-wide events and making yourself visible
 Ask your chair to introduce you to other department chairs when the opportunity presents
itself
At the request of David Crook, University Dean for Institutional Research and Assessment, Dr. Warsi served on a Selection
Committee specifically created to evaluate proposals by College Board and ACT to choose a new CUNY wide placement test
for reading. Dr. Warsi actively participated in the evaluation process, reviewed the proposal, graded them using a rubric, and
voted for one of two vendors.
All incoming
students in
CUNY
ALP
ALP Fall 2014 Results
Writing Results Overall as of Feb. 2015
Total CATW Pass at end of Fall 2014 Semester (32/58): 55%
Writing ALP=59
Reading ALP=29
CATW January Workshop Pass (10/17): 59%
Total CATW Pass as of 2/1/15 (42/58): 72%
ESL Pass Rate at end of Fall 2014 Semester: 50%
ESL Pass Rate as of 2/1/15: 71%
English 101 Grades for Writing ALP Students, Fall 2014
Passing EN101 Grade (pass in 112)
30/32
94%
4
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
INC in EN101 as of 12/30/14*
24/58
50%
INC in EN101 as of 2/1/15**
14/58
24%
F or WU in EN101 (pass 112)
2/32
6%
F or WU in EN101 (R for 112)
1/58
13%
Year: 2014- 2015
* Students will receive a passing grade in EN101 upon passing the CATW.
**Of the 20 Writing students who took one NC workshop or an AIP course in Jan, 10 passed the CATW.
Reading Results Overall as of Feb 2015
Total ACT Pass Rate at the end of Fall 2014 Semester (16/25): 64%
ACT January Workshop Pass (2/3): 67%
Total ACT Pass Rate as of 2/1/05: 72%
ESL Pass Rate at the end of Fall 2014 Semester: 80%
English 101 Grades for Reading ALP Students, Fall 2014
Passing EN101 Grade (pass 122)
16/16 100%
INC in EN101 as of 12/30/14*
8/25 32%
INC in EN101 as of 2/1/15**
5/25 25%
F in EN101 (pass 122)
0/16
F in EN101 (R for 122)
5
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
ALP Spring 2015
Accelerated Learning Program
Spring 2015 Report
Program Coordinators: Leah Anderst (English) and Jennifer Maloy (Academic Literacy)
Committee Members: David Humphries, Regina Rochford, Jed Shahar, Beth Counihan, Ben Miller,
Trikartikaningsih (Kiki) Byas, Kellie Cook-McLaurin, Holly O’Donnell, David Rothman, John Yi
64 writing
32 Reading
Description of the Program
The Accelerated Learning Program (ALP) is a model that allows developmental writing students to enroll in a
credit-bearing, first semester freshman writing course while also taking an additional developmental course with
their English 101 professor. ALP allows students to complete in one semester what would normally take two or
more semesters. In the ALP model here at QCC, 14 students enroll in an upper level developmental writing (BE112)
or reading (BE122) course and concurrently in a linked section of English 101 that also included 10 nondevelopmental students.
Our spring 2015 semester consisted of 5 Writing ALP sections and 2 Reading ALP sections. Across our seven
sections we enrolled a total of
 Writing: 68 ALP students (4 of whom withdrew [W] or stopped attending [WU])
 Reading: 30 ALP students (7 of whom withdrew [W] or stopped attending [WU] or did not test)
Students
For this our third semester (spring 2014 was our pilot), we enrolled students who came to us primarily from lower
level Academic Literacy courses. Continuing students were eligible to register for ALP courses if they were
recommended by their Academic Literacy instructors, if they required only one remedial course (in reading or in
writing), and if they had scored within a certain range on their most recent ACT or CATW scores. We used available
information on CUNY First to determine students’ course history and demographic information. Our specific
student demographic information can be found below.
 Out of 64 students active in ALP Writing, 30 are from ESL courses in Academic Literacy, 30 are from NES
courses in Academic Literacy, 2 are new, and 2 are from CUNY Start/CLIP.
 Out of 23 students active in ALP Reading, 3 are from ESL courses in Academic Literacy, 15 are from NES
courses in Academic Literacy, 5 are new, and 0 are from CUNY Start.
Course Structure, Shared Curriculum, and Continuing Faculty Development
In our spring 2014 pilot semester, we created a fully articulated curriculum so that the readings, assignments, and
6
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
class work would together meet the different objectives across the two traditionally distinct courses. For the fall
2014 scale-up when we offered six sections, we provided all of our materials to the fall faculty, much of which they
adopted, and we held a formal orientation in August and regular faculty development meetings throughout the
semester. As all but one of our fall faculty continued in spring 2015, we all continued to work together to develop
activities and assignments that would support our students. Two new faculty member joined ALP for the spring:
David Rothman of Academic Literacy and John Yi of English. The coordinators shared all of the materials with
Profs. Rothman and Yi, and made themselves available to both of them regularly to discuss curriculum and any
concerns that arose.
As in our past two semesters, in ALP sections of English 101, students wrote a total of four essays over the course of
the semester. The sequence of writing assignments followed a model suggested by the English Department’s
Composition Committee: the first assignment was narrative based, and the subsequent assignments became
increasingly complex as they required students to develop arguments using evidence from sources as well as their
own experience and to practice academic research using library databases. In the ALP BE112/122 sections, the
instructors explained how the English 101 assignments connected to the CATW exam or the ACT exam and
scaffolded shorter reading and writing assignments to support students’ reading comprehension and their ability to
develop ideas in coherent well-structured prose.
A key feature of our ALP model is the timing of the CATW or the ACT exams. Traditionally, developmental
students take these exams only at the end of their semester, but in ALP students take the CATW / ACT mid to late in
the semester and then again at the end of the semester if they did not pass the first time around.
Results
Here are the results from our spring 2015 semester. At the end of this report are the results broken down by different
groups of student, with instructors’ and students’ names removed.




Out of 62 writing students who tested in five BE112 courses, 45 passed the CATW (73%) during the spring
semester.
Of those 45 students who passed the CATW by the end of the semester, 43 earned passing grades in English
101 (95%).1
Out of 23 students who tested in two BE122 courses, 20 passed the ACT by the end of the spring semester
(87%).
Out of those 20 who passed the ACT by the end of the semester, 20 earned passing grades in English 101
1
Students who have not passed the CATW / ACT were given an INC in English 101 regardless of their earned grade in that class. When
they pass the required exam, their English 101 grades is changed from the INC to their earned letter grades.
7
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Year: 2014- 2015
(100%).
Writing ALP
Student Demographics, ALP Writing
Number
ESL BE Students
30
NES BE Students
30
New Students
2
CUNY Start/CLIP Students
2
Total
64
2
3
CATW Pass Rate March
Number
ESL BE Students
NES BE Students
New Students
CUNY Start/CLIP Students
Total
11
21
0
0
32
CATW Pass Rate May
Number
ESL BE Students
NES BE Students
New Students
CUNY Start/CLIP Students
Total
9
3
1
0
13
CATW Pass Rate Total
Number
ESL BE Students
NES BE Students
New Students
20
24
1
Percentage
47%
47%
3%
3%
100%
Percentage of Students
Taking the Exam
37% (of 30)
78% (of 27)
0% (of 2)
0% (of 1)
52% (of 61)2
Percentage of Students
Taking the Exam
47% (of 19)
43% (of 7)
50% (of 2)
0% (of 1)
43% (of 30)3
Percentage out of Total
Population
67% (of 30)
86% (of 28)
50% (of 2)
3 out of the 64 students in writing did not test in March.
2 out of the 64 writing students did not test in May.
8
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
CUNY Start/CLIP Students
Total
0
45
Year: 2014- 2015
0% (of 1)
73% (of 62)
Writing Results Overall:
CATW 1 Pass (32/61): 52%
CATW 2 Pass (13/30): 43%
Total CATW Pass (45/62): 73%
English 101 Grades for Writing ALP Students, Spring 2015
Passing EN101 Grade (pass in 112)
43 Students
63%
INC in EN101 as of May 30, 2015*
16 Students
24%
INC in EN101 as of 6/30/15**
F or W/WU in EN101 (pass 112)
1 Student
1%
F or W/WU in EN101 (R/W for 112)
8 Students
12%
* Students receive a passing grade in EN101 upon passing the CATW.
**Of the xx Writing students who took a summer NC workshop or an AIP course, xx passed the CATW. (We do not
have complete information on summer 2015 workshops.)
Reading ALP
Student Demographics, ALP Reading
Number
ESL BE Students
3
NES BE Students
15
New Students
5
CUNY Start/CLIP Students
0
Total
23
ACT Pass Rate March
Number
ESL BE Students
NES BE Students
New Students
CUNY Start/CLIP Students
Total
2
11
4
0
17
Percentage
13%
65%
22%
0%
100%
Percentage of Students
Taking the Exam
67% (of 3)
73% (of 15)
80% (of 5)
0% (of 0)
74% (of 23)
9
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
ACT Pass Rate May
Number
ESL BE Students
NES BE Students
New Students
CUNY Start/CLIP Students
Total
0
3
0
0
3
ACT Pass Rate Total
Number
ESL BE Students
NES BE Students
New Students
CUNY Start/CLIP Students
Total
2
14
4
0
20
Year: 2014- 2015
Percentage of Students
Taking the Exam
0% (of 1)
75% (of 4)
0% (of 1)
0% (of 0)
50% (of 6)
Percentage out of
Total Population
67% (of 3)
93% (of 15)
80% (of 5)
0% (of 0)
87% (of 23)
Reading Results Overall
ACT 1 Pass (17/23): 74%
ACT 2 Pass (3/6): 50%
Total ACT Pass (20/23): 87%
English 101 Grades for Reading ALP Students, Spring 2015
Passing EN101 Grade (pass 122)
21 Students
70% (of 30)
INC in EN101 as of May 30, 2015* 3 Students
10% (of 30)
INC in EN101 as of 6/30/15
2 Students
7% (of 30)
F or W/WU in EN101 (pass 122)
0 Students
0% (of 30)
F or W/WU in EN101 (W/R122)
6 Students
20% (of 30)
* Students receive a passing grade in EN101 upon passing the ACT.
Assessing the Third Semester
Our third semester offering ALP courses at QCC has been quite successful. We have seen a high rate of students
exiting remediation in both writing (by passing the CATW) and in reading (by passing the ACT). Our pass rate in
reading in particular, 87%, is promising. This is our second semester offering a reading ALP; of the many other
schools that offer this model, most tend to offer only writing courses. Our model and our success rate shows that
ALP offers an important solution to students struggling to exit out of reading remediation.
10
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
The results of the ALP courses during this spring semester also show improvements over the results of the courses
offered in the fall of 2014, our second semester offering ALP. In the fall, 55% of our ALP students passed the
CATW, and 64% of reading students passed the ACT within the semester. That fall percentage increased a good
deal after many of those non-passers took just one NC workshop (72% in both reading and writing), but this spring
semester, our 69% and 87% pass rates in writing and reading, respectively, are extremely promising. These two
semesters differed in two respects: 1. We added two new ALP faculty members, David Rothman and John Yi, who
adopted much of our existing ALP curriculum and communicated regularly with the coordinators, and 2. Our student
population was rather different than the fall. Our students this semester came to us almost entirely from BE courses,
whether lower or upper level courses. These were continuing QCC students who had taken at least one semester of
reading or writing in an Academic Literacy course. During our fall 2014 semester we enrolled students who had
previously taken BE courses, but we also enrolled a good number of students from the CLIP and CUNY Start
summer programs (14 in writing [23%] and 9 in reading [36%]). Many of these students struggled in their ALP
courses with 4 (28% of the 14) passing the CATW and 3 (33% of the 9) passing the ACT during the semester.
Students who come to ALP courses from lower level BE courses appear to fare best in the ALP model.
Coordinators’ Shared Duties
Over the first three semesters, the coordinators each had one course release per semester. The initial development of
our curriculum and the implementation of this program required a good amount of work, as does the faculty
development offered to new instructors who join us each semester. The coordinators continue to recruit and enroll
students, especially by visiting all lower and upper level BE courses to share information with instructors and with
students, by pre-enrolling recommended students in an ALP student group on CUNY First, and by responding to
many individual queries from students, instructors, and advisors on the enrollment process. The co-coordinators
create and maintain databases to keep program records each semester. These records allow the coordinators to assess
the program and to keep track of non-passers who repeat a BE course or enroll in a workshop and who may need to
have the INC they receive in the ALP English 101 changed to a letter grade. The coordinators also created this
semester a website for our program (www.qcc.cuny.edu/alp) where members of the college community as well as
those interested in the ALP model outside of QCC can find a good deal of information on our particular model and
our courses.
The coordinators’ release time has proved essential in allowing us to dedicate ourselves to the students’ and the
program’s success, especially as it relates to the recruitment and enrollment process, which, by far, occupies most of
our time and energy.
Spring Results By Class
Writing ALP Results - Course 1
11
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
CATW 1
62
59
59
57
not tested
64
60
not tested
50
57
53
57
63
not tested
CATW 2
BE
64
57
63
not tested
Writing ALP Results - Course 2
CATW 1
CATW 2
58
48
62
46
62
52
57
60
62
60
60
58
not tested
not tested
54
54
60
60
Notes
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
W
P
P
P
P
P
R
EN101
C
B+
C+
BW
F
C
W
C
B+
B+
C
BWU
Notes
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
R
NC
P
P
EN101
B
C+
BBC
C+
B+
BBF
INC (B)
B
B-
BE
Year: 2014- 2015
CATW Workshop
ESL
NES
ESL
ESL
NES
NES
NES
NES
ESL
NES
ESL
NES
NES
CUNY START
CATW Workshop
NES
ESL
ESL
ESL
ESL
NES
ESL
NES
ESL
NES
ESL
ESL
ESL
12
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Writing ALP Results - Course 3
CATW 1
CATW 2
54
40
50
44
48
56
34
51
54
44
not tested
not tested
58
45
38
55
56
not tested
not tested
46
48
52
60
50
46
50
48
Writing ALP Results - Course 4
CATW 1
CATW 2
N
62
62
48
46
60
48
56
40
48
61
52
50
58
58
44
48
62
60
not tested
not tested
BE
R
R
P
NC
NC
W
P
R
P
W
R
P
R
R
BE
P
P
R
P
P
R
P
NC
P
P
R
P
P
WU
EN101
INC
INC
C
INC
INC
W
B+
INC
BW
INC
BINC
INC
EN101
BB+
INC (C)
C+
C+
WU
B+
INC (C+)
CC
INC (B+)
BC
WU
Notes
Year: 2014- 2015
CATW Workshop
NES
NES
ESL
ESL
ESL
ESL
ESL
ESL
NES
NES
ESL
ESL
NES
NEW
Notes
CATW Workshop
ESL
NES
NES
NES
ESL
ESL
ESL
ESL
NES
ESL
ESL
NES
NES
NES
Writing ALP Results - Course 5
13
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
CATW 1
58
58
46
52
60
60
52
60
62
48
34
50
62
CATW 2
BE
P
P
R
R
P
P
P
P
P
NC
NC
P
P
48
48
56
52
54
62
Reading ALP Results - Course 1
ACT 1
ACT 2
not tested
not tested
77
82
not tested
not tested
66
81
81
not tested
not tested
89
73
81
58
56
82
90
66
71
63
69
BE
WN
P
P
W
P
P
WU
P
P
P
R
P
P
P
NC
EN101
B
A
INC
INC
B+
ABB
BINC
INC
B
B
EN101
WN
BB
W
CBWU
C+
CD+
INC (B)
C
CCINC (C)
Notes
Year: 2014- 2015
CATW Workshop
NES
NES
ESL
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
ESL
ESL
NEW
NES
Notes
ACT Workshop
NEW
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NEW
NES
NES
NEW
NES
NEW
Reading ALP Results - Course 2
14
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
ACT 1
87
not tested
80
not tested
87
77
not tested
81
93
76
63
not tested
61
81
83
ACT 2
not tested
not tested
not tested
54
not tested
84
BE
P
Dropped before
W period
P
WU
P
P
*passed ACT
previously4
P
P
P
R
W
P
P
P
EN101
ADropped before
W period
AWN
A
B-
Notes
Year: 2014- 2015
ACT Workshop
NES
NES
ESL
NES
NEW
NES
B+
NES
AAAINC
WU
B
B+
A-
NES
ESL
NES
ESL
NEW
NES
NES
NES
June 2015 ALP Summarized Results
Writing ALP:
Total of 20 students

11 passed the CATW during the course (55%) 4 of those who didn’t pass are
currently in BE11,

Of those 11 writing students who passed the CATW during the course, 10 received
C or better in ENGL 101 (91%)
Reading ALP:
 8 students total,
 6 passed the ACT during the course (75%),
 after one NC workshop, one more passed,
4
20 ALP Writing
8 ALP Reading
This student enrolled in ALP accidentally. S/he had already passed the ACT, but remained in the class for financial aid reason.
15
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College


Year: 2014- 2015
so as of now 7 of 8 have passed the ACT (87.5%)
Of those 7 who passed the ACT, 6 received B- or better in ENGL 101 (86%), 1
student received a WU.
June 2015 Multiple Repeaters
11 Reading students
17 Writing students
BE18 ACT Reading June 2015
passed
n
%
4
36.4%
failed
7
63.6%
Total
11
100.0%
June 2015 BE17 Writing Multiple Repeaters
Pass
Fail
Total
1
16
17
n
6%
94%
100%
Percent
Area of service (for example): a department-run learning laboratory (not laboratories for which students register as part of their courses), the reference desk or reserve area of the
Library, department tutoring program, etc. (Note: Do not report courses or laboratories for which students register.)
2.
Department-sponsored faculty/staff development activities
16
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Type of Activity and Topic
Year: 2014- 2015
Date
Number Attending
Committee Members: Jennifer Maloy (Chair), Kellie Cook-McLaurin, Susan Hock, David Rothman, and Jilani
Warsi
In Fall 2014, Jennifer Maloy was elected chair of the Best Practices Committee, replacing Cheryl
Comeau-Kirschner. During this semester, the committee offered the following workshops:

Getting the Message Across: Providing Feedback on CATW Writing
Facilitators: Susan Hock and David Rothman
Date: Wednesday, October 22
Attendance: 4
Summary of Workshop: Faculty reviewed two failing CATW essays and discussed
approaches to providing feedback on these essays in relation to the five CATW
scoring domains. Participants then shared their practices for providing feedback.

