Academic Affairs – Year-end Report – Part B – Planning and Assessment
CAMPUS WRITING CENTER
Mission: The Campus Writing Center supports students’ retention-to-graduation by providing free tutoring and e-tutoring services in English, Writing-Intensive and/or writing related coursework, as well as workshops for Grammar,
preparation for the CUNY exit-from-remediation exam in writing (CATW), Ability To Benefit (ATB) exam, specialized support for EN101 students, and In Center Visits to the Writing Center by instructors and their classroom
sections. The Campus Writing Center spotlights student satisfaction through its excellent customer and program services, as well as the professionalism and rigorous training of its tutors, e-tutors, and workshop facilitators.
College strategic objectives:
1. A.4a – Maintain % of first time, full time students who
graduate within 4 years at 23.5% or higher.
Division strategic objectives:
1. TBD
2.
2. TBD
C.4a – increase pass-rates.
Note: Relevant college-wide strategic objectives should be selected from the college’s strategic plan. Each division strategic objective should align with a college-wide strategic objective.
2014-15 Completion report (outcomes for this past academic year, based on last year’s year-end report, section F)
Key performance indicators
1.
Target outcomes
The volume of Writing Center students
treated by EN101 Writing Skills
Assessment Workshops/ Interventions
will be tracked, and a longitudinal
assessment will commence, measuring:
Actual outcomes
Recommended action plans*
During FY 2014-2015:
1.
220 students were referred for EN101
Skills workshops.
Continue the KPI.
1.
Increase the number of students treated by an EN101 Writing Skills
Assessment Workshop/ Intervention by 10% during FY 15-16.
13% (29) of the 220 referred students,
attended and completed a CWC
EN101 Writing Skills workshop.
1(a). Outcomes in EN101 for students
“treated” vs “not treated” by CWC
EN101 Writing Skills Assessment
Workshops/Interventions; and
1(a). Establish a benchmark for assessing
course outcomes for students who
participate in CWC’s EN101 Writing
Skills Assessment Workshops /
Interventions, who complete and pass
EN101 with a mean grade ≥ ALL
EN101 students who did NOT
participate in CWC’s EN101 Writing
Skills Assessment Workshops /
Interventions.
1(a)(i). 90% of CWC-treated students who
participated in an EN101
workshop (26/29) competed and
passed the course with a grade of
> C.
The 3-PRONGED
EN101 Writing Skills Assessment
Workshops/ Interventions Project
(+ 23.7% points above college- wide
mean for EN 101 grades of > C; but
the CWC cohort is currently too small a
sample to be statistically valid).
66.3% (3,917) of all students,
college-wide, who enrolled in
EN101 (5,906) during FY 14-15 and
were not treated by any CWC
intervention, completed and passed
the course with a mean grade of > C.
Note:
Mid-year status report due end of January.
Completion report due early July (specific deadlines may vary by year).
1(a)(i-iii). Broaden the scope and vary the modalities of EN101 Writing
Skills Assessment Workshops/ Interventions by initiating:

Prong 1: “EN 101 Writing Skills “Reviews”. No longer
“Workshops”, these will be modified, large group skills reviews,
focused on the revisions of students’ first papers and covering a short
list of broad writing skills foci.
Academic Affairs – Year-end Report – Part B – Planning and Assessment
1(a)(ii).
17 (65%) of the 26 students who
attended an EN 101 workshop /
intervention in Fall 14 and completed
the course with a grade of > C,
registered for EN-102 in the
subsequent semester (Spring 15).