Deep Reading: An Introduction to the New CUNY Reading Exam and
Discussion on Promoting Active Reading
Facilitator: Jilani Warsi
Date: Wednesday, December 8
Attendance: 15
Summary of Workshop: Professor Warsi provided an overview of the new CUNY
reading exam and discussed contextualized approaches to teaching reading
comprehension in a way that connects to the exam objectives and structure.
10/22
4
12/8
15
In Spring 2015, the committee offered three workshops to faculty and also conducted a needs
assessment. The needs assessment was conducted in the form of a survey distributed to all part-time and fulltime faculty in the department. It asked faculty members what changes they would like to see in terms of the
committee’s presentation of information (i.e. through workshops, online materials, web-based videos, and/or
reading groups) as well as preferred topics for workshops/committee events. Approximately 15 faculty
members responded to the survey, expressing their interest in Wednesday workshops on working with ESL
students and students with learning differences, incorporating technology in the classroom, and modeling
practical classroom activities and high impact practices. The committee will use this survey data to design
relevant workshops in the future.
In addition, the committee offered the following workshops:

Providing Feedback on CATW Writing
Facilitators: Susan Hock and David Rothman
17
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Date: Wednesday, February 4 and Thursday, February 5
Attendance: 13 on 2/4 and 11 on 2/5
Summary of Workshop: These workshops were offered as professional
development for ALLC tutors and for Academic Literacy faculty. Participants
discussed CATW scoring and then looked at some failing CATW essays and talked
about how they would provide feedback on these essays in both written form and a
one-on-one conference. Tutors and faculty were able to meet one another and share
unique perspectives on working with students on the CATW.


A CATW Norming Workshop
Facilitators: Susan Hock and David Rothman
Date: Wednesday, April 1
Attendance: 9
Summary of Workshop: The workshop provided an overview of CATW scoring,
and participants were able to ask specific questions about the process of scoring and
how they can work with CATW scores in their classroom.
Teaching with Technology
Facilitators: Cary Lane and Jennifer Maloy
Date: Wednesday, April 29
Attendance: 11
Summary of Workshop: The facilitators presented projects that incorporated
various forms of technology. Participants had time to brainstorm possible future
assignments that incorporate technology and indicated the computer programs they
would like to learn more about, including Camtasia, Weebly, and PowerPoint
Year: 2014- 2015
2/4
13
2/5
11
4/1
9
4/29
11
[Add as many rows as necessary]
Note: Faculty and staff development activities (grants, presentations, exhibitions, performances, publications, instructional improvement activities, laboratory development,
curriculum development, etc.)
INSTRUCTIONS:
18
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Year: 2014- 2015
For each activity, please indicate
1. whether department members organized the activities or gave presentations or both
2. the topic and type of activity and name of organizer/presenter, if applicable
3. the date (if not the exact date, indicate the month)
4. the number attending the event
B. COURSE CHANGES IN 2014-15
INSTRUCTIONS: For each course that changed, indicate:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
whether the course is new, revised, or deleted
the course number
the course title
the semester the change was approved at the Academic Senate
for revised courses, in the Comments section, describe the type of change(s)—i.e., course title, description, pre/corequisites, credits, hours, designation
New, revised, or
deleted
Course
number
Course title
Semester approved
Comments
C. PROGRAM CHANGES IN 2014-15
Program
Program change*
Effective Date
(Semester and year)
Comments
*Key: (a)=initiated, (b)=closed, (c)=renamed, (d)=modified
INSTRUCTIONS:
19
Queensborough Community College



Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Use the full title of the program, i.e. A.A. in Visual and Performing Arts.
Indicate whether the program change is initiated, closed, renamed, or modified. (If a new program has been approved by
the CUNY Board (or is expected to be approved by June 2015), use fall 2015 as the effective date.)
Describe the exact status (i.e., proposal submitted to CUNY Board; approved by CUNY Board; etc.) in the Comments.
D. DEPARTMENT CHANGES IN 2014-15
Type (see menu below)
Retirement
Description of
Change
Retirement
Reason for Change
Date/Semester
August 26, 2014
Evaluation of Change*
n/a
*Please note that, if change has been too recent to evaluate, you may indicate NA.
Type of change
Personnel or organizational change
Facilities/space
Equipment
Other
MENU
Description
New hires, retirees, resignations, promotions, department name changes, etc.
Renovations or development of office space or new facilities (i.e., computer laboratories)
Acquisition of new or disposition of old equipment
Other changes affecting the department not included above and including interactions with other departments
E. DEPARTMENT ASSESSMENT IN 2014-15
1.
Departmental procedures for conducting assessment
The fundamental elements of standard 14 (assessment of student learning) of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education include:
clearly articulated statements of expected student learning outcomes…at all levels (institution, degree/program, course) and for all
programs that aim to foster student learning and development; a documented, organized, and sustained assessment process to evaluate and
improve student learning; evidence that student learning assessment information is shared and discussed with appropriate constituents and
is used to improve teaching and learning.
20
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Describe below the department’s ongoing procedures for assessing student learning and using assessment results to improve
teaching and learning. In your description, please explain how the department fulfills each of the Middle States
fundamental elements above.
This year two different assessment were performed. In the fall, BE225 was assessed. (See Attachment A) In the Spring, the
BE205 assessment that was conducted for the Fall 2013 was replicated to determine if an on-going grading issue was resolved.
(See Attachment B)
The Department of Academic Literacy has specific learning outcomes for all courses. Each instructor is expected to specify the
course learning outcomes in their syllabi. They are also expected to use these learning outcomes to determine if students are
ready to advance out of remediation or to a higher level course. For this reason, the Department employs standardized
assessment to promote students to a higher level course or to advance them out of remediation. In the writing courses, the
Department employs departmental midterm and final exams, which mirror the CUNY Aligned Test of Writing (CATW). The
students are given a CATW reading passage and are expected to respond to it in accordance with the CATW rubric. Each exit
exam is scored by two or three instructors to ensure consistency in grading. To ensure that each faculty member grades
consistently, the Department conducts CATW norming session with all of its writing teachers. Moreover, every instructor,
whether full time or adjunct, is encouraged to become CATW certified readers and to participate in the official reading of
CATW papers at Queens College. These strategies have assisted in developing inter-reader reliability and validity. They also
help us to determine which students are ready to advance or exit our program.
In reading courses, the Department employs two measurements to determine student readiness to advance or exit. The first is
the standardized Terranova and TABE exams, which measure a student’s reading level. The second is a summarizing exam
whereby students must read a passage and summarize it. Then the instructors assess the summary according to the MTEL
Summary Scoring Rubric. In order to pass a course or exit out of remediation, the students must achieve specific grade levels on the Terranova/TABE
and a score of three on the MTEL.
1. Replication of Assessment of BE205 in Fall 2014
In the Fall 2013, an assessment of BE205 was conducted and it indicated that 62 % of the students had passed the CATW final
exam. However, when the actual CATW results were examined, only about 25% had passed the CATW. Thus, it was
determined that a huge disconnect had occurred between the teachers’ scores and the actual CATW scores. This issue was
discussed at a departmental meeting and it was determined that the Department needed to conduct more norming sessions and
that more teachers should become CATW certified. In addition, final exams would no longer be graded by just the classroom
instructor. Instead, the Department would participate in shared group grading so that each paper was assessed by two other
faculty members. In order to determine if this intervention had rectified this problem, the assessment that was performed in the
Fall 2013 was replicated with the BE205 students in the Fall 2014.
21
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
The results of the replicated BE205: The outcomes of this BE205 course assessment have pointed out the areas of strength and weakness in
BE205 students’ academic writing. Overall, the outcomes indicate that BE205 students’ ability to think and write in English has been reinforced through
the collaborative joint efforts of the whole Department, which was reflected in the increased pass rate of 41% of the BE205 students on the Fall 2014
CATW in contrast to that of 26.63% on the Fall 2013 CATW. However, the urgent need for improvement may lie in BE 205 students’ ability to develop
their related ideas to support their essay’s central focus through careful analysis of texts as well as their own experience, even though continuing efforts
should be made to increase competence in the three Content domains. Another area for improvement for BE 205 students is language use. BE205
students have different needs than native speakers of English and need frequent, guided practice in using language to develop as academic writers.
Finally, to decrease the misrepresentation of grading accuracy, the Department needs to continue to encourage more BE 205 instructors to train to
become certified CATW readers.
Resulting Action Plan
Here are some suggestions for addressing the areas of improvement. The goal is to improve student learning outcomes in that specific area in which
BE205 students have demonstrated weaknesses.
1. Avoiding Digressions in the Critical Response Domain:
This domain is double weighted and measures students’ ability to organize related ideas into a coherent essay that clearly and consistently supports the
writer’s central focus. When writers focus on irrelevant details, the score on this domain decreases. Findings show that instead of maintaining focus by
directly responding to the question throughout the response, the BE205 students may sometimes focus on irrelevant details or loosely related details
(64.06% of students on the Fall 2013 CATW and 55.39% of students on the Fall 2014 CATW had this issue). “Digression” prevents students from
answering the question, so teachers should dedicate a little more time training students to organize the relationships among ideas, so that students learn
how to group relevant ideas together to show how each idea is interconnected.
2. Designing a Series of Best Practice Lessons on the “Digression” Issue
Since the Structure of the Response domain presents an issue for BE205 students, it is recommended that a series of Faculty Development lessons on the
“digression” issue be designed and presented within the Department to improve students’ performance as well as instructors’ awareness of the issue.
3. Integrating High Impact Practices into the BE205 Course
To highly motivate students and significantly improve student learning outcomes and retention of critical content knowledge, it is suggested that
AL instructors incorporate High Impact Practices into the BE205 curriculum. This should be directly related to the CATW writing in the areas of
paraphrasing, summarizing, and development of ideas, sentence structure, sentence variety, grammar, and logical connections between sentences within
and beyond paragraphs.
4. Discussing Writing Student Samples in Class
Sentence structure and grammar are important, but showing student writing samples in class—not just isolated grammar mistakes, is even more
important. As demonstrated in this assessment, many of the BE205 students’ writing problems are weak vocabulary, a lack of sentence variety,
cohesion, and logic. These are not writing problems that most ESL students will be able to identify easily. For this reason, as suggested above, the
22
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
method of discussing writing samples may assist in the process.
5. Continuing Cross-Grading of Upper Level Writing Classes
Based on the findings in Fall 2014, Departmental cross-grading of upper-level writing classes worked well. To raise grading accuracy, this grading
policy should continue, and the Department should continue to offer norming sessions to maintain consistence in grading.
6. Raising the BE205 Placement Score to 52
Findings indicate that 42 students out of 102, or 41% of students passed the Fall 2014 CATW because their skills were too weak when they entered
BE205. Although the pass rate in Fall 2014 has increased considerably compared with the pass rate in the Fall 2013, this result suggests that the CATW
pass rate is still not satisfactory among BE205 learners. For this reason, the cutoff for a BE205 placement score should be raised to a score of 52 rather
than the current 50. This would ensure that students who enter BE205 have higher level skills so that they will be able to improve enough to pass the
CATW at the end of the term. Thus, it is recommended that we raise the BE205 placement score from 50 to 52.
7. Reducing Class Size for BE205
Smaller classes for BE205 are particularly effective at raising student learning outcomes as well as the CATW pass rate. With a smaller BE205 class
size of 15-20 students, teachers can provide individualized attention and hone in on students’ writing issues.
(see Attachment B for specific Details.)
2. Assessment of BE225 Fall 2014
In the fall 2014 another assessment was performed for BE225. The results of this analysis suggest that the students entered this class with
weak summarizing skills averaging only 1.81 on the baseline assessment that was measured by the MTEL Summary Rubric. However, these students
evidence a moderate improvement after instruction on the midterm by scoring 2.06, which demonstrates an increase of .25 points or 14 % between the
two assessments. In addition, they further improved their scores by averaging 2.43 on the final assessment, which is an increase of .37 points or 18 %
between the midterm and the final. Overall, the students improved their scores by .62 points or 34 % between the final and the baseline at the beginning
of the semester.
These results suggest that the assignment, which was designed by a team of experts who have taught ESL reading and writing for many years, worked
well in that it used a repeated or spiral approach to teaching the same concept. These results also infer that these students could have increased their
scores more if they had benefited from more time on task, exposure to the target language, and additional repeated lessons that focused on summary
writing.
In addition, the improvement evidenced a statistical improvement in the participants’ ability to summarize as a result of repeated lessons, practice, and
exams (See Attachment A Table 3). These results suggest that if these students were taught with a traditional method, which included a) one lesson of
instruction, b) in class group practice, c) in class individual practice, d) homework practice, and e) an exam, they would not have been able to improve
their mastery of this skill. However, when the teachers used a spiral pedagogy and revisited the instruction and practice of this topic, the students
increased their scores significantly. Therefore, these results propose that most of these BE225 students will continue to need exposure to summarizing
23
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
lessons, practice and exams as they advance to BE226.
Resulting action plan of BE225 Assessment:
This assessment insinuates that explicit repeated teaching of a) differentiating the main idea of a passage from extraneous minor details, b) paraphrasing,
c) using transitions, and d) organizing a well-organized cohesive summary, leads to enhanced ability to write effective summaries, and since summary
writing is an essential skill that all of our reading students will need to pass their future classes as well as the Department Exit Summary test, which
employs the MTEL, BE225 faculty will be encouraged to use this spiral teaching, writing, and testing method as they fine tune their courses.
In recent years, our Department has endeavored improve all areas of instruction and assessment, by incorporating High Impact Practices in all of our
classes. As a result, we have created more dynamic and creative curriculum, unrelated to this assessment . However, since our low-level ESL reading
students arrive with weak linguistic and academic skills, they still require much more exposure to the target language. Moreover, since our Department
only provides four ESL writing instructional hours per week in this course, compared to similar departments throughout CUNY that average 6-8 hours
for the same type of course and level, they are at a disadvantage. Therefore, instructors need to compensate for the lost time by including more intensive
instruction. This can consist of additional repeated lessons, challenging academic material, and consistent review of the skills necessary to write an
effective summary. It is suggested that each time instructors in the lower-level ESL classes introduce a new skills, they be prepared to revisit these new
skills with supplemental lessons, exercises, homework and exams throughout the semester to ensure that the students can utilize the new skill effectively
since “one shot” lessons are not sufficient because our ESL learners arrive with both linguistic and academic deficiencies.
To enhance this lesson further, instructors can be encouraged to develop model summaries that directly correspond to the criteria of the rubric being
utilized. For instance, students can be provided with sample summaries that have received the score of a 1, 2, 3, or 4 on the rubric. The samples can be
distributed to the students without their corresponding scores and then the students can work in groups to assess each summary. The classroom
instructor can then lead the students through a discussion/analysis of the scores that each summary should have received and the rationale behind each
decision so that the students view summarizing from the teacher’s perspective. After this review, the students should score each other’s summaries to
enhance their understanding of this skill by analyzing and discussing their summaries along with the rubric. Teaching students to examine their work
from the evaluator’s point of view will enhance the students’ ability to think more critically.
Likewise, all BE225 instructors should participate in norming sessions during which they utilize these model summaries along with their corresponding
rubrics to ensure consistency and accuracy in their grading. These sessions will also permit teachers to glean ideas from one another to enhance their
summary teaching even more. This will be especially helpful in that it will increase the likelihood of fewer discrepancies among BE225 sections
because the instructors will be exposed to increased support from their peers.
If, by the end of the semester, students in BE225 remain at a low level, then it is important that instructors not pass them into BE226 because they are
unprepared to meet the demands of the criteria of that higher level. This will prevent these students from becoming multiple repeaters, and thereby
reduce the multiple-repeaters issue in our Department.
2a.
Departmental participation in self-study/program review during 2014-2015, if applicable
Program(s) reviewed: [GIVE FULL TITLE, i.e., A.A.S. in Digital Art and Design]
24
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
External Agency or Reviewers: [GIVE NAME OF AGENCY OR NAME OF REVIEWER(S)]
Date of site visit:
2b.
Program review follow-up (from 2013-14 to 2014-15)
Action item from program review
Timeline for completion
Accomplishments during current year
n/a
Note: If your department was involved in a program review in the previous academic year, the table above must be filled in.
25
Queensborough Community College
3a.
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Course assessment follow-up (from 2013-14 to 2014-15)
Course(s) assessed from
previous year
Action plan from previous year
Evaluation of Results
Follow-up
BE205 Fall 2013
To align teachers’ scores on
departmental final with the
actual CATW scores.
The outcomes of this BE205 course
assessment have pointed out the areas of
strength and weakness in BE205
students’ academic writing. Overall, the
outcomes indicate that BE205 students’
ability to think and write in English has
been reinforced through the
collaborative joint efforts of the whole
Department, which was reflected in the
increased pass rate of 41% of the BE205
students on the Fall 2014 CATW in
contrast to that of 26.63% on the Fall
2013 CATW. However, the urgent need
for improvement may lie in BE 205
students’ ability to develop their related
ideas to support their essay’s central
focus through careful analysis of texts as
well as their own experience, even
though continuing efforts should be
made to increase competence in the
three Content domains.
Continue to monitor
departmental midterm and
final scores for consistency in
grading and improvement in
scores.
Another area for improvement for BE
205 students is language use. BE205
students have different needs than native
speakers of English and need frequent,
guided practice in using language to
develop as academic writers. Finally, to
decrease the misrepresentation of
grading accuracy, the Department needs
to continue to encourage more BE 205
instructors to train to become certified
CATW readers.
26
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
BE205 Fall 2013
To determine if departmental
changes in the grading of finals
would align actual CATW
scores with those given on the
final exams so that students
have a more accurate
assessment of their
performance in writing
courses.
This study will be replicated after
the fall 2014 term ends to
determine if grading changes
align the two sets of scores.
Discuss with department
inconsistencies between final
exam scores and the actual
CATW scores in order to find
a way to align these
assessments so that students
receive more accurate
feedback on their writing
performance from their
teachers.
BE122 Spring 2014
It is also recommended that
instructors require their students to
read two novels instead of one. These
books should be at a challenging
level to ensure that they are
academically prepared for the creditbearing courses that they will need to
complete once they leave our
department because credit-bearing
courses often consist of a rigorous
curriculum that includes extensive
reading.
Instructors are encouraged to require
their students to summarize various
chapters of these novels to progress
their overall summary writing skill,
which will also be needed in their
credit-bearing classes.
To enhance this summary writing
lesson further, instructors can be
encouraged to develop model
summaries that directly correspond to
the criteria of the rubric being
utilized.
Because of the Department’s
huge participation in the NEH
Holocaust Grant, many teachers
used this thematic approach to
teaching reading, and therefore
used novels related to the
Holocaust and the NEH activities.
Instructors used HIPs to engage
their students by having BE122
classes summarize all the chapters
from a book and then by sharing
these summaries with lower level
classes who would discuss and
question the summaries.
Summarizing activities will
continue to be an essential
part of the BE122 classes and
will be employed during the
midterm and final exams. The
Department also intends to
conduct norming sessions so
that teachers grade their
summaries more consistently.
27
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
3b.
Year: 2014- 2015
Course assessment: current year
Course(s)
assessed (list
individually)
Relevant General
Educational
Outcomes
Relevant Curricular
Outcomes
Evaluation of
Assessment Results
Action plan
28
Queensborough Community College
BE205
1.
2.
6.
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
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
1. Students will write
See Attachment A for
analytic essays of
details
multiple paragraphs (500
words) that introduce,
develop, and conclude
the discussion of an
essay's topic with a
coherent focus.
2. Students will write body
paragraphs that develop
one idea and support the
central focus of the essay.
3. Students will write essays
that demonstrate the
logical development of an
essay by using
transitional words
between and within
paragraphs.
4. Students will summarize
and analyze a variety of
texts, identifying and
engaging in important
ideas from the text and
relating these ideas to
other readings or personal
experiences.
5. Students will follow
conventions of Standard
Written English (SWE),
specifically using
coordination and
subordination to achieve
sentence variety as well
as an appropriate and
consistent level of diction
in their essays.
6. Students will write
essays, in and out of
class, with minimal
global errors, showing a
command of sentence
Year: 2014- 2015
The purpose of this assessment
was to determine if the
teachers’ final exam scores
were consistent with the actual
CUNY CATW scores because
in the Fall 2013 it was
determined that a huge gap
occurred between these two
sets of scores. However, as a
result of a change in
departmental policy for
grading final exams, this
assessment has exhibited
consistency between the two
sets of scores. This data will be
reexamined to ascertain that
scores continue to be
consistent.
Next, it is recommended that
the placement score for BE205
be raised from 50 to 52 to be
certain students are prepared
for the demands of the CATW
exam.
It was also suggested that the
class size be reduced so that
teachers can provide more
individualized attention to each
learner.
29
Queensborough Community College
BE225
1) Students will be able
to distinguish between
details and generalities
in texts.
2) Students will be able
to paraphrase the
author’s main ideas.
8) Students will be able
to identify, comprehend,
and appropriately use
transition words.
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
1) Students will be able to
distinguish between details and
generalities in texts.
2) Students will be able to
paraphrase the author’s main
ideas.
8) Students will be able to
identify, comprehend, and
appropriately use transition
words.
See Attachment B for
details.
Year: 2014- 2015
Modest gains were achieved using
the MTEL, to measure summary
skills. It measured how well a student
comprehended a passage and was
able to summarize it in his or her own
words effectively. The results from
this assessment revealed that the
students’ ability to summarize
improved over time significantly.
This assessment insinuates that
explicit repeated teaching of a)
differentiating the main idea of a
passage from extraneous minor
details, b) paraphrasing, c) using
transitions, and d) organizing a wellorganized cohesive summary, leads
to enhanced ability to write effective
summaries, and since summary
writing is an essential skill that all of
our reading students will need to pass
their future classes as well as the
Department Exit Summary test,
which employs the MTEL, BE225
faculty will be encouraged to use this
spiral teaching, writing, and testing
method as they fine tune their
courses.
In recent years, our Department has
endeavored improve all areas of
instruction and assessment, by
incorporating High Impact Practices
in all of our classes. As a result, we
have created more dynamic and
creative curriculum, unrelated to this
assessment . However, since our lowlevel ESL reading students arrive
with weak linguistic and academic
skills, they still require much more
exposure to the target language.
30
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Moreover, since our Department only
provides four ESL writing
instructional hours per week in this
course, compared to similar
departments throughout CUNY that
average 6-8 hours for the same type
of course and level, they are at a
disadvantage. Therefore, instructors
need to compensate for the lost time
by including more intensive
instruction. This can consist of
additional repeated lessons,
challenging academic material, and
consistent review of the skills
necessary to write an effective
summary. It is suggested that each
time instructors in the lower-level
ESL classes introduce a new reading
or writing techniques, they be
prepared to revisit these new skills
with supplemental lessons, exercises,
homework and exams throughout the
semester to ensure that the students
can utilize the new skill effectively
since “one shot” lessons are not
sufficient because our ESL learners
arrive with both linguistic and
academic deficiencies.
To enhance this lesson further,
instructors can be encouraged to
develop model summaries that
directly correspond to the criteria of
the rubric being utilized. For
instance, students can be provided
with sample summaries that have
received the score of a 1, 2, 3, or 4 on
the rubric. The samples can be
distributed to the students without
their corresponding scores and then
the students can work in groups to
31
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
assess each summary. The classroom
instructor can then lead the students
through a discussion/analysis of the
scores that each summary should
have received and the rationale
behind each decision so that the
students view summarizing from the
teacher’s perspective. After this
review, the students should score
each other’s summaries to enhance
their understanding of this skill by
analyzing and discussing their
summaries along with the rubric.
Teaching students to examine their
work from the evaluator’s point of
view will enhance the students’
ability to think more critically.
Likewise, all BE225 instructors
should participate in norming
sessions during which they utilize
these model summaries along with
their corresponding rubrics to ensure
consistency and accuracy in their
grading. These sessions will also
permit teachers to glean ideas from
one another to enhance their
summary teaching even more. This
will be especially helpful in that it
will increase the likelihood of fewer
discrepancies among BE225 sections
because the instructors will be
exposed to increased support from
their peers.
If, by the end of the semester,
students in BE225 remain at a low
level, then it is important that
instructors not pass them into BE226
because they are unprepared to meet
the demands of the criteria of that
higher level. This will prevent these
32
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Year: 2014- 2015
students from becoming multiple
repeaters, and thereby reduce the
multiple-repeaters issue in our
Department.
4.
Results of certification examinations, employer and alumni surveys, student surveys, advisory board
recommendations (if applicable, please use the table below)
Data Source
Results
Action plan
Certification exams
Employer/alumni surveys, including
graduation and placement survey
Student surveys (current students)
Advisory Board recommendations
5.
Other assessment activity (if applicable)
F. DEPARTMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1.
Goals/objectives for 2014-2015
(Please indicate [Yes or No] if the objectives were part of the College’s Strategic Plan for 2014-2015.)
Departmental goals/objectives 2014/2015
Analyze data from the Multiple Repeaters
(MR) policy to determine the most effective
number of workshops that should be offered.
Ask to the College Curriculum Committee to
approve a limit on MR Workshops and to get
approval to establish a Continuing Education
Strategic
Plan Y/N
Evaluation of achievement
Resulting action plan
After students become multiple
repeaters, they can take two free
workshops (BE17 Writing and BE18
Reading). If they do not pass after
these workshops, they must enroll in
a Continuing Education workshop
The Department of
Continuing Education
has developed and offers
workshops to students
who are no longer
eligible for our courses
33
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
class that will provide ACT Reading and
CATW writing sessions to students who are no
longer eligible for our exit exams and
workshops.
before they can be tested again.
and our multiple repeater
workshops.
Increase the number of ALP sessions offered in
the AL Department and determine how
successful this program is.
Last year two sections were offered
in the spring for writing students. In
the fall, 4 sections were offered for
writing sections and 2 were offered
for reading sections. This spring 2
reading sections and 5 writing
sections were offered.
This year all writing teachers were
required to participate in norming
sessions to be certain that midterm
and final writing scores were
consistent.
Continue to expand the
ALP
Scores increased on the exit exams.
In the fall 2014, 54.5% passed the
ACT Reading exam and 50.4%
passed the writing exam.
Continue to provide
reading and writing
reviews and Best
Practice workshops to
enhance teachers’
pedagogy.
Continue to engage in Norming Sessions in all
the writing courses so that students are only
advanced into the upper levels when they are
prepared for the demands of the exit courses
and so that students receive an unbiased
assessment of their work by CATW readers.
Improve pass rates on the ACT Reading and
the CATW writing exams.
2.
Yes
Continue to provide
norming sessions to
maintain grade
consistency.
Goals/objectives for 2015-2016
(Explain how these goals/objectives align with the College’s goals and Strategic Plan for 2015-2016)
Departmental goals/objectives 2015-2016
Increase the number of ALP reading and writing
sections offered in the department
Mission/Strategic Plan
Planned method of evaluation
Contrast the number of ALP courses offered
last year to this year.
34
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Continue to engage in Norming Sessions in all the
writing courses so that students are only advanced
into the upper level courses when they are
prepared for the demands of the exit courses and
so that students receive an unbiased assessment of
their work by CATW readers.
Develop new materials for the new CUNY Exit
from Remediation.
Improve CATW results
Year: 2014- 2015
Determine the number of norming sessions
conducted
Yes
Review how many practice tests were
developed
Examine exit data
35
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Attachment A BE205 Fall 2014 Assessment
Department of Academic Literacy
Spring 2015
BE 205 Course Assessment Report
BE205 Course Assessment Overview
In the Department of Academic Literacy, BE205, Advanced Composition for ESL Students, is designed for students who speak English as a Second
Language and have had some experience in English composition, but who still require remedial work before taking content area courses. It is also the
final course of the sequence for ESL students with serious writing deficiencies. The objective is to provide students with reading and writing strategies
that prepare them to understand and analyze texts and to write well-developed, organized, and coherent analytic essays. At the end of the course,
students who have successfully completed this course will take the CUNY Assessment Test in Writing known as the CATW.
ESL students who are enrolled in Advanced Composition for ESL Students may come from four sources. First, some exit from BE203 Intermediate
Composition for ESL Students after passing the departmental examination at the end of the previous semester. Second, some are placed directly in this
advanced composition course based on the performance on the College Assessment Tests. Third, a few could come from the College’s Language
Immersion Program when their proficiency reaches the entry level of advanced composition. Finally, some students who fail the course once will retake
this advanced composition course.
In Fall 2013, Dr. Jennifer Maloy in the Academic Literacy Department conducted an assessment of the BE205 Course. She was instrumental in devising
the original assessment plan. The present assessment project will first replicate Jennifer’s study from Fall 2013, assessing BE205 in the Fall of 2014 by
comparing the final exam scores in Fall 2013 with those in Fall 2014. In doing the replication study, this project will assess the areas of strength and
weakness in BE 205 students’ writing. We will use the same methods but with different subjects and a different researcher. If different results are
obtained, we will speculate why these differences occur and what type of actions that could be taken to help our students advance. In addition to
conducting the replication study, we will also



Compare scores on the Fall 2014 CATW with those on the Fall 2014 final,
Compare scores on the Fall 2013 CATW with those on the Fall 2013 final, and
Compare scores on the CATW in Fall 2013 with those in Fall 2014
This assessment project will use the CATW Analytic Scoring Rubric to identify the average score of 205 students in each of the five individual domains
that cover critical response, development of ideas, organization, sentence structure/vocabulary, and grammar/mechanics. Each of the five scoring
domains corresponds to one or more of the student learning outcomes for this course, as demonstrated in Table B.
Student Learning Outcomes
36
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Table A includes a list of the learning outcomes for BE 205 students. Each learning outcome corresponds to one or more of the following General
Education Objectives.
General Education Objectives:
3. Communicate effectively through reading, writing, listening and speaking
4. Use analytical reasoning to identify issues or problems and evaluate evidence in order to make informed decisions
5. Reason quantitatively and mathematically as required in their fields of interest and in everyday life
6. Use information management and technology skills effectively for academic research and lifelong learning
7. Integrate knowledge and skills in their program of study
8. Differentiate and make informed decisions about issues based on multiple value systems
9. Work collaboratively in diverse groups directed at accomplishing learning objectives
10. Use historical or social sciences perspectives to examine formation of ideas, human behavior, social institutions, or social processes
11. Employ concepts and methods of the natural and physical sciences to make informed judgments
12. Apply aesthetic and intellectual criteria in the evaluation or creation of works in the humanities or the arts
Table A
General
Education
Objective
BE 205 Student Learning Outcome
1,2
7. Students will write analytic essays of multiple paragraphs (500 words) that
introduce, develop, and conclude the discussion of an essay's topic with a
coherent focus.
1, 2
8. Students will write body paragraphs that develop one idea and support the
central focus of the essay.
1, 2
9. Students will write essays that demonstrate the logical development of an
essay by using transitional words between and within paragraphs.
1, 2, 6
10. Students will summarize and analyze a variety of texts, identifying and
engaging in important ideas from the text and relating these ideas to other
readings or personal experiences.
1
11. Students will follow conventions of Standard Written English (SWE),
specifically using coordination and subordination to achieve sentence variety
37
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
as well as an appropriate and consistent level of diction in their essays.
1
12. Students will write essays, in and out of class, with minimal global errors,
showing a command of sentence boundaries and will be able to write an essay
that contains very few local errors related to fragments and/or run-ons,
subject-verb agreement, verb tense, pronoun agreement and reference, and
basic punctuation and capitalization.
1
13. Students will be able to proofread effectively for surface errors such
misspellings, as well as missing or misused apostrophes, articles, possessive
nouns, prepositions, and content words.
Student Assignment for Assessment
The assignment chosen for assessment was a timed in-class essay that served as BE 205 students’ final exam. During the last week of November 2014,
all students enrolled in BE 205 took a standardized final exam that resembles the CATW in instructions, requirements, and scoring (see Appendix II).
The final exam is completed approximately two weeks before classes end so that students have a clear assessment of their performance, but still have
time to rectify their writing issues by seeking tutoring or working with their instructors. Generally, a student’s score on the final exam serves as an
indicator of the score that the student will receive on the CATW exam, which all BE 205 students in good standing take at the end of the semester. The
writing directions, accompanying reading passage, scoring rubric and process, and the physical conditions of the exam closely resemble the CATW.
In the final exam, students have 90 minutes to write an essay that responds to a reading passage they are given. Students may use only a dictionary or
thesaurus and must write in pen in a blue book. The writing instructions for the exam are as follows:
Read the article provided and compose an essay that summarizes the short text, identifies a significant idea in the text, and relates it to your
own reading, observations, or personal experience. Your essay should consist of an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.
Students are then presented with a description of what to include in their introduction, body, and conclusion, and the CATW Analytical Scoring Rubric
and a scoring sheet is provided to students along with the reading they are asked to use.
The article to which the students were asked to respond was titled, “Is There Really Such a Thing As a ‘Morning Person’? adapted from a World Science
Festival on-line newsletter by Clare Smith Marash (see Appendix II).
Grading Policy for 2013
Upon collecting exams from students, all instructors teaching BE 205 scored their students’
38
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
writing using the CATW Analytic Scoring Rubric and then arranged for another BE 205 instructor to score the exams. The scoring of the exams by two
readers resembles the scoring protocol used for the CATW. All BE 205 instructors participated in norming sessions prior to scoring the exams.
Grading Policy for 2014
The AL Department instituted a new grading policy and provided additional norming sessions so that the AL instructors’
grading was more accurately aligned with the official CATW readers’ grading. In Fall 2014, the midterm and final exams were
exchanged among the writing instructors who blindly read and graded the exam from two other classes. If an instructor
disagreed with the final score, he/she could provide a departmental committee with a student portfolio and/or offer another
writing exam to guarantee that each student was assessed accurately. The purpose of implementing the new grading policy was
to reduce the subjective effect of an instructor’s grading his/her own students’ tests.
Evidence for Assessment
When scoring the final exam, instructors use the CATW Analytic Scoring Rubric, which assesses student essays in the following five areas:
1. Critical Response to the Writing Task and the Test: This category focuses on whether students understand the main ideas in the text and
understand the nature of the writing task, which is to discuss these ideas and to critically analyze and integrate them with their own ideas and
experiences.
2. Development of the Writer’s Ideas: In this category students are assessed on whether they are able to develop their ideas through
summary, narrative and/or problem/solution. Students should support statements with details and examples from what students have
experienced, read, or learned about. Students also must refer to specific ideas from the reading to support their ideas.
3. Structure of the Response: This category focuses on students’ ability to express ideas that connect to a central focus or thesis and to use an
organizational structure and transitions that help to support the thesis.
4. Language Use: Sentences and Word Choice: This category focuses on clarity and sentence control.
5. Language Use: Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics: This category focuses on students’ ability to follow conventions of Standard American
English.
The domains of the scoring rubric correspond to the Student Learning Outcomes as indicated in Table B.
Table B
CATW Analytic Scoring
Rubric Domain
205 Student Learning Outcome
39
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Critical Response to the
Writing Task and the Text
4. Students will summarize and analyze a variety of texts, identifying and
engaging in important ideas from the text and relating these ideas to other
readings or personal experiences.
Development of the Writer’s
Ideas
1. Students will write analytic essays of multiple paragraphs (500 words) that
introduce, develop, and conclude the discussion of an essay's topic with a
unified, logical, and coherent focus.
Structure of the Response
2. Students will write body paragraphs that develop one idea and support the
central focus of the essay.
Year: 2014- 2015
3. Students will write essays that demonstrate the logical development of an
essay by using transitional words between and within paragraphs.
Language Use: Sentences
and Word Choice
5. Students will follow conventions of Standard Written English (SWE),
specifically using coordination and subordination to achieve sentence variety
as well as an appropriate and consistent level of diction in their essays.
Language Use: Grammar,
Usage, and Mechanics
6. Students will write essays, in and out of class, with minimal global errors,
showing a command of sentence boundaries and will be able to write an
essay that contains very few local errors related to fragments and/or run-ons,
subject-verb agreement, verb tense, pronoun agreement and reference, and
basic punctuation and capitalization.
7. Students will be able to proofread effectively for surface errors such
misspellings, as well as missing or misused apostrophes, articles, possessive
nouns, prepositions, and content words.
In this assessment, each of the five individual domains listed above has been scored on a scale of 1-6 by two 205 instructors. The scores from each
instructor are calculated according to CATW guidelines. Domains 1, 2, 3 (Content) are double-weighted. Domains 4, 5 (Language Use) are added to
Content domains, and these are single-weighted. And then the scores from both individual instructors are combined for a totaled score.
The researcher also would average the two individual scores the student essay receives in each domain. The average of the two scores will be used to
calculate the mean scores of all essays within the samples across the five domains.
Please refer to Appendix for a copy of the CATW Analytic Scoring Rubric.
40
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Example of a Final Exam Scoring Sheet
The CATW Analytic Scoring Rubric (Appendix I) includes detailed descriptions of each score in each domain; however, Table C presents a general
description of each score, ranging from 1 to 6.
41
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Table C: Description of Scores within the CATW Analytic Scoring Rubric
Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
Description
The student demonstrates a minimal ability to accomplish the task within the essay.
The student demonstrates a weak ability to accomplish the task within the essay.
The student demonstrates a general or uneven ability to accomplish the task within the essay.
The student demonstrates a competent ability to accomplish the task within the essay.
The student demonstrates an effective or skillful ability to accomplish the task within the essay.
The student demonstrates a thoughtful or insightful approach to accomplishing the task within the
essay.
The total score may range from 16 (in which the student writer received a score of 1 from each reader in each of the five domains) to 96 (in which the
student writer received a score of 6 from each reader in each of the five domains). In terms of the CATW, students must receive a score of 56 in order to
pass the exam and exit writing remediation. The borderline score of 56 indicates that a student has received a majority of individual scores of 4,
described as “competent” in the rubric; however, the student also scored a 3 in more than one area of the exam, meaning some aspects of the essay were
deemed “uneven” or “general.”
Assignment to Assess
The student assignment that was assessed across the course was the final exam in BE 205, which was a timed in-class essay given department-wide in
the last week of November in 2014. Below is a description of the writing instructions that students were given, along with a short passage
(approximately 300 words), which was selected by the department’s Director of Writing in mid-November.
Writing Directions: Read the passage above and write an essay responding to the ideas it presents. In your essay, be sure to summarize the passage in
your own words, stating the author’s most important ideas. Develop your essay by identifying one idea in the passage that you feel is especially
significant, and explain its significance. Support your claims with evidence or examples drawn from your own experiences or what you have read or
learned about outside of class.
Remember to review your essay and make any changes or corrections that are needed to help your reader follow your thinking. You will have 90
minutes to complete your essay.
Analysis of Assessment Results
The researcher recorded the scores received by each student, examining the scores from individual readers as well as the average scores in each domain
to determine which areas BE205 students scored the highest, indicating achievement of particular learning outcomes by the end of the semester, and
areas in which the students scored the lowest, indicating a need for improvement in particular learning outcomes.
The current project will take the following steps to assess the BE205 course:
42
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Year: 2014- 2015
Section A: Replicating Jennifer’s study from Fall 2013, assessing BE205 in the Fall of 2014,
Section B: A comparison of scores on Fall 2014 CATW with those on Fall 2014 in-class final,
Section C: A comparison of scores between Fall 2013 CATW and Fall 2013 in-class final, and
Section D: A comparison of the average Scores on the CATW between Fall 2013 and Fall 2014.
Section E: Resulting Action Plan
Section A
A Comparison of Final Exam Scores between Fall 2013 and Fall 2014
Table 1: Comparing Final Exam Scores in Fall 2013 with Those in Fall 2014
Fall 2013 vs. Fall 2014
Score
Average
Total n
Passed n
Failed n
Passing
percentage
Failure
percentage
2013
In-Class
Final
55.8
123
76
47
62%
38%
2014
In-Class
Final
52.26
100
30
70
30%
70%
43
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Figure 1: Comparing Final Exam Scores in Fall 2013 with Those in Fall 2014
Table 1 and Figure 1 represented the comparison between the 2013 and 2014 in-class final scores. The data were as follows:



123 students took the in-class final in Fall 2013, whereas 100 students (2 students missed the final) took the final in Fall 2014.
The average total final score in 2013 is 55.8, which was close to a 56, a passing score on the CATW, while the average total in 2014 was
52.26, 3.74 below a CATW passing score.
76 students, or 62% of the students passed the 2013 final, whereas 30, or 30% of the students passed the 2014 final.
The above data demonstrated that 76 students, or 62% of the students in Fall 2013 received a passing score on the final in agreement with the CATW
rubric. This 62 % pass rate gave an indication of a similar pass rate on the CATW exam. However, Department data reveals that only 26.63% of the
BE205 students passed the CATW. The results illustrate that the AL readers’ scoring of the finals was not accurately aligned with the official CATW
readers’ grading. Seen in this light, there might be some misrepresentation of the grading accuracy. As already noted on Grading Policy in 2013 on
page 4, this final exam was graded by the BE205 students’ teacher and another writing instructor.
In contrast, under a new grading policy (see p.4 Grading Policy in 2014), the pass rate of the Fall 2014 final was 30%, 32% lower than 62% on the Fall
2013 final. Only 30 students out of 100 passed the in-class final. In other words, a majority of the BE205 students, or 70 % of the students received a
44
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
score lower than 56. The outcomes indicate that the passing percentage on the Fall 2014 final considerably declined, possibly as a result of the
implementation of the new grading policy, even though other possible variables could also have an impact on student performance, such as different
groups of students and different writing topics.
However, according to the current study, 41% of the BE205 students passed the actual Fall 2014 CATW exam, which was 11% higher than the in-class
final pass rate of 30%.
The instructors’ grading on the final indicates that they graded the final a bit too harshly this time, but to a certain extent, they increased the
representation of the grading accuracy. In contrast to a pass rate of 26.63% in Fall 2013, a pass rate of 41% of the BE205 students on the CATW in Fall
2014 demonstrated their ability to write multiple-paragraph essays that introduce, develop, and conclude the discussion of an assay’s topic with a
unified, logical, and coherent focus. This increased pass rate could be largely explained by the Department’s multifaceted, dynamic support, including
implementing a new grading policy, running a series of norming sessions arranged by the Best Practice Committee to help writing instructors improve
grading accuracy, offering Friday CATW writing workshops to multiple BE205 course repeaters, and requiring writing instructors to include High
Impact Practices in BE205 courses that allowed ESL students to develop summarizing, paraphrasing, developing ideas, etc.
Table 2: A Comparison of Domain Scores
A Comparison of Each Domain Score: Fall 2013 vs. Fall 2014
2013 In-Class
Average Score
2014 In-Class
Average Score
Differences
CR: Critical Response to Writing Task and Text
3.65
3.25
-0.40
DI: Development of Writer’s Ideas
3.50
3.36
-0.14
SR: Structure of the Response
3.71
3.34
-0.37
LUSW: Language Use: Sentences and Word Choice
3.20
3.04
-0.16
LUGM: Language Use: Grammar, Usage,
Mechanics
3.05
3.19
0.14
In-Class
Figure 2: A Comparison of Final Exam Scores in Each Domain between 2013 and 2014
45
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
4
3.5
3.65
3.71
3.50
3.25
Year: 2014- 2015
3.36
3.34
3.20
3.04
3.05
3.19
3
2.5
2
2013 In-Class Final
1.5
2014 In-Class Final
1
0.5
0
CR Average DI Average SR Average
Score
Score
Score
LUWS
Average
Score
LUGM
Average
Score
Table 2 and Figure 2 represent two different readers’ average score of each of the five individual domains for both 2013 and 2014 in-class finals. The
average score comparison was as follows:





The average score in CR for 2013 in-class final was 3.65, while the 2014 average CR domain score was 3.25, which was 0.40 lower.
The average score in DI was 3.50 for Fall 2013, and 3.36 for Fall 2014, which was 0.14 lower.
The average score in SR was 3.71 for Fall 2013, and 3.34 for Fall 2014, which was 0.37 lower.
The average score in LUSW was 3.20 for Fall 2013, and 3.04 for Fall 2014, which was 0.16 lower.
The average score in LUGM domain was 3.05 for Fall 2013, and 3.19 for Fall2014, which was 0.14 higher.
Table 2 and Figure 2 represent the domain in Fall 2013 in which students scored highest in Structure of the Response and lowest in Language Use:
Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics, whereas in Fall 2014 students scored highest in Development of Ideas and lowest in Language Use: Sentences and
Word Choice. Overall, students in both 2013 and 2014 performed better in the first 3 double-weighted Content domains than in the last 2 singleweighted Language Use domains.
Within the 3 Content domains, in Fall 2013 students received the highest score in the Structure of the Response domain (3.71), which may demonstrate
that the students could organize their ideas around a central focus, and the lowest in the Development of Writer’s Ideas domain (3.50). In contrast, the
students in Fall 2014 received the highest score in the DI domain (3.36), and the lowest in the CR domain (3.25).
46
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
These findings reveal that in 2013, among the Content categories the DI domain was identified as the weakest area for the BE205 students. In 2014, on
the contrary, the DI domain received the highest average scores. At least, the students’ performance in the DI domain did not seem to become the most
pressing issue, even though 3.36 was not really an accurate score to demonstrate the writers’ ability to competently develop ideas. Data in Table 2 and
Figure 2 show that the weakest area identified in 2014 was the CR domain (3.25 in contrast to 3.65 in 2013).
As shown above, to help students improve college writing and achieve learning outcomes,
it may be necessary to examine why the students’ average scores in this CR domain on the Fall 2014 final were the lowest of the 3 Content domains.
First, the BE205 students faced many obstacles while trying to express an opinion about text and demonstrating their understanding of the key ideas in
the reading. Many ESL students may not have sufficient opportunity to practice expressing their opinions about a particular issue. Also, most CATW
reading texts are culture bound, so English language learners may not be aware of the information that the author left unsaid. As indicated in the CUNY
CATW Analytic Scoring Rubric, to receive a passing score in the CR domain, students have to critically discuss ideas in the text and consistently
demonstrate an understanding of the main ideas and some of the complexity in the text. Hence, it would be a more helpful effort for the instructors in the
Department of Academic Literacy to spend an appropriate amount of time teaching ESL students how to express their opinions by activating ESL
learners’ prior knowledge or building and enhancing their background information.
In conclusion, the present project first assessed the BE205 course in the Fall of 2014 by replicating the previous study from Fall 2013. In replicating the
previous study, the investigator obtained different results among the three Content domains. These results indicate that




In 2013, the weakest area identified for the BE205 students was the Development of Ideas domain.
In 2013, the CR domain received the highest score.
In contrast, in 2014 the DI domain received the highest scores, and
In 2014, the weakest area identified was the Critical Response domain.
There are a variety of factors that may have contributed to these differences, such as groups of students, the topic of the reading, students’ test anxiety,
students’ attitudes toward learning, and instructors’ grading accuracy. Therefore, in terms of the three Content categories for this replication study, it is
difficult to say which specific Content domain is the strongest, and which is the weakest and needs more time for improvement. In fact, each Content
domain continues to deserve much attention in order to help ESL students to write a strong reading-response essay.
Section B
A Comparison of Scores on Fall 2014 CATW with Those on Fall 2014 In-Class Final
Table 4: Comparing Scores on the Fall 2014 CATW with Those on the Fall 2014 Final,
47
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Year: 2014- 2015
Fall 2014 Actual CATW Scores versus Fall 2014
In-Class Final Scores
Score
Average
Total n
Passed n
Failed n
Passing
percentage
Failure
percentage
Actual
CATW
52.26
102
42
60
41%
59%
In-Class
Final
52.26
100
30
70
30%
70%
Figure 3: A Comparison of Scores between 2014 CATW and 2014 In-Class Final
Table 3 and Figure 3 represent an average total score and passing rate for the Fall 2014 CATW and in-class final. In Table 3 and Figure 3, we see
48
Queensborough Community College



Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
102 students took the actual CATW exam, whereas 100 students (2 students missed the final) took the final,
The average total final score for 2014 CATW was 52.26, while the average total for the in-class final was 52.26, and
42 students, or 41% of the students passed the 2014 CATW, while 30, or 30% of the students passed the in-class final.
Overall, the average total scores for the CATW and in-class final in Fall 2014 were coincidently identical. The true reason behind this identicalness
remains unknown. Future research needs to explore how to decrease misrepresentation of grading accuracy. One way to improve consistency is to
encourage all instructors to become certified CATW readers. As shown in Table 3 and Figure 3, the pass rate of the CATW in Fall 2014 increased by
11% compared to the pass rate of 30% in the in-class final.
Table 4: A Comparison of Average Scores in Each Domain between Fall 2014 CATW and Fall 2014 In-Class Final
Fall 2014 Actual CATW Average Scores versus
CATW
In-Class Average Scores in Each Domain
Actual CATW
In-Class Final
Domain
Average Score
Average Score
Differences
CR: Critical Response to writing task and text
3.39
3.25
-0.14
DI: Development of writer’s Ideas
3.34
3.36
0.02
SR: Structure of the Response
3.29
3.34
0.05
LUSW: Language Use: Sentences and Word
Choice
3.10
3.04
-0.06
LUGM: Language Use: Grammar, Usage,
Mechanics
3.00
3.19
0.19
Figure 4: A Comparison of Average Scores in Each Domain between Fall 2014 CATW and Fall 2014 In-Class Final
49
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Table 4 and Figure 4 represent the average score of each domain for both the actual CATW test and in-class final in Fall 2014.