o
o
(-6% points below college-wide mean
for Fall 2014 EN 101 students with final
grades of > C who persisted to EN 102
in Sp 2015; but the CWC cohort is
currently too small a sample to be
statistically valid).
1(a)(ii).
1(a)(iii).
71% (1,821 / 2,565) of all students,
college-wide, who enrolled in
EN101 during Fall 14 and
were not treated by any CWC
intervention, and who completed and
passed the course with a mean grade of
> C, registered for EN-102 in the
subsequent semester (Spring 15).
8 (47%) of the 17 students who were
treated by a CWC workshop, who
registered for EN102 in Spring 15,
completed and passed EN 102 with a
grade of > C.
(- 39% points below college-wide
mean for Fall 2014 EN 101 students
with final grades of > C who persisted
to EN 102 in Sp 2015 and completed
and passed EN 102 with a grade of ≥ C;
but the CWC cohort is currently too
small a sample to be statistically valid).
1(a)(iii).
Note:
Mid-year status report due end of January.
Completion report due early July (specific deadlines may vary by year).
86% (1,572 / 1,821) of all students,
college-wide, who were not treated by
a CWC workshop, who completed and
passed EN101 in Fall 14 with a mean
grade of > C, and who registered
for EN102 in Spring 15, completed
and passed EN 102 with a mean grade
of > C.
Prong 2: The “3 – 6 – 9” Workshop Model. These will be
Workshops, open to any/all EN 101 students, on a first-come, first
served basis.
Open to any/all EN 101 students for support on specific set
topics.
Held on scheduled weeks 3, 6 and 9 of the course at
accessible times (morning, afternoon, evening and
weekends).




Pre-Revision Planning”. This will support strategies
used on the return of students’ first papers, with
instructors’ comments and critiques
Editing/Revision of 2nd Paper/Assignment”. This will
focus on strategies to support students’ abilities to selfassess
Information Literacy”. Preparing for the Research
Paper.
Prong 3: The “ALP-Type” Model. EN/CWC partnered pilot on a
small scale, implementing an ALP-type writing course for a select
remedial student cohort enrolled in linked credit/non-credit-bearing
courses (EN101/BE11).
Academic Affairs – Year-end Report – Part B – Planning and Assessment
1(b). Persistence and retention of tutorial
“treated” students progressing from the
EN101 to 102 course sequences, Fall to
Spring, relative to “non-treated” students;
1(b) Benchmarks will be established for
assessing the frequency of tutoring / etutoring contacts of participating students as
part of EN101 Writing Skills Assessment
Interventions / Support, relative to ALL
EN101 students.
1(b)(i)
1,217 unique students were tutored by
CWC for EN101 during Fall 2015.

76% (922/1,217) students tutored by
CWC in EN 101 during Fall 14
completed the course and passed with
a grade ≥ C;
(CWC: +7% points above college-wide
% of students who completed EN 101with
a final grade of ≥ C).
.
1(b)(i)
3,717 unique students, college-wide,
were enrolled in EN101 during Fall 2014