The average score of the CR domain for the actual CATW test was 3.39, while the in-class final average score was 3.25, which was 0.14 lower.
The average score of the DI domain for the actual CATW test was 3.34, while the in-class final was 3.36,
The average score of the SR domain for the actual CATW test was 3.29, while the in-class final was 3.34,
The average score of the LUSW domain for the actual CATW test was 3.10, while the in-class final was 3.04, and
The average score of the LUGM domain for the actual CATW test was 3.00, while the in-class final was 3.19, which was 0.19 higher.
Basically, the average score in each individual domain for the in-class final was adjacent to that of the CATW in 2014. The outcomes exemplified that
since the AL instructors’ scoring of the in-class final was better aligned with the official CATW readers’ grading, the scores on the in-class final more
adequately reflected what the BE205 students had actually learned, even though the grading process was still not completely consistent, particularly in
the domains of Critical Response and Language Use.
Section C
50
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Year: 2014- 2015
A Comparison of Scores between Fall 2013 CATW and Fall 2013 In-Class Final
Table 5: Comparing Scores on the Fall 2013 CATW with Those on the Fall 2013 Final
Fall 2013 Actual CATW Scores versus
Fall 2013 In-Class Final Scores
Score
Average
Total n
Passed n
Failed n
Passing
percentage
Failure
percentage
Actual
CATW
51.57
199
53
146
26.63%
73.37%
In-Class
Final
55.8
123
76
47
62%
38%
Figure 5: Comparing Scores between Fall 2013 CATW and Fall 2013 In-Class Final
Table 5 and Figure 5 represent an average total score and passing rate for the Fall 2013 CATW and Fall 2013 in-class final. The data in Table 5 and
Figure 5 were presented as follows:
51
Queensborough Community College



Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
199 students took the actual CATW exam in Fall 2013, whereas among the students who took the in-class final exam, a sample size of 123
students was selected for the purpose of the course assessment in Fall 2013,
The average total final score for 2013 CATW was 51.57, while the average total for the in-class final was 55.8, which was 4.23 points higher
than the actual CATW passing score of 56, and
53 students, or 26.63% of the students passed the 2013 CATW, while 76, or 62% of the students passed the in-class final.
In general, in the in-class final, the pass rate was 62% while in the CATW, 26.63% of the students passed. These results illustrated that the AL readers’
grading was not rigorous enough.
Table 6: Comparing the Fall 2013 CATW Scores with Those on the Fall 2013 Final in Each Domain
Fall 2013 Actual CATW Average Scores versus
Fall 2013 In-Class Average Scores in Each Domain
Actual CATW
Average Score
In-Class Final
Average Score
Differences
CR: Critical Response to Writing Task and Text
3.36
3.65
0.29
DI: Development of Writer’s Ideas
3.28
3.50
0.22
SR: Structure of the Response
3.25
3.71
0.36
LUSW: Language Use: Sentences and Word Choice
3.05
3.20
0.15
LUGM: Language Use: Grammar, Usage,
Mechanics
2.96
3.05
0.09
CATW Domain
52
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Figure 6: A Comparison of the Average Scores in Each Domain between Fall 2013 CATW and Fall 2013 In-Class Final
Table 6 and Figure 6 represent the average score of each domain for both actual CATW test and in-class final in Fall 2013. The data in Table 6 and
Figure 6 were presented as follows:





The average score of the CR domain for the actual CATW test in Fall 2013 was 3.36, while the in-class final average score was 3.65, which
was 0.29 higher.
The average score of the DI domain for the actual CATW test was 3.28, while the in-class final was 3.50, which was 0.22 higher,
The average score of the SR domain for the actual CATW test was 3.25, while the in-class final was 3.71, which was 0.36 higher,
The average score of the LUSW domain for the actual CATW test was 3.05, while the in-class final was 3.20, which was 0.15 higher, and
The average score of the LUGM domain for the actual CATW test was 2.96, while the in-class final was 3.05, which was 0.09 higher.
As demonstrated in Table 6 and Figure 6, the scores on the final in Fall 2013 were not aligned with the actual CATW scores because the grading of the
in-class final was not a reliable measure of the student learning outcomes.
53
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Year: 2014- 2015
Section D
A Comparison of the Average Scores on the CATW between Fall 2013 and Fall
2014
Table 7: Comparing Scores on the CATW in Fall 2013 with Those in Fall 2014
Scores on the CATW: Fall 2013 vs. Fall 2014
Score
Average
Total n
Passed n
Failed n
Passing
percentage
Failure
percentage
Fall 2013
CATW
51.57
199
53
146
26.63%
73.37%
Fall 2014
CATW
52.26
102
42
60
41%
59%
54
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Figure 7: Comparing Scores on the CATW in Fall 2013 with Those in Fall 2014
Table 7 and Figure 7 represented a comparison of scores on the CATW between Fall 2013 and Fall 2014. The data were as follows:



199 students took the CATW in Fall 2013, whereas 102 students took the CATW in Fall 2014.
The average total CATW score in Fall 2013 was 51.57, while the average total in Fall 2014 was 52.26.
53 students, or 26.63% of the students passed the 2013 CATW, while 42, or 41% of the students passed the 2014 CATW.
These results demonstrated that in Fall 2014, 42 students out of 102, or 41% of the BE205 students passed the CATW, which was 11% higher than the
pass rate of 30% in the Fall 2013 CATW, indicating that 41% of the BE205 students successfully achieved the learning objectives of the course.
Table 8: A Comparison of Scores on the CATW in Each Domain between Fall 2013 and Fall 2014
Comparing the Average Scores Given by Two Official CATW Readers in Each CATW Domain: Fall
2013 vs. Fall 2014
CATW Domain
CR: Critical Response to writing task and text
2013 CATW
Average Domain
Score
2014 CATW
Average Domain
Score
Differences
3.36
3.39
0.03
55
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
DI: Development of writer’s Ideas
3.28
3.34
0.04
SR: Structure of the Response
3.25
3.29
0.04
LUSW: Language Use: Sentences and Word
Choice
3.05
3.10
0.05
LUGM: Language Use: Grammar, Usage,
Mechanics
2.96
3.00
0.04
Figure 8: A Comparison of the Scores on the CATW in Each Domain between Fall 2013 and Fall 2014
Table 8 and Figure 8 represent two official CATW readers’ average scores of each of the five individual CATW domains for both Fall 2013 and Fall
2014. Basically, the average score of each domain for both 2013 and 2014 was not high enough compared to a score of 3.5 [ 2(3+4) + 2(3+4) +
2(3+4) + (3+4) + (3+4) = 56], a minimum average passing score for each domain. This clearly indicates the big challenges that ESL students face in
each domain when they do college-level writing in English. The data in Table 8 and Figure 8 were presented as follows:

The average score in CR for 2013 CATW was 3.36, while the 2014 average CR domain score was 3.39, which was 0.03 higher.
56
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College




Year: 2014- 2015
The average score in DI was 3.28 for Fall 2013, and 3.34 for Fall 2014, which was 0.06 higher,
The average score in SR was 3.25 for Fall 2013, and 3.29 for Fall 2014, which was 0.04 higher.
The average score in LUSW was 3.05 for Fall 2013, and 3.10 for Fall 2014, which was 0.05 higher.
The average score in LUGM domain was 2.96 for Fall 2013, and 3.00 for Fall2014, which was 0.04 higher.
The data shown above reveal that the Structure of the Response domain among the Content categories consecutively received the lowest scores, 3.25 in
Fall 2013 and 3.29 in Fall 2014, suggesting that the SR domain was identified as the weakest area for the BE205 students.
To have a better understanding of the BE205 students’ academic performance, a closer look at a score distribution in the SR domain will be particularly
helpful to the AL Department.
Figure 9: Fall 2013 CATW: A Score Distribution in the Structure of the Response Domain
Fall 2013 CATW Score Distribution in SR
Domain
300
255/398
250
200
119/398
150
100
2013 CATW SW
Score distribution
23/398
5.78%
1/398
0.25%
50
0
score of 2
score of 3
score of 4
score of 5
398 means a total
number of scores out
of 199 individual
essays
In Fall 2013, 199 students took the actual CATW exam. According to Figure 9, 199 students were graded by two certified CATW readers. Each of the
199 students’ essays was graded by two different readers, so a total of 398 scores were identified. The spread of scores was as follows:
 23 were a score of 2, or 5.78% of students’ structures were
 255 were a score of 3, or 64.07%
 119 were a score of 4, or 29.90%, and
57
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College

Year: 2014- 2015
1 was a score of 5, or 0.25%
The Structure of the Response domain measures students’ ability to organize ideas into a coherent essay that backs up a central focus, or thesis. These
figures reveal that only 29.90% of students’ essay organization competently supported the central focus and showed evidence of logical progression of
ideas in this domain. On the other hand, 255 scores out of 398 were 3. This means 64.07% of students’ structures were uneven, and ideas were
sometimes disconnected because they could be characterized by digression, thus failing to answer the question or substantiate an argument or position in
writing through the use of “evidence.” These results emphasize a serious issue among ESL students when they compose off-topic statements that are not
closely related to the significant idea they tried to develop. The ESL students may have made some good points, but they have not substantiated them.
As a result, their response may be too wordy, confusing, or complicated.
Figure 10: Fall 2014 CATW: A Score Distribution in the Structure of the Response Domain
Fall 2014 CATW Score Distribution
in SR
113/204
55.39%
120
100
76/204
37.25%
80
60
40
20
2/204
0.98%
13/204
6.37%
0
Score of 1 Socre of 2 Score of 3 Score of 4
Fall 2014 CATW Score
Distribution in SR
204 means a total
number of scores out
of 102 individual
essays
Figure 10 indicates that102 students were graded by two readers. In addition, because each of the 102 students’ essays was graded by two different
readers, a total of 204 scores were identified.
The spread of scores was as follows:
58
Queensborough Community College




Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
2 were a score of 1,
13 were a score of 2,
113 were a score of 3, and
76 were a score of 4.
As discussed earlier, on the Fall 2013 CATW, only 29.90% of the organizational structure of the response supported progression of the writer’ ideas.
Likewise, the above figures again demonstrate that in Fall 2014, no more than 37% of students’ structure was evident and had a logical progression of
ideas that competently supported the writers’ central focus. Clearly, more than half of the organizational structures, or 55.39 % of students’ structures
were uneven, and relationships among ideas may not be consistently linked, thereby failing to achieve the purpose of the writing.
Research shows that ESL students, unlike their American counterparts, are less direct in text and paragraph organization. From the perspective of
contrastive rhetoric, this digression issue could be culture specific. It may be very challenging for ESL students because many of them would wander off
the subject without being aware that their writing is straying off the topic because indirectness is common or acceptable in their native languages. A
simple trick is to just train students to have an outline of what it is they intend to write about to make sure their response answers the question.
Finally, the students scored lowest in the two Language Use categories. These findings in 2014 are congruent with the results of 2013 in terms of
language use. Given the nature of second language acquisition, these college-level ESL learners’ writing presents unique features of syntax and choice
of words when compared to English. These results may be attributed to BE205 students’ linguistic backgrounds. Some of the specific challenges they
faced may include

Difficulty expressing concepts and ideas in English: Because of different linguistic backgrounds, BE205 students feel that their words often fail
to convey the meaning,

An abundance of idioms and figurative language in a reading text,

Density of unfamiliar vocabulary,

Word order and sentence structure: English writers sometimes use unusual word order or invent rules that could be extremely difficult to
BE205 students. For example, they will will write The book that you gave me I’d read already. The significant differences between English and
some other languages, such as Korean and Chinese, particularly in sentence structures, make it extremely hard for most Korean and Chinese
ESL students to acquire English at the same rate as, for example, their Spanish-speaking peers whose sentence structure is similar to English.
Therefore, it is difficult for many BE205 students to build correctly ordered sentences in English,

English strongly stresses cohesion of form, while in some other languages, surface links are optional because meaning is understood from
context. Thus, when BE205 students are instructed to use transitions to create the logical relationship among ideas, they would often use them
inappropriately.

Difficult text structure. The reason is that CATW practice readings are OFTEN lack topic sentences,

Unfamiliarity with the connotative and denotative meanings of words
59
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
It can be very frustrating for students to readily and clearly articulate complex thoughts in an English-dominant context. Therefore, BE205 students need
explicit instruction in how to use the language to convey the meaning expected by an English reader.
Conclusion
The outcomes of this BE205 course assessment have pointed out the areas of strength and weakness in BE205 students’ academic writing. Overall, the
outcomes indicate that BE205 students’ ability to think and write in English has been reinforced through the collaborative joint efforts of the whole
Department, which was reflected in the increased pass rate of 41% of the BE205 students on the Fall 2014 CATW in contrast to that of 26.63% on the
Fall 2013 CATW. However, the urgent need for improvement may lie in BE 205 students’ ability to develop their related ideas to support their essay’s
central focus through careful analysis of texts as well as their own experience, even though continuing efforts should be made to increase competence in
the three Content domains.
Another area for improvement for BE 205 students is language use. BE205 students have different needs than native speakers of English and need
frequent, guided practice in using language to develop as academic writers. Finally, to decrease the misrepresentation of grading accuracy, the
Department needs to continue to encourage more BE 205 instructors to train to become certified CATW readers.
Section E: Resulting Action Plan
In this section, action plan includes –but are not limited to – the following:
Here are some suggestions for addressing the areas of improvement. The goal is to improve student learning outcomes in that specific area in which
BE205 students have demonstrated weaknesses.
1. Avoiding Digressions in the Critical Response Domain:
This domain is double weighted and measures students’ ability to organize related ideas into a coherent essay that clearly and consistently supports the
writer’s central focus. When writers focus on irrelevant details, the score on this domain decreases. Findings show that instead of maintaining focus by
directly responding to the question throughout the response, the BE205 students may sometimes focus on irrelevant details or loosely related details
(64.06% of students on the Fall 2013 CATW and 55.39% of students on the Fall 2014 CATW had this issue). “Digression” prevents students from
answering the question, so teachers should dedicate a little more time training students to organize the relationships among ideas, so that students learn
how to group relevant ideas together to show how each idea is interconnected.
2. Designing a Series of Best Practice Lessons on the “Digression” Issue
Since the Structure of the Response domain presents an issue for BE205 students, it is recommended that a series of Faculty Development lessons on the
“digression” issue be designed and presented within the Department to improve students’ performance as well as instructors’ awareness of the issue.
3. Integrating High Impact Practices into the BE205 Course
60
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
To highly motivate students and significantly improve student learning outcomes and retention of critical content knowledge, it is suggested that
AL instructors incorporate High Impact Practices into the BE205 curriculum. This should be directly related to the CATW writing in the areas of
paraphrasing, summarizing, and development of ideas, sentence structure, sentence variety, grammar, and logical connections between sentences within
and beyond paragraphs.
4. Discussing Writing Student Samples in Class
Sentence structure and grammar are important, but showing student writing samples in class—not just isolated grammar mistakes, is even more
important. As demonstrated in this assessment, many of the BE205 students’ writing problems are weak vocabulary, a lack of sentence variety,
cohesion, and logic. These are not writing problems that most ESL students will be able to identify easily. For this reason, as suggested above, the
method of discussing writing samples may assist in the process.
5. Continuing Cross-Grading of Upper Level Writing Classes
Based on the findings in Fall 2014, Departmental cross-grading of upper-level writing classes worked well. To raise grading accuracy, this grading
policy should continue, and the Department should continue to offer norming sessions to maintain consistence in grading.
6. Raising the BE205 Placement Score to 52
Findings indicate that 42 students out of 102, or 41% of students passed the Fall 2014 CATW because their skills were too weak when they entered
BE205. Although the pass rate in Fall 2014 has increased considerably compared with the pass rate in the Fall 2013, this result suggests that the CATW
pass rate is still not satisfactory among BE205 learners. For this reason, the cutoff for a BE205 placement score should be raised to a score of 52 rather
than the current 50. This would ensure that students who enter BE205 have higher level skills so that they will be able to improve enough to pass the
CATW at the end of the term. Thus, it is recommended that we raise the BE205 placement score from 50 to 52.
7. Reducing Class Size for BE205
Smaller classes for BE205 are particularly effective at raising student learning outcomes as well as the CATW pass rate. With a smaller BE205 class
size of 15-20 students, teachers can provide individualized attention and hone in on students’ writing issues.
Copy of Assessment Materials
Appendix I: CATW Analytic Scoring Rubric
Appendix II: Standardized BE 205 Final Exam
61
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
62
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
63
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
64
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
65
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Attachment B BE225 Fall 2014 Assessment
QCC Course Assessment Form (short)
QCC COURSE ASSESSMENT FORM
Fall 2004, Rev. 6/15/07
Date: January 30, 2015
Department: Academic Literacy
Course: BE225 Basic Reading Skills for ESL Students
Curriculum or Curricula: LA
PART I. STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES
For Part I, attach the summary report (Tables 1-4) from the QCC Course Objectives Form.
(See Table #5 for Student Learning Objectives for Actual Assessment Assignment)
TABLE 1. EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT
BE 225 for ESL Students
First course of a two-semester sequence (with BE-226) for students who speak English as a
second language and who are in need of intensive instruction in fundamental reading and
communication skills. Emphasis is placed on development of word recognition skills,
knowledge of English idioms, listening skills, and literal comprehension. These skills
include phonics and pronunciation, word structure analysis, dictionary use, multiple
meanings of words, language patterns in reading, following directions, and basic notetaking skills from oral presentations.
TABLE 2. Curricular Objectives
Note: Include in this table curriculum-specific objectives that meet Educational Goals 1 and 2:
66
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
1) Distinguish between details and generalities in texts.
2) Paraphrase the author’s main ideas.
3) Summarize passages by paraphrasing main ideas and adding a few sentences of supporting details (made up of
paraphrases and/or quotes).
4) Distinguish between facts and opinions in texts.
5) Annotate texts using multiple techniques (e.g.. highlighting, marginalia, etc).
6) Distinguish between an inference and a stated claim.
7) Identify the author’s tone.
8) Identify and comprehend the idea of transition words.
9) Demonstrate effective group work skills through team project work and class reading groups.
10) Use context clues, dictionaries and root/prefix/suffix knowledge to understand unfamiliar words.
11) Use test-taking strategies to better manage time and self-access answers.
TABLE 3. General Education Objectives, based on draft Distributed at the January 2010 Praxis Workshops
To achieve these goals, students graduating with an associate degree will:
1.
Communicate effectively through reading, writing, listening and speaking.
2.
Use analytical reasoning to identify issues or problems and evaluate evidence in order to make informed decisions.
3.
Reason quantitatively and mathematically as required in their field of interest and in everyday life.
4.
Use information management and technology skills effectively for academic research and lifelong learning.
5.
Integrate knowledge and skills in their program of study.
6.
Differentiate and make informed decisions about issues based on multiple value systems.
7.
Work collaboratively in diverse groups directed at accomplishing learning objectives.
8.
Use historical or social sciences perspectives to examine formation of ideas, human behavior, social institutions, or social processes.
9.
Employ concepts and methods of the natural and physical sciences to make informed judgments.
10.
Apply aesthetic and intellectual criteria in the evaluation or creation of works in the humanities or the arts.
67
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Gen Ed
General educational objectives addressed by this course: Select from preceding list.
objective’s
ID number
from list (110)
1.
Communicate effectively through reading, writing, listening and speaking.
2.
Use analytical reasoning to identify issues or problems and evaluate evidence in order to make
informed decisions.
68
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
TABLE 4: Course Objectives and student learning outcomes
Course Objectives and Desired Outcomes
Upon successful completion of the course, while using some college-level texts,:
1) Students will be able to distinguish between details and generalities in texts.
2) Students will be able to paraphrase the author’s main ideas.
3) Students will be able to summarize passages by paraphrasing main ideas and adding a few sentences of
supporting details (made up of paraphrases and/or quotes).
4) Students will be able to distinguish between facts and opinions in texts.
5) Students will be able to annotate texts using multiple techniques (e.g.. highlighting, marginalia, etc).
6) Students will be able to distinguish between an inference and a stated claim.
7) Students will be able to identify the author’s tone.
8) Students will be able to identify, comprehend, and use the idea of transition words.
9) Students will be able to demonstrate effective group work skills through team project work and class
reading groups.
10) Students will be able to use context clues, dictionaries and root/prefix/suffix knowledge to understand
unfamiliar words.
11) Students will be able to use test-taking strategies to better manage time and self-access answers.
PART ii. Assignment Design: Aligning outcomes, activities, and assessment tools
For the assessment project, you will be designing one course assignment, which will address at least one general educational objective, one curricular
objective (if applicable), and one or more of the course objectives. Please identify these in the following table:
TABLE 5: OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED IN ASSESSMENT ASSIGNMENT
Course Objective(s) selected for assessment: (select from Table 4)
1) Students will be able to distinguish between details and generalities in texts.
2) Students will be able to paraphrase the author’s main ideas.
8) Students will be able to identify, comprehend, and appropriately use transition words.
Curricular Objective(s) selected for assessment: (select from Table 2)
1) Students will be able to distinguish between details and generalities in texts.
2) Students will be able to paraphrase the author’s main ideas.
8) Students will be able to identify, comprehend, and appropriately use transition words.
69
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
General Education Objective(s) addressed in this assessment: (select from Table 3)
1.
Communicate effectively through reading, writing, listening and speaking.
Reading: Students will read various passages and summarize them.
Writing: Students will write summaries.
Listening and speaking: Students will discuss key components of main ideas in passages and
summary writing in pairs, groups and as a class.
2.
Students will use analytical reasoning to identify issues or problems and evaluate evidence in order
to make informed decisions.
Students will make informed decisions about which ideas are most important to include in their
summaries. Students will learn to use analytical reasoning to determine what constitutes a major
detail, which is included in their summaries vs. minor and more insignificant details that are
omitted. Students who can achieve this objective will have a better opportunity to produce a
successful and passing summary.
Student Learning Outcomes:
1. Students will differentiate between major and minor details in reading passages.
2.
Students will organize their ideas using appropriate transitional devices.
3.
Students will write effective summaries on various reading passages.
In the first row of Table 6 that follows, describe the assignment that has been selected/designed for this project. In writing the description, keep in
mind the course objective(s), curricular objective(s) and the general education objective(s) identified above,
The assignment should be conceived as an instructional unit to be completed in one class session (such as a lab) or over several class sessions. Since
any one assignment is actually a complex activity, it is likely to require that students demonstrate several types of knowledge and/or thinking processes.
Also in Table 6, please
a) identify the three to four most important student learning outcomes (1-4) you expect from this assignment
b) describe the types of activities (a – d) students will be involved with for the assignment, and
c)
list the type(s) of assessment tool(s) (A-D) you plan to use to evaluate each of the student outcomes. (Classroom assessment tools may include
paper and pencil tests, performance assessments, oral questions, portfolios, and other options.)
70
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Note: Copies of the actual assignments (written as they will be presented to the students) should be gathered in an Assessment Portfolio for this
course.
TABLE 6: Assignment, Outcomes, Activities, and Assessment Tools
Briefly describe the assignment that will be assessed:
Students will be taught to read a short passage and summarize it effectively.
Desired student learning outcomes
Briefly describe the range of
What assessment tools will be
for the assignment
activities student will engage in
used to measure how well
(Students will…)
for this assignment.
students have met each learning
List in parentheses the Curricular
outcome? (Note: a single
Objective(s) and/or General
assessment tool may be used to
Education Objective(s) (1-10)
measure multiple learning
associated with these desired learning
outcomes; some learning
outcomes for the assignment.
outcomes may be measured using
multiple assessment tools.)
1) Students will distinguish between
1. Instrument Used: A
Baseline Assessment
details and generalities in texts.
In early October 2014, to form
Summary Scoring Rubric
(Curricular Objective #1)
baseline data the instructors were
derived from the (MTEL)
2) Students will paraphrase the
asked to assess their students’
Communication and Literacy
author’s main ideas. (Curricular
summarizing skills. Students were
Skills Test (01) –
given a reading entitled,
The baseline, mid-term, and final
Objective #2)
3) Students will summarize reading
“Facebook Moms”(See
summary results were assessed by
passages by identifying main ideas,
Attachment One.) to read and
using the MTEL rubric. (See
organizing these ideas effectively,
summarize. The MTEL Rubric was Attachment Six.) Improvements
using appropriate transitional devices, used to evaluate their performance. between assessments were
and producing their summaries by
(See Attachment Six.)
evaluated across sections and
using their own words.(Curricular
assessments to determine the
Preparation for Mid-term
improvement in students’ ability
Objectives #1,#2, and #8)
Assessment:
In mid-November, instructors were to write cohesive, accurate, and
General Education Objective #1
given a specific lesson on summary well-written summaries.
writing to assist their students in
Students will communicate
learning this skill (See Addendum
effectively through reading, writing,
for specific details of the lesson
listening and speaking.
that the teachers followed).
Day of the Lesson:
Desired Learning Outcome:
1. Students will read articles and
write well-organized, accurate, and
effective summaries of reading
passages.
After teachers taught their students
how to write a summary, which
took approximately forty minutes,
they gave students the passage on
American Teen Health to read (See
71
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
General Education Objective #2
Students will use analytical reasoning
to identify issues or problems and
evaluate evidence in order to make
informed decisions.
Desired Learning Outcome:
1. Students will be able to differentiate
between major and minor details.
Students will incorporate only the
most important details into their
summaries.
Year: 2014- 2015
Attachment Two). This took
approximately twenty-minutes.
Once the students had finished
reading it, they worked in pairs to
write a summary of it. This task
took approximately twenty to
twenty-five minutes. Once the
students had finished reading it,
they worked in pairs to write a
summary of it. This task took
approximately twenty to twentyfive minutes. Once the students
finished writing their summaries,
the teachers noted the keys ideas of
the passage on the board and asked
students to verify whether or not
they included these ideas. If they
hadn’t, they were instructed to jot
down notes below their summaries
and, revise their summaries at
home. Finally, the teacher gave
students the second article,
entitled,“ How Bullying’s Effects
Reach Beyond Childhood by
Alexandra Sifferlin (See
Attachment Three) and asked them
to summarize it for homework.
During the following class, the
teachers collected the homework
summaries and revised in-class
summaries. At the beginning of
class, teachers discussed the key
points of the homework
reading/summary. This took
approximately fifteen minutes to
twenty minutes.
Mid-term Assessment:
Several classes later, the students
participated in the Department’s
72
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Mid-term Assessment of summary
skill writing, which was measured
with the MTEL (See Attachment
Six). It should be noted that it is a
departmental practice for all
reading students to participate in
this midterm summary assessment.
This task required an entire class
period. The mid-term reading
“Conflicting Parenting Styles” by
Nancy Rocks (See Attachment
Four). Once the students finished
writing their summaries, teachers
placed them in the Dr. Julia
Carroll’s (Chairperson of the
Department’s Assessment
Committee) mailbox labeled with
the teacher’s name and class
sections on them.
The Assessment Committee then
evaluated the summaries according
to the MTEL rubric and recorded
the scores on a separate file.
Finally, the summaries were
returned to the teachers.
Preparation for the Final
Assessment:
At the end of the semester, the
students participated in the
Department Final Summary
Assessment. Like the Mid-term,
this assessment was a Departmentwide Assessment, which all
reading students were obligated to
take.
Prior to this assessment, teachers
repeated the summary lesson with
their own readings passages. By
revisiting this lesson, the teachers
employed a spiral pedagogical
73
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
approach whereby the same or very
similar lesson was repeated on
several occasions to reinforce
learning.
Day of the Actual Final
Assessment
The teachers administered the
Final Exam, which included a
summary. The passage that the
students read and summarized was
entitled “ I Think, Therefore I.M.
by Jennifer Lee (see Attachment
5). The students were given the
entire class period to complete the
exam. Once again, teachers placed
the materials in Dr. Carroll’s
mailbox and the Assessment
Committee evaluated them and
recorded the scores on a separate
roster, which was held on file.
74
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Part iii. Assessment Standards (Rubrics)
Before the assignment is given, prepare a description of the standards by which students’ performance will be measured. This could be a checklist, a
descriptive holistic scale, or another form. The rubric (or a version of it) may be given to the students with the assignment so they will know what the
instructor’s expectations are for this assignment.
Please note that while individual student performance is being measured, the assessment project is collecting performance data ONLY for the student
groups as a whole.
Table 7: Assessment Standards (Rubrics)
Describe the standards or rubrics for measuring student achievement of each outcome in the assignment:
This assessment used the (MTEL) Communication and Literacy Skills Test (01) rubric to evaluate the summary skills of three sections of BE225
students on three separate occasions during the semester. (See Attachment Six.) The first summary served as a baseline assessment to ascertain how well
students performed before receiving instruction. The next assessment was performed at the midterm after the students had experienced a specific
summary lesson and practice activities. Finally, the last summary assessment was utilized at the end of the semester to measure the improvement across
all three assessments.
Instrument Used: A Summary Scoring Rubric derived from the (MTEL) Communication and Literacy Skills Test (01) –
Background:
The MTEL Summary Scoring Rubric was developed by Department of Education of Massachusetts and Pearson Education. It is a combined reading
and writing test that incorporates the comprehension and analysis of readings as well as outlining and summarizing. It was first copyrighted in 2008
through Pearson Education.
The Department of Academic Literacy at QCC utilizes this rubric to assess summary writing at midterms and finals across all reading courses. In
addition, many writing instructors use it as well as a tool to assist their students with summary writing as part of their CATW assessment preparation.
Since this rubric has been successfully used as the official rubric to assess summary writing throughout the Department, the members of the Assessment
Committee concluded that it was an appropriate evaluation tool for the task of summary writing. This rubric consists of a four-point scale. The score of
one represents the lowest score and is not passing. Two is approaching a passing level. Three is passing, and four is higher than passing. Some of the
most important criteria that these scores are based on include: the extent to which the student understood the main idea of the article, how well the
student organized his or her own ideas, the degree to which the student used his or her own words, and how clearly the summary was written. This
rubric was provided to the BE225 instructors before they taught their lessons. Before their students participated in the assessments, the instructors
discussed the criteria of the rubric so that the students would clearly understand how they were to be evaluated.
How the MTEL Rubric Measured Curricular and General Educational Objectives for this
Assessment:
This rubric measured both Curricular Outcomes and General Education Outcomes.
Curricular Objectives:
1) Students will distinguish between details and generalities in texts. (Curricular Objective #1) This curricular objective is included the in the MTEL
because it examines how well students are able to locate an article’s most important ideas.
2) Students will paraphrase the author’s main ideas. (Curricular Objective #2) This curricular objective is included in the MTEL because it is critical
that students learn how to identify the author’s overall intentions in a variety of genres.
3) Students will summarize reading passages by identifying main ideas, organizing these ideas effectively, using appropriate transitional devices, and
producing their summaries by using their own words. (Curricular Objectives #1, #2, and #8). All of these components above are included in the
MTEL rubric.
75
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Year: 2014- 2015
General Educational Objectives:
1. Communicate effectively through reading, writing, listening and speaking. (General Education Objective #1). The rubric measured how well the
students read and understood reading passages as well as their ability to write an effective summary.
2. Use analytical reasoning to identify issue or problems and evaluate evidence in order to make informed decisions (General Education Objective #2).
Part iv. Assessment results
TABLE 8: Summary of Assessment Results
Use the following table to report the student results on the assessment. If you prefer, you may report outcomes using the rubric(s), or other graphical
representation. Include a comparison of the outcomes you expected (from Table 7, Column 3) with the actual results. NOTE: A number of the pilot
assessments did not include expected success rates so there is no comparison of expected and actual outcomes in some of the examples below.
However, projecting outcomes is an important part of the assessment process; comparison between expected and actual outcomes helps set benchmarks
for student performance.
TABLE 8: Summary of Assessment Results (Part of TABLE 9’s focus is subsumed in this section.)
The committee started with the assumption that scores would increase as a result of (a) the lesson, and (b) multiple exposures to the new skill in a
variety of situations (solo, group, examinations, and class-wide experiences). However, no specific expectations about the degree of improvement were
hypothesized. Thus, the generally positive results seem to indicate a highly successful unit.
Student achievement: Describe the group achievement of each desired outcome and the knowledge and cognitive processes demonstrated:
The lesson had one desired outcome: to improve students’ ability to write effective summaries. The following analyses and discussions
examine student improvements from the baseline assessment to the final assessment and from the midterm and to the final (See Table 1) and (See Table
2).
Table 1
Comparison of Baseline, Midterm and Final Summary
Assignment
Baseline
Midterm
Final
Total Improvement
n
Mean
SD
67
72
67
1.81
2.06
2.43
.500
.554
.529
Improvement
in Points
.25
.37
.62
Table 2
Comparison of Baseline, Midterm and Final Summary by Class
76
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Class
1
2
3
Assignment
Baseline
Midterm
Final
Total
Improvement
Baseline
Midterm
Final
Total
Improvement
Baseline
Midterm
Final
Total
Improvement
n
22
23
22
21
24
21
Mean
1.77
1.91
2.36
SD Improvement
.429
.288
.14
.492
.45
2.00
2.42
2.52
.59
.42
.10
.548
.717
.602
Year: 2014- 2015
.52
24
25
24
1.67
1.84
2.42
.482
.374
.504
.17
.58
.75
Discussion of Individual Classes (Table 2)
Although all three sections of BE225 improved over the course of the semester, there was variation among the classes. For example, Class #2
outperformed the other two sections in its overall improvement between the baseline and the midterm. For example, Class #2 achieved a mean score of a
2.0 on the original baseline assessment and was able to raise this score to 2.42. This was a .42 point improvement. In contrast, Class #1 and Class #3 had
a far more modest improvement between these two assessments. Class #1 began by scoring a 1.77 mean score on the baseline assessment and was only
increased to 1.91, which is only a slight improvement, a .14 point improvement. Likewise, Class #3 averaged a mean score of 1.67 on the baseline
assessment and only increased its mean score of 1.84 , which is only a .17 point increase. However, ironically these other sections caught up by the end
of the semester by demonstrating a more robust improvement between the midterm and the final assessment. Class #1 averaged a mean score of 1.91 on
the midterm but by the final assessment managed to raise their mean score to a 2.36, which a .45 point improvement. Likewise, Class #3 also showed
significant improvement raising its average mean score of 1.84, which was achieved on the midterm assessment to 2.42 on the final assessment, which is
a .58 point improvement. Class #2, however, which had the highest mean score out of all of the three sections on the midterm assessment as well as
demonstrating the most improvement between the baseline and the midterm, showed only slight improvement of .10 between the midterm and the
final, a mean score of 2.52. One possible explanation for these differences might be that the students in Class 2 were perhaps a bit stronger from the
beginning of the semester and were able to maintain that level until the very end of the semester, whereas the students in Class 1 and Class 3 needed
77
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Year: 2014- 2015
more time to improve their scores. Overall, the students in all three sections did make gains from the beginning of the semester to the end of the
semester even though the summary skills still need to improve.
Table 3
t Test of Dependent Means
Baseline
t
29.585
df Significance
66
.000*
MD
1.806
Midterm
31.493
71
.000*
2.056
Final
37.666
66
.000*
2.433
* p = .001
Discussion of Tables 1 and 3:
A t-test of Dependent means revealed a significant difference (p = .000) between the initial baseline summary test and
the midterm, and between the midterm and the final (p = .000). (See Table 1 for mean difference of the subjects.) When the
baseline analysis was conducted, the mean summary score was 1.806. However, by the midterm, the mean score had increased
to 2.056, and by the final it had risen to 2.43. This analysis indicates that these students benefited from a spiral pedagogy,
whereby the students were taught to summarize early in the semester and summarizing was revisited and reviewed throughout
the term to reinforce the skills required. However, it should be noted that in order to exit remedial reading classes, students
need to achieve a minimum score of three (3) on their final summary. Thus, although these students improved significantly,
they still need to enhance their ability to summarize so that they will be able read and comprehend entry-level college
textbooks in gateway courses such as English composition, psychology, sociology, criminology, etc.
78
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
TABLE 9. Resulting Action Plan
In the table below, or in a separate attachment, interpret and evaluate the assessment results, and describe the actions to be taken as a result of the
assessment. In the evaluation of achievement, take into account student success in demonstrating the types of knowledge and the cognitive processes
identified in the Course Objectives.
A. Analysis and interpretation of assessment results:
See section 8 above.
B. Evaluation of the assessment process:
What do the results suggest about how well the assignment and the assessment process worked both to help students learn and to show
what they have learned?
The results of this analysis suggest that the students entered this class with weak summarizing skills averaging only 1.81 on the baseline
assessment that was measured by the MTEL Summary Rubric. However, these students evidence a moderate improvement after instruction
on the midterm by scoring 2.06, which demonstrates an increase of .25 points or 14 % between the two assessments. In addition, they
further improved their scores by averaging 2.43 on the final assessment, which is an increase of .37 points or 18 % between the midterm
and the final. Overall, the students improved their scores by .62 points or 34 % between the final and the baseline at the beginning of the
semester.
These results suggest that the assignment, which was designed by a team of experts who have taught ESL reading and writing for many
years, worked well in that it used a repeated or spiral approach to teaching the same concept. These results also infer that these students
could have increased their scores more between the two assessments if they had benefited from more time on task, exposure to the target
language, and additional repeated lessons focused on summary writing.
Results on the MTEL Summary Scoring Rubric evidenced a statistical improvement in the participants’ ability to summarize as a result of
repeated lessons, practice, and exams (See Table 3). These results suggest that if these students were taught with a traditional method,
which included a) one lesson of instruction, b) in class group practice, c) in class individual practice, d) homework practice, and e) an exam,
they would not have been able to improve their mastery of this skill. However, when the teachers used a spiral pedagogy and revisited the
instruction and practice of this topic, the students increased their scores significantly. Therefore, these results suggest that most of these
BE225 students will continue to need exposure to summarizing lessons, practice and exams as they advance to BE226.
C. Resulting action plan:
Based on A and B, what changes, if any, do you anticipate making?
Modest gains were achieved using the MTEL, to measure summary skills. It measured how well a student comprehended a passage and was
able to summarize it in his or her own words effectively. The results from this assessment revealed that the students’ ability to summarize
improved over time significantly.
This assessment insinuates that explicit repeated teaching of a) differentiating the main idea of a passage from extraneous minor details, b)
paraphrasing, c) using transitions, and d) organizing a well-organized cohesive summary, leads to enhanced ability to write effective
summaries, and since summary writing is an essential skill that all of our reading students will need to pass their future classes as well as
the Department Exit Summary test, which employs the MTEL, BE225 faculty will be encouraged to use this spiral teaching, writing, and
testing method as they fine tune their courses.
In recent years, our Department has endeavored improve all areas of instruction and assessment, by incorporating High Impact Practices in
all of our classes. As a result, we have created more dynamic and creative curriculum, unrelated to this assessment . However, since our
79
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
low-level ESL reading students arrive with weak linguistic and academic skills, they still require much more exposure to the target
language. Moreover, since our Department only provides four ESL writing instructional hours per week in this course, compared to similar
departments throughout CUNY that average 6-8 hours for the same type of course and level, they are at a disadvantage. Therefore,
instructors need to compensate for the lost time by including more intensive instruction. This can consist of additional repeated lessons,
challenging academic material, and consistent review of the skills necessary to write an effective summary. It is suggested that each time
instructors in the lower-level ESL classes introduce a new reading or writing techniques, they be prepared to revisit these new skills with
supplemental lessons, exercises, homework and exams throughout the semester to ensure that the students can utilize the new skill
effectively since “one shot” lessons are not sufficient because our ESL learners arrive with both linguistic and academic deficiencies.
To enhance this lesson further, instructors can be encouraged to develop model summaries that directly correspond to the criteria of the
rubric being utilized. For instance, students can be provided with sample summaries that have received the score of a 1, 2, 3, or 4 on the
rubric. The samples can be distributed to the students without their corresponding scores and then the students can work in groups to assess
each summary. The classroom instructor can then lead the students through a discussion/analysis of the scores that each summary should
have received and the rationale behind each decision so that the students view summarizing from the teacher’s perspective. After this
review, the students should score each other’s summaries to enhance their understanding of this skill by analyzing and discussing their
summaries along with the rubric. Teaching students to examine their work from the evaluator’s point of view will enhance the students’
ability to think more critically.
Likewise, all BE225 instructors should participate in norming sessions during which they utilize these model summaries along with their
corresponding rubrics to ensure consistency and accuracy in their grading. These sessions will also permit teachers to glean ideas from one
another to enhance their summary teaching even more. This will be especially helpful in that it will increase the likelihood of fewer
discrepancies among BE225 sections because the instructors will be exposed to increased support from their peers.
If, by the end of the semester, students in BE225 remain at a low level, then it is important that instructors not pass them into BE226
because they are unprepared to meet the demands of the criteria of that higher level. This will prevent these students from becoming
multiple repeaters, and thereby reduce the multiple-repeaters issue in our Department.
80
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Addendum: Lesson Plans and Teacher Instructions
The following documents were provided to each teacher so that he/she would teach the same lesson in each class.
Instructor’s Packet: Lesson plan, assessment* and reading passages* Used in the Fall 2014 Assessment of BE2015
Session #1 Overview of the Lesson
The focus of this lesson is finding the key ideas in a reading passage and writing a summary using those key ideas. The focus of the lesson will be the
following:

Review a simplified 4-point rubric with particular focus on a score of “3” as a passing summary.

Read the passage

Identify the overall topic, main idea, and key ideas within the passage.

Draft a summary.

Include transition words that indicate an additional idea.

Edit for simple sentence structure and main idea/key ideas (time permitting)
The Summary Rubric
The attached MTEL Summary Scoring Rubric for teacher reference and the simplified version of that rubric is for class review. To help students
understand the important parts of a summary, you can focus on “3” as the target for summary writing because it is considered to be a passing score.
The Reading Passage #1
The attached reading passage (The Teens Are Alright (Healthwise, at Least) will be used to demonstrate how to find the topic, main idea, and key ideas.
We suggest that you and the students work together on the initial part of this task (finding the topic and main idea) and allow them to work in pairs for
the second part of the task (finding key ideas).
Addendum continued:
These documents were included in the instructor’s packet for the fall 2014 Assessment of BE 225. They include: a) the
lesson plan, b) reading passages and c.) the rubric
The reading passages and MTEL Summary Scoring Rubric referred to in the lesson are attached to the end of this section.
5
The rubrics and reading passages referred to in the lesson are at the end of this section.
81
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Overview of the Lesson for Session #1
The focus of this lesson is finding the key ideas in a reading passage and writing a summary about those key ideas. The focus
of the lesson will be the following:
o Review the MTEL Summary Scoring Rubric with particular focus on a score of “3” as a passing summary.

Read the passage

Identify the overall topic, main idea, and key ideas within the passage.

Draft a summary.

Include transition words that indicate an additional idea.

Edit for simple sentence structure and main idea/key ideas (time permitting)
The Summary Rubric
The Department of Academic Literacy at QCC utilizes the MTEL Summary Scoring Rubric to assess summary
writing at midterms and finals across all reading courses. This rubric consists of a four-point scale. The score of one represents
the lowest score and is not passing. Two is approaching a passing level. Three is passing, and four is higher than passing.
Some of the most important criteria that these scores are based on include: the extent to which the student understood the main
idea of the article, how well the student organized his or her own ideas, the degree to which the student used his or her own
words, and how clearly the summary was written.
To help students understand the important parts of a summary, you can focus on “3” on the four-point scale as the
target for summary writing because it is considered to be a passing score. We suggest that you and the students use the
82
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
attached rubric to carefully examine differences in scores on the scale; such analysis can help students to understand the
differences between a failing and passing summary score. One approach is to focus on the description of how well main ideas
and significant details are conveyed in the summary at the “3” level vs. the “2” or “1”. For example, going from “3” to “1” on
the scale reveals different levels of performance in summary writing. You can ask the students to examine the first bullet point
in score level and underline the words that show those differences and consider the meaning with regard to scoring:
3
The response conveys most of the main ideas and significant details of the original passage, and is generally accurate
and clear.
2
The response conveys only some of the main ideas and significant details of the original passage.
1
The response failsto convey the main ideas and details of the original passage.
Once students analyze those differences in scoring, you could ask them to consider the “4” vs. “3” level by eliciting definitions
for “accurately” and “clearly” in the context of good summary writing.
4
The response accurately and clearly conveysall of the main ideas and significant details of the original passage.
If time permits further analysis, you and the students can compare other bullet points in scoring levels (paraphrasing,
organization, and clarity).
The Reading Passage #1
The attached reading passage (Why Obesity Among 5 Year Olds Is So Dangerous) will be used to demonstrate how to find the
topic, main idea, and key ideas. We suggest that you and the students work together on the initial part of this task (finding the
topic and main idea) and allow them to work in pairs for the second part of the task (finding key ideas).
83
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Determining the Topic and Main Idea of Reading Passage #1
1. The topic of a reading passage is usually a few words that express the most general point that is discussed in the
passage. Elicit student responses about the topic of the passage.
2. Next, the main idea of the entire passage usually contains the topic and the author’s opinion or the point being made.
Elicit student responses about the main idea of the passage.
Determining the Key Ideas in the Passage
After you and the students have reviewed the topic and main idea of the passage, you can ask pairs to find the key ideas
in the passage. It is sometimes challenging for developmental reading students to understand the difference between general and
specific ideas. Therefore, we recommend that you work on this concept with the students before they participate in pair work.
For example, you can write down several examples of general vs. specific ideas on the board to model this concept and/or elicit
examples from the students such as fruit (general) and kinds of fruit (specific). When you think students are ready to work on
their own, ask them to highlight or underline only the key ideas in this passage. When the pairs have finished, review key ideas
with the whole class.
Paraphrasing for the summary
84
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
After the topic, main idea, and key ideas have been identified, pairs can work on drafting the summary. Drafting a
passing summary (“3” score) requires paraphrasing, and we suggest you elicit students’ knowledge of this skill. Depending on
student responses about paraphrasing, you may want to say that writing a good summary means that students should change
some of verbs, adjectives, and nouns with synonyms (or words with similar meanings), and/or sentence structure. Below is one
example of changing verbs, adjectives and/or nouns:
Example #1:
Original sentence: A news report that studied kids throughout childhood found that those who are obese at five years old
are more likely to be heavy later in life.
Revised sentence: A recent longitudinal study of children revealed that overweight five-year-olds were more likely to be
overweight adults.
Below is an example of changing sentence structure from compound to complex:
Example #2:
Original sentence: The study highlights the dynamic between early weight gain and obesity, and the researchers say future
work should focus on understanding what contributes to a child becoming overweight so early in life.
85
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Revised sentence: Since the research shows how gaining weight during childhood is linked to obesity, researchers believe that
other studies should explore contributing factors that lead to early childhood obesity.
Writing the Summary
Ask students to draft a summary by stating the following:

The title of the passage

The author of the passage

The topic of the passage

The main idea

The key ideas
Adding Transition Words
The next part of drafting a summary is writing with coherence. Again, coherence may be a complex or unknown term for
developmental reading students, so we recommend discussing this aspect as making connections with words that add ideas.
Elicit transition words that help students to add ideas into their writing. Ask students to look at their summary closely to see
where they might be able to add transition words.
The Homework Assignment
For homework, ask students to read the attached passage #2 (Reading Passage Two:
How Bullying’s Effects Reach Beyond Childhood by Alexandra Sifferlin and
draft a summary on their own. Remind them that the summary
should include the title, author’s name, topic, main idea, and key ideas.
Session #2
86
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Review the homework summary as a whole class for content and coherence. After homework review, assign the individual inclass assessment activity.
Attachment One
Baseline Reading
Facebook Moms
By Tracey Harrington McCoy
Kimberly Gervaise, a stay-at-home mother of three in Little Silver, N.J., joined Facebook five years ago and only posts every couple of
months, mostly sharing photos from special events, like birthdays. She has 393 friends, and wishes some of them would tuck it in a bit. “I
get a little upset about people who feel the need to post a picture of a straight-A report card – and there are many,” she says. “I am sure
that most of the time, they are just proud, but I find it annoying.”
Gervaise says more and more mothers are using Facebook as a way to brag about their lives, their kids, their parenting techniques. And
that’s making it harder and harder for moms like her to log on without feeling slapped in the face.
Bragging about your kids is nothing new, but before Facebook, the Compare & Contrast game was mostly played at the playground or the
preschool parking lot. Moms would stand around quietly assessing kids to see who was hitting major moments in their lives faster or
slower than their own children.
Facebook moms are constantly informed of updates about their friends’ kids and their accomplishments. Daily, hourly even. According to
Edison Research’s Moms and Media 2013 report, 57% of moms on Facebook are over 35 – these women are the first generation to have
raised their children entirely in the Facebook era.
Mothers are heavy Facebook users. Edison’s 2013 research reveals that 7 out of 10 moms have a profile, and there are more than 1,000
mommy groups, public and private. These groups range in size from hundreds of members to tens of thousands, and they are discussing
everything from potty training to gaming that private-school admissions test.
87
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Of all the different groups that use Facebook, moms check in the most (an average of 5.1 times a day, according to Edison), and they keep
coming back, even if they are being hit with difficult to notice – and sometimes not so difficult – "My kid’s smarter/healthier/happier than
yours” criticisms. For the mom who barely gets her kids’ shoes on before rushing them off to school, posts that show the perfect family
can create guilt or even self-hatred. “Who has time to get the paint and glitter out? Who has time to clean up the giant mess?” says
Meredith DePersia, a working mother of two in San Francisco. “
This situation is turning many women off. For instance, an online media professional and mom of one from Falls Church, Va., is so tired
of playing the game that she’s taken her ball and gone home. “I kind of avoid Facebook entirely,” she says, “because I'm sick of
everyone's presentation of perfection.”
Adapted from Newsweek magazine, October 4, 2013
Attachment Two
Reading Used as In Class Writing Assignment
Passage One: Why
Obesity Among 5 Year Olds Is So Dangerous By Alexandra Sifferlin
A new report that studied kids throughout childhood found that those who are obese at five years old are more likely to be
heavy later in life.
While other studies have hinted at that trend, those have generally involved what’s known as prevalence of the condition — or
the proportion of a population, at a given time, that is considered obese. Such information doesn’t suggest the risk of
developing obesity, which is revealed by studying a population over specific periods of time. So in the latest study, published
in the New England Journal of Medicine, scientists tracked a group of 7738 children, some of whom were overweight or
obese, and some who were normal weight, from 1998 (when they were in kindergarten) to 2007 (when they were in ninth
grade). They found that the 14.9% of five-year-olds who were overweight at kindergarten were four times more likely to
become obese nearly a decade later than five-year-olds of a healthy weight.
88
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
During the study, the researchers measured the children’s height and weight seven times, which allowed them to record the
incidence of obesity almost yearly. Overall, since most of the children (6807) were normal weight at the start of the study, the
children’s risk of becoming obese decreased by 5.4% during the kindergarten year and by 1.7% between the fifth and eighth
grades. But the five-year-olds who were overweight, defined as having a body mass index (BMI) within the 85th percentile for
their age group were significantly more likely to become obese, which the scientists defined as a BMI within the 95th
percentile of their age group as time went on. Among kids who became obese between the ages of five and 14, about half had
been overweight in the past and 75% were in a high BMI percentile at the start of the study.
Obesity is connected to a high risk of chronic conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke among adults, and young
children who spend more years overweight or obese may be putting themselves at even higher risk of these diseases, the
scientists say.
The study highlights the dynamic between early weight gain and obesity, and the researchers say future work should focus on
understanding what contributes to a child becoming overweight so early in life. The results suggest that education about weight
gain and obesity prevention efforts may need to start earlier with families of young children, before youngsters become locked
in a condition that’s difficult to change.
Attachment Three
Reading Used as Homework Summary Assignment
Reading Passage Two:
How Bullying’s Effects Reach Beyond Childhood
by Alexandra Sifferlin
More research is documenting the lasting effect of bullying on its victims in nearly every part of their lives, from emotional wellbeing to career success.
The latest analysis from researchers at the University of Padua in Padua, Italy, sadly confirms the obvious — that children who were bullied suffered
from issues with low self confidence, poor grades, and physical health problems that had a direct influence on the state of their health as adults.
89
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
The study, published in the journal Pediatrics, reviewed data from 30 studies that investigated the connection between being bullied and so-called
psychosomatic problems that include headaches, backaches, abdominal pain, skin problems, sleeping problems, bed- wetting, or dizziness. The results
showed that kids who were bullied were twice as likely to have psychosomatic symptoms compared to their non-bullied peers.
The severity and influence of bullying is certainly increased by the variety of online avenues by which bullying can take place, which extends it beyond
the school to students’ private lives, making it harder for kids to ignore, overcome and move on. Studies document higher rates of anxiety and panic
attacks among victims of bullying, and these are causing mental health and behavior problems later in life. That could translate into unstable
professional and personal lives as well; a recent study reported that bully victims are two times less likely to hold down a job and also have difficulty
maintaining meaningful social relationships.
The psychosomatic symptoms, however, may also represent an opportunity — sometimes the first and only one — for doctors or parents to recognize
bullying and intervene. The researchers say, for example, that pediatricians can play a larger role in identifying bully victims during check-ups if such
symptoms are persistent and long-lived. Discussing these warning signs with parents, as well as counseling them on how to handle bullying when it
occurs can help to promote self-confidence and in some cases ease the situation. “Pediatricians’ suggestions are likely to be particularly effective given
the high confidence that parents usually put in these professionals, the authors write.
Adapted from Time magazine, September 16, 2013.
90
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Attachment Four
Departmental Mid-Term Assessment
Conflicting Parenting Styles
By Nancy Rocks
Imagine how you would feel if you had to live in two separate households every week. Now, imagine it from a child's
perspective with different daily routines and different interpersonal relationships. Clearly, children of separated or divorced
parents sometimes have to adjust to very different parenting styles and living arrangements: To understand how a child has to
balance his changed environment, let's examine some of these contrasts to see how they affect behavior and development.
Often, the most conflicting parenting style is illustrated in after-school and bedtime routines. In our home, my l l-yearold son, Andrew, has a bedtime of 8:OO on school nights. He generally does his homework at 6:30, showers at 8:15, and then
gets ready for bed. He usually reads for l5 or 20 minutes before falling asleep. Conversely, on the days he is with his father,
Andrew goes to his grandmother's after school and does his homework there. After his dad picks him up, they have dinner at
approximately 7:30, and Andrew stays up until 10:00. He has a television in his room at his dad's, so instead of reading at
bedtime, he most often plays video games.
Another conflicting living arrangement is the introduction of new relationships. Just as children need time to adjust to
their parents' separation, so, too, do they need to prepare for their parents' new partners. For example, I chose not to introduce
anyone into my children's lives until I am divorced from their father. Instead, I am allowing them to become accustomed to the
changes already taking place. In contrast, our children share their father's home with his new woman. That arrangement has
provided them very little opportunity to adapt to the new intimacy through a steady, natural process.
A very important transition for the child is in maintaining friendships at both homes. Here, Andrew has many friends
on our block and has grown up with most of them. They play basketball at our house, baseball at Joey's, and jailbreak at Eric's.
Andrew knows everyone's mom, and we parents are attuned to looking out for each other's children. On the other hand,
Andrew has a new friendship with a boy who lives near his dad's apartment. Living in an apartment complex, there is less
freedom and peace of mind to let the children play outside. Consequently, Andrew and his friend Steve are more likely to play
indoor, with less chance for Andrew to experience the nurturing sense of community.
A further disparity in recreational activities involves toy and gifts. Andrew earns an allowance from me by doing his
weekly chores, and I deposit a portion of it into his savings account. He lets the balance accumulate for several weeks until he
can't wait any longer to spend it. Since the first time I took him to Border's Bookstores, he enjoys going there to buy books. Of
course, there are times when only a new toy will do, but, about half the time, I suggest we go the Borders's, and he carefully
chooses the best books for his money. Conversely, on those occasions that his dad rewards Andrew for a great report card, for
example, Andrew most often chooses to buy a toy or a video game. Because Andrew's dad does not read for leisure, Andrew
91
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
follows tile pattern of that household.
All these examples illustrate the difficult transitions children face in just one aspect of a divorce-that of two households.
It is particularly difficult when the parents have such contrasting parenting styles. As a mother, I look for ways to ease their
passage and soften the effect, but I oversee my own household, and only my own. Therefore, I believe it is critical to the
emotional health of the children that parents find a way to cooperate and maintain open communication with each other. The
wellbeing of the children is, and should always be, the first priority.
Attachment Five
Final Department Summary Reading
I Think, Therefore I.M.
By: Jennifer Lee
Each September Jacqueline Harding prepares a classroom presentation on the common writing mistakes she sees in her students' work. Ms. Harding, an
eighth-grade English teacher at Viking Middle School in Chicago scribbles the words that have plagued generations of schoolchildren in her class:
There. Their. They're.
Your. You're.
To. Too. Two.
Its. It's.
This September, she has added a new list: u, r, ur, b4, wuz, cuz, 2.
As more and more teenagers socialize online, middle school and high school teachers like Ms. Harding are increasingly seeing a looser form of “Internet
English” move from text messages and e-mail into students’ schoolwork. To their dismay, teachers say that papers are being written with shortened
words, improper capitalization and punctuation, and characters like &, $ and @.
Teachers have deducted points and drawn red circles, but the improper forms of English continue. "It stops being funny after you repeat yourself a
couple of times," Ms. Harding said. But teenagers, whose social life can rely as much these days on text communication as the spoken word, say that
they use shortened, instant messaging “language” without thinking about it. They write to one another in this way as much as they write in school -- or
even more.
As Trisha Fogarty, a sixth-grade teacher at Houlton Southside School in Houlton, Maine, puts it, today's students are "Generation Text." Almost 60
percent of the online population under age 17 uses instant messaging, according to Nielsen/NetRatings. In addition to cell phone text messaging, blogs
92
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
and e-mail, it has become a popular means of flirting, setting up dates, asking for help with homework and keeping in contact with distant friends. The
abbreviations and language which are used in texts and e-mail are a natural outgrowth of this rapid-fire style of communication.
"To students it's not wrong," said Ms. Harding, who is 28. "It's acceptable because it's in their culture. It's hard enough to teach them the skill of formal
writing. Now we've got to overcome this new instant-messaging language." Teenagers have long pushed the boundaries of spoken language, always
introducing new words. Now teenagers are taking charge and pushing the boundaries of written language. For them, expressions like "oic" (oh I see),
"nm" (not much), "jk" (just kidding) and "lol" (laughing out loud), "brb" (be right back), "ttyl" (talk to you later) are as standard as the conventional
English they use in school.
Some teachers find the new writing style alarming. "First of all, it's very rude, and it's very careless," said Lois Moran, a middle school English teacher
at St. Nicholas School in Jersey City. "They should be careful to write properly and not to put these little codes in that they are in such a habit of writing
to each other," said Ms. Moran, who has lectured her eighth-grade class on such mistakes.
Others say that the instant-messaging style might simply be a short-term trend, something that students will grow out of. Or they see it as an opportunity
to teach students about the evolution of language."I turn it into a very positive teachable moment for kids in the class," said Erika V. Karres, an assistant
professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who trains student teachers. She shows students how English has evolved since
Shakespeare's time. "Imagine Shakespeare writing in quick texting instead of ‘Shakespeare writing,' " she said. "It makes teaching and learning so
exciting."
Attachment Six
SCORING RUBRICS FOR COMMUNICATION AND LITERACY SKILLS:
WRITTEN SUMMARY EXERCISE (MTEL) Summary Scoring Rubric
Score Point Description
4
 The response accurately and clearly conveys all of the main ideas and significant details of the original passage. It does not introduce
information, opinion, or analysis not found in the original. Relationships among ideas are preserved.
 The response is concise while providing enough statements of appropriate depth and specificity to convey the main ideas and significant details
of the original passage.
 The response is written in the candidate's own words, clearly and coherently conveying main ideas and significant details.
 The response shows excellent control of grammar and conventions. Sentence structure, word choice, and usage are precise and effective.
Mechanics (i.e., spelling, punctuation, and capitalization) conform to the standard conventions of written English.
3
 The response conveys most of the main ideas and significant details of the original passage, and is generally accurate and clear. It introduces
very little or no information, opinion, or analysis not found in the original. Relationships among ideas are generally maintained.
 The response may be too long or too short, but generally provides enough statements of appropriate depth and specificity to convey most of the
main ideas and significant details of the original passage.
93
Queensborough Community College