1(b)(ii)
69% unique students, college-wide
(2,565/3717) completed EN101 during
Fall 14 and passed the course with a
grade of ≥ C.
81% ( 747 /922) students tutored by
CWC in EN 101 during Fall 14
completed the course and passed with a
grade ≥ C and enrolled in EN102
during Spring 15.
(CWC: +10% points above college-wide
% of students who completed EN 101in
Fall 14 with a final grade of ≥ C and
enrolled in EN 102 in Sp 15).
Note:
Mid-year status report due end of January.
Completion report due early July (specific deadlines may vary by year).
1(b)(ii)
College-Wide: 71% (1,821/2565)
unique students not tutored by CWC
completed EN101 during Fall 14 and
passed the course with a grade ≥ C and
enrolled in EN102 during Spring 15.
1(b)(iii)
79% (590/747) CWC-tutored EN 101
students who completed the EN101
1(b) Continue the KPI during FY 2015-2016, with a focus on improving
outcomes for students treated by CWC for EN 101 who persist to EN 102
the following semester.
Academic Affairs – Year-end Report – Part B – Planning and Assessment
course during Fall 14 with a grade ≥ C ,
and who enrolled in EN102 in Spring 15,
and completed and passed EN102
with a grade of ≥ C.
(CWC: -7% points below college- wide
% of students who completed EN 101in
Fall 14 with a final grade of ≥ C, and
enrolled in EN 102 in Sp 15, and passed
EN 102 with a grade ≥ C).
1(b)(iii)
2
86% (1,572 / 1,821) of unique
students college-wide completed
EN101 during Fall 14 and passed the
course with a grade of ≥ C, and enrolled
in EN102 during Spring 15, and
completed and passed EN102 in
Spring 15 with a grade of ≥ C.
(An “In-Center Visit” is when students from an
entire section of a course are brought to the CWC,
accompanied by their instructor, and are divided
across tutoring tables, 4 to a table, with 1 tutor
assigned to each table (4 students).
The volume of students treated by CWC
In-Center Visits will be tracked, and a
longitudinal assessment will commence,
measuring:
(“Rate of return” concerns students’ repeat visits to
the CWC, once an In Center Visit – which acts as
both ice-breaker and jumping-off point for more
individualized tutoring sessions – has occurred ).
2(a). Frequency of contacts of students
treated by CWC In-Center Visits;
2(a). Benchmarks will be established for
measuring the number of students served by
In-Center visits, as well as their “rate of
return” to the CWC for services.
Note:
Mid-year status report due end of January.
Completion report due early July (specific deadlines may vary by year).
2(a). During FY 2014-2015, there were 133 In
Center Visits to the CWC, accounting for 2,009
total unique students.
i.
The number of UNIQUE students served
by CWC “In Center Visits” was: 2,009;
ii.
The number of DUPLICATIVE students
served by CWC “In Center Visits” was:
2,392.
iii.
The number, and rate of return of students
to the CWC for services after an “In
Center Visit”, was:
658 (or 33%).
2(a-b.) Continue the KPI, with an extension of focus on tracking the outcomes of
In Center Visit students who return for repeat tutoring, compared against:
 Those who did not make a return visit; and
 The mean % of students who received a final grade of ≥ C in one of the
top 3 courses for In Center Visits, but who did not participate in the
CWC supported In Center Visit for the course.
Academic Affairs – Year-end Report – Part B – Planning and Assessment
2(b). the relationship of outcomes between
students treated by CWC In-Center Visits to
students NOT treated with an In-Center Visit:
2(b). Benchmarks will be established for
assessing:
The relationship of outcomes of students
treated by CWC In-Center Visits to the
mean final grades of ALL students enrolled
in the highest-volume courses for which an
In-Center Visit was provided.
2(b)
During FY 2014-2015, there were 133 In
Center Visits to the CWC.
The three courses for which the highest
volume of In Center Visits occurred were:
EN101,
EN102, and
SP211.
EN 101/CWC:
+8% points above college-wide
mean for ≥ C in EN 101.
1,052 unique students came to the CWC
for an In-Center Visit for EN101.

Of those, 74% (780) completed the
course and passed with a grade of
≥ C.
EN 101/College-wide:
5,906 unique students enrolled in
EN101 during FY 14-15.
Of those, 66% (3,917) completed the
course and passed with a grade of
≥ “C”
EN 102/CWC: +8% points above college- wide
mean for ≥ C in EN 102
345 unique students came to the CWC
for an In-Center Visit for EN101.

Of those, 78% (270) completed the
course and passed with a grade of
≥ “C”.
EN 102/College-wide:
4,813 unique students enrolled in
EN101 during FY 14-15.
Note:
Mid-year status report due end of January.
Completion report due early July (specific deadlines may vary by year).
Academic Affairs – Year-end Report – Part B – Planning and Assessment

Of those, 70% (3,383) completed the
course and passed with a grade of
≥ “C”.
SP 211/CWC:
+1 % points above collegewide mean for ≥ C in SP 211
324 unique students came to the CWC
for an In-Center Visit for SP 211.

Of those, 66% (213) completed the
course and passed with a grade of
≥ “C”.
SP 211/College-wide:
3,385 unique students enrolled in
SP 211 during FY 14-15.