2




1




U
B

Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
The response is generally written in the candidate's own words, conveying main ideas and significant details in a generally clear and coherent
manner.
The response shows general control of grammar and conventions. Some minor errors in sentence structure, word choice, usage and mechanics
(i.e., spelling, punctuation, and capitalization) may be present.
The response conveys only some of the main ideas and significant details of the original passage. Information, opinion, or analysis not found in
the original passage may substitute for some of the original ideas. Relationships among ideas may be unclear.
The response either includes or excludes too much of the content of the original passage. It is too long or too short. It may take the form of a
list or an outline.
The response may be written only partially in the candidate's own words while conveying main ideas and significant details. Language not
from the passage may be unclear and/or disjointed.
The response shows limited control of grammar and conventions. Errors in sentence structure, word choice, usage, and/or mechanics (i.e.,
spelling, punctuation, and capitalization) are distracting.
The response fails to convey the main ideas and details of the original passage. It may consist mostly of information, opinion, or analysis not
found in the original.
The response is not concise. It either includes or excludes almost all the content of the original passage.
The response is written almost entirely of language from the original passage or is written in the candidate's own words and is confused and/or
incoherent.
The response fails to show control of grammar and conventions. Serious errors in sentence structure, word choice, usage, and/or mechanics (i.e.,
spelling, punctuation, and capitalization) impede communication.
The response is unrelated to the assigned topic, illegible, primarily in a language otherthan English, not of sufficient length to score, or merely
a repetition of the assignment.
There is no response to the assignment.
94
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Year: 2014- 2015
ENDNOTES
1
July 2014 Multiple Repeaters
Total #
Passed
Failed
% Passed
Writing
36
10
26
27.78%
Reading
22
9
13
40.91%
2
July 2014 Exit Results
Course
BE-23
(BE205-BE226)
BE-22
(BE203-BE225)
BE-21
(BE112-BE122)
Pass Rate
No Improvement
Earned Lower
Score
ACT Reading
58.97%
23.08%
17.95%
CATW
43.90%
14.63%
41.46%
ACT Reading
35.14%
24.32%
Earned Higher
Score
40.54%
CATW
39.53%
30.23%
30.23%
ACT Reading
68.49%
24.66%
Earned Lower
Score
6.85%
CATW
48.94%
29.79%
21.28%
Earned Higher
Score
95
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
BE-20
(BE111-BE121)
3
Year: 2014- 2015
ACT
38.24%
29.41%
32.35%
CATW
33.33%
51.28%
15.38%
Early Exit Results December 2014
Pass
BE225
BE121
Total
Reading
Fail
11
16
27
Total
3
1
14
17
4
31
Early Exit Reading Percentages
Pass
Fail
Total
78.57% 21.43%
100%
BE225
94.12% 5.88%
100%
BE121
Total
87.10% 12.90%
100%
4
CATW Early Exit Results December 2014
Pass
Fail
Total
n
32
13
45
Percent 71.11% 28.89%
100%
96
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
5
Year: 2014- 2015
Results
BE17 Jan 2015 CATW Multiple Repeaters Workshop
Pass
Fail
Total
n
4
11
15
%
26.67%
73.33%
100.00%
6
ACT January 2015 Multiple Repeaters
Pass
Failed
Total
n
7
20
27
%
25.93%
74.07%
100.00%
7
January 2015
BE-15 CATW
Passed
Failed
7
13
35.0%
65.0%
n
%
Total
20
100.0%
8
n
%
14
87.5
January 2015
BE16 ACT Reading
Passed
failed
Total # Students
2
12.%
16
100%
97
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Year: 2014- 2015
9
Spring 2015 BE112 PNET Course Results
Pass
Repeat
NC
INC
Total
n
8
9
0
1
18
percentage
44%
50%
0%
6%
100%
10
BE18 ACT Reading Multiple Repeaters
Spring 2015 Results
Pass
Fail
Total
5
7
12
BE122
3
3
6
BE226
8
10
18
Total
BE18 ACT Reading Multiple Repeaters
Spring 2015 Results Percentage
BE122
BE226
Total
Pass
41.7%
50.0%
44.4%
Fail
58.3%
50.0%
55.6%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
98
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Year: 2014- 2015
11
BE17 CATW Multiple Repeaters
Spring 2015 Results
BE112
BE205
Total
Pass
1
1
2
Fail
3
8
11
Total
4
9
13
BE17 CATW Multiple Repeaters
Spring 2015 Results Percentage
BE112
BE205
Total
Pass
25.0%
11.1%
15.4%
Fail
75.0%
88.9%
84.6%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
12
BE25 Early Exit CATW
Spring 2015
BE111
BE201
BE203
Total
n Pass
11
1
2
n Fail
12
0
8
n Total
23
1
10
14
20
34
99
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Year: 2014- 2015
Percentage of BE25 CATW Early Exit
Spring 2015
BE111
BE201
BE203
% Pass
47.8%
100.0%
20.0%
%Fail
52.2%
0.0%
80.0%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
41.2%
58.8%
100.0%
13
Early Exit Reading BE26
Spring 2015
BE121
BE225
Total
Pass
6
1
7
Fail
1
1
2
Total
7
2
9
Early Exit Reading BE26
Spring 2015 Percentages
BE121
BE225
Total
Pass
85.7%
50.0%
77.8%
Fail
14.3%
50.0%
22.2%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Queensborough Community College
Year: 2014- 2015
14
BE16 ACT Reading June 2015
Pass
Fail
Total
4
3
7
n
% 57.1% 42.9% 100.0%
15
BE15 CATW June 2015
Pass
Fail
Total
1
4
5
n
percent 20.0% 80.0% 100.0%
16
n
%
BE17 CATW June 2015 Multiple Repeaters
Pass
Fail
Total
1
15
17
11%
89%
100%
17
17
BE18 ACT Reading June 2015
passed
n
%
4
36.4%
failed
7
63.6%
Total
11
100.0%
101
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
18
During the fall of 2014, students from all three sections of Dr. Carroll’s BE226 Advanced Level Reading and Study Skills for ESL Students
participated in the 2014-2015 National Endowment for the Humanities Grant, which was secured by Professor Cary Lane. Dr. Carroll further
enhanced her thematic curriculum designed around the themes of discrimination, hatred, and the need for tolerance of others. This curriculum was
developed for her three BE226, Advanced Level Reading for ESL Students, service learning courses. In these courses, Dr. Carroll used the book
entitled “Parallel Journeys” by Eleanor Ayer, which depicts the history of the Holocaust through the eyes of two teenagers, one a young girl who
was a Holocaust Survivor and the other a leader of the Nazi Youth organization. Dr. Carroll taught her students main idea, specific detail,
inference, and vocabulary development within the context of this book. She developed specific reading comprehension, inference, and vocabulary
questions for each chapter in the book. Furthermore, she designed high-level critical thinking writing exercises and essays to further promote her
students in-depth understanding of the material.
After Dr. Carroll’s students had acquired an in-depth understanding of the atrocities during World War II and the Holocaust, Dr. Carroll worked
with Marisa Berman to set up small group interviews with nine Holocaust Survivors across her three courses. After the students interviewed the
survivors, they then used their copious notes to write summary biographies of their lives. Dr. Carroll then required the students to write multiple
drafts of these biographies until they were polished. She then asked the nine survivors to select the biographies that they felt best depicted their
lives. After the survivors had made their selections, Dr. Carroll then arranged, with the help of Ms. Berman, to have the survivor meet again with
the student to further revise and fact-check these biographies. Once the biographies were finalized, they eventually were displayed as part of the
final 2014-2015 NEH Art Exhibit at the Kupferberg Holocaust Resource Center and Archives on April 19, 2015.
Summary of Project:






75 students participated in the original service-learning interview project
9 nine students’ summaries were chosen as the best samples of student writing (summaries were selected by the actual nine Holocaust
survivors).
Dr. Carroll worked with students to do numerous revisions.
Dr. Carroll collaborated with all nine survivors and the students who worked with them over many months to ensure the overall quality of
the summaries as well as a beneficial experience for both student and survivor.
This process required a tremendous amount of time and effort and was done without any release time.
Dr. Carroll collaborated with the Assistant Director of the KHRAC, Ms. Berman, to set up interviews as well as other logistical details
regarding the project
Students and survivors developed lasting and warm relationships as a result of this project
19
In the spring of 2015, Dr. Carroll taught three sections of BE226 again. The new curriculum that she developed focused more
specifically on intolerance and hatred in modern times as opposed to the WWII era. Units of curriculum that were developed
encompassed Violence against Women specifically in the Middle East, cyberbullying in middle schools and high schools, and hate
crimes. All three of her courses were service-learning classes and two of them were involved in the Teagle Grant.
102
Queensborough Community College
Year-end Report – Teaching Department
Year: 2014- 2015
Violence against Women
In the unit focusing on discrimination and violence against women, students read “I Am Malala’ as well as numerous articles from the
New York Times depicting the lives of women in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries in the Middle East and the atrocities that
they face on a daily basis. Dr. Carroll developed a thematic curriculum around this material.
Cyberbullying in middle schools and high schools
This unit delved into the concept of bullying. Students learned the official definition of what constitutes bullying and then read a
variety of contemporary articles depicting recent cases in the media that incorporated this theme. Students then were required to
investigate and research their own cases of dangerous situations that revolved around bullying and cyberbullying. The students then
presented their research analysis to their peers in high tech Power Point Presentations.
Discerning whether or not a Criminal Case is a True Hate Crime
The last portion of this unit targeted learning about modern day hate crimes. Students in Dr. Carroll’s BE 226 class worked together
with students in Professor Susan Hock’s BE112, a native speaking writing class, to learn about hate crimes and then collaborate on a
common project. The Assistant Director of the KHRCA, Ms. Marisa Berman, assisted Dr. Carroll and Prof. Hock with their project by
inviting Assistant District Attorney, Mariela Herring, Bureau Chief of Gang Violence and Hate Crimes along with Assistant District
Attorney, Michael Brovner, to speak to their classes about the Definition of a Hate Crime as well as the official categories of what
constitutes a hate crime. This overview was to provided to Dr. Carroll and Prof. Hock’s students on February 11th 2015.
Dr. Carroll and Prof. Hock then created pairs of ESL students and native speakers to work together on a common service learning
project, which focused on the theme of hate crimes. Each pair of students was provided with a case study from an original hate crime
that had occurred in Queens, New York. These case studies were provided by Ms. Marisa Berman, who organizes internships at the
Holocaust Center, which focus on hate crimes. Each pair of students was required to read the case study independently, and then meet
in the computer lab to discuss it. They were then instructed how to use Google Docs whereby they wrote a summary of the case study
together. Ultimately, they were required to write a paper and then do a presentation on this case study in front of an actual Queens
District judge. In order to complete their projects, they were expected to communicate consistently throughout the semester via
Google Docs. As part of their paper/presentation they were asked to reflect upon the degree to which these types of hate crimes take
place in their own communities as well as what steps they believe might be taken to reduce this type of violence where they live.
Additionally, they were encouraged to ruminate about how they felt they could be part of this change. This last element of the project
is what constituted a major portion of the Teagle grant initiative that focuses on encouraging faculty to design projects that promote
critical service-learning that has a lasting impact on students and encourages them to become more morally in tune with a sense of
civic and personal responsibility.
103