*Column contents should be used to indicate which strategic objectives below address the follow-up necessary.
Note:
Mid-year status report due end of January.
Completion report due early July (specific deadlines may vary by year).
Of those, 65% (2,207) completed the
course and passed with a grade of
≥ “C”
Academic Affairs – Year-end Report – Part B – Planning and Assessment
2015-16 Department strategic plan (arranged by each division strategic objective that the department supports)
1. Division strategic objective: [see above]
Department strategic objectives
1. A.4a – Maintain % of first
time, full time students
who graduate within 4
years at 23.5% or higher.
2.
C.4a – increase pass-rates.
Indicator(s)
Expected outcomes
Action plan/timeline
1(a). Increase in number of students
attending and completing a CWC
EN 101 Workshop / Intervention;
1(a). The number of students attending
and completing a CWC EN 101
Workshop / Intervention will
increase by ≥ 10%
1.
Increase the number of students
treated by an EN101 Writing Skills
Assessment Workshop/ Intervention
by 10% during FY 15-16.
Aug 2015 to June 2016
1(b). Outcomes in EN101 for students
“treated” vs “not treated” by CWC
EN101 Writing Skills Assessment
Workshops/Interventions;
1(c). Rate of persistence and % of
outcomes of grades ≥ C for
EN101 students participating in a
CWC EN101 Writing Skills
Assessment Workshops /
Intervention to EN102, Fall 15 to
Spring 16
1. A.4a – Maintain % of first
time, full time students
who graduate within 4
years at 23.5% or higher.
Who
Continue tracking and longitudinal
assessment of Writing Center students
treated by EN101 Writing Skills
Assessment Workshops /
Interventions, measuring:
Continue to track and longitudinally
assess CWC In-Center Visits,
measuring:
Note:
Mid-year status report due end of January.
Completion report due early July (specific deadlines may vary by year).
1(b). Mean outcomes for students who
participate in CWC’s EN101
Writing Skills Assessment
Workshops / Interventions will
continue to be ≥ the mean
outcomes of ALL EN101 students
who did NOT participate in
CWC’s EN101 Writing Skills
Assessment Workshops /
Interventions
2.
Broaden the scope and vary the
modalities of EN101 Writing Skills
Assessment Workshops/
Interventions.
1(c). Persistence and retention rates of
tutorial “treated” students
progressing from EN101 to EN
102 course sequences will
continue to be ≥ those of “nontreated” students, college-wide.
3.
Continue relationship with Eng.
Dept. Chair and faculty.
Aug 2015 to June 2016
4.
Track student data with CWC
database and Starfish; consult IR
July 2015 to June 2016
Test Prep
Coord; Tutor
Coord; Lrng
Svcs Coord;
CLT; LC
STEM
Advisor;
Director
Aug 2015 to June 2016
Test Prep
Coord; Tutor
Coord; Lrng
Svcs Coord;
CLT; LC
STEM
Advisor;
Director
Actual outcomes
Academic Affairs – Year-end Report – Part B – Planning and Assessment
2.
C.4a – increase pass-rates.
2(a). Frequency of contacts of
students treated by CWC InCenter Visits;
2(a). More than 100 sections of EN/WI
courses will participate in CWC In
Center Visits;
2(b) Increase in the number of first
time faculty visits to the CWC by
5%;
2(b). Number of faculty bringing
sections of their courses for an IN
Center Visit for the first time will
increase by 5%.
2.
Track with CWC database and
Starfish; consult IR
July 2015 to June 2016
2(c). The percentage of students who
make a return visit to the CWC
after an In Center Visit;
2(c)
The percentage of students who
make a return visit to the CWC
after an In Center Visit will
increase by 2% above FY 1415;
1.
Continue relationship with Eng.
Dept. Chair and WI faculty.
Students who participate in an
In Center Visit to the CWC
will complete and pass the
course with a grade ≥ C at a
rate ≥ than students who do
not participate in an In
Center Visit to CWC for their
EN/WI course.
2.
2(d). The relationship between
outcomes of students treated by
CWC In-Center Visits and
students NOT treated by an InCenter Visit.
2(d)
1.
Continue relationship with Eng.
Dept. Chair and WI faculty.
Aug 2015 to June 2016
Aug 2015 to June 2016
Track with CWC database and
Starfish; consult IR
July 2015 to June 2016
Test Prep
Coord; Tutor
Coord; Lrng
Svcs Coord;
CLT; LC
STEM
Advisor;
Director
Test Prep
Coord; Tutor
Coord; Lrng
Svcs Coord;
CLT; LC
STEM
Advisor;
Director
August 2015
Note:
Mid-year status report due end of January.
Completion report due early July (specific deadlines may vary by year).