DEPARTMENT:
Campus Writing Center
ACADEMIC YEAR (AY) 2012-2013
MISSION:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Your mission statement should be no more than 80 words in length,
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), and the Ability To Benefit (ATB) exam. 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.
A. DEPARTMENT CORE ACTIVITIES AND PERFORMANCE
Core Activities
Key Performance Indicators
Indicators to Be
Assessed
Briefly list the major
activities conducted or
performed to support the
mission of the
department.
Briefly list the corresponding Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) that measure the effectiveness of
the department’s activity. Key performance
indicators are not outcomes—for example, a KPI
might be “volume of service,” whereas an outcome
might be “increase volume of service by 5 percent”).
Course outcomes
Volume of service delivery
Student satisfaction
Exit-from-remediation Writing exam pass rates
Yes or no. Indicators
to be assessed should
come from the
previous year’s
report, part F,
column 4.
Yes
Tutoring/e-tutoring
Exit-from-remediation
writing exam prep
workshops
Educational technology
Grammar Clinics
Tutor training
B.
Yes
Volume of service delivery
Volume of service delivery
Tutor skill levels
Student satisfaction
No
No
No
DEPARTMENT-SPONSORED ACTIVITIES, 2012-2013
INSTRUCTIONS: For each activity, please indicate
1.
2.
3.
4.
the type and topic of activity and name of organizer/presenter if applicable
whether department members organized the activities or gave presentations or both
the date (select from the calendar drop-down; if you do not know the exact date, use the first day
of the month when it occurred)
the number attending the event
Type of Activity and Topic
Consolidated Learning Centers Orientation
WAC/WI Faculty Development Training:
"Using the CWC and iPASS with WI Students"
Organized, Presented,
or Both
Both: Organized/Presented
J. Labozzetta
Presented:
J. Labozzetta; D. Pincus
Date
Number
Attending
8/25/2012
50
09/11/2012
&
2/5/2013
21
28
ASAP Fall 2012 Orientation
CAT-Workshop Specific Training: Campus
Presented:
J. Labozzetta
Both: Organized/Presented
R. Levine
CLIP “College Hour”: Preparing for the CATW
Both: Organized/Presented
R. Levine
CLIP/CUNYStart Professional Development:
Comprehending the CATW Scoring Methodology
CWC Summer Tutor Training Institute:
CWC trainings in collaboration with: EN
dept/Library/ACC
MAeP Faculty Orientations and Scoring Sessions
Both: Organized/Presented
R. Levine
Contributed to and attended:
D. Pincus, J. Labozzetta,
R. Levine
Both: Organized/Presented:
D. Pincus
CWC Database modification and training for CD (reprogramming specific functions and fields to align
with needs of College Discovery data collection)
C.
Both
8/20/2012
85
12/27/2012
&
3/22/2013
11/12/2012
&
11/13/2012
5/1/2013
12
&
14
60 all
together
June 2013
30 all
together
Sept. 2012,
Jan. 2013,
Feb. 2013,
June 2013
2/1/2013 to
6/1/2013
30
30
32
32
5
25
(CD Tutor
Coord, and
admin aides)
INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITIES/ACHIEVEMENTS OF
DEPARTMENT’S ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, 2012-2013
NOTE: Librarians and Counselors in faculty titles should complete the online report, FACULTY SCHOLARLY/CREATIVE AND
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR.
INSTRUCTIONS: For each administrative staff member with achievements to report:
1. enter name
2. select the type of achievement from the drop-down menu
3. enter the citation as it would appear in a publication or formal report
4. select the semester from the calendar year when the achievement was completed (achievements from
the next calendar year will be recorded in next year’s annual report)
Name
Joe Labozzetta
Achievement type (from
menu)
Citation
Semester
Service to department,
College, University,
community, and/or
professional society
Service to department,
College, University,
community, and/or
professional society
CWC: "Foundations of Academic
Support" - Part 2
F:08/27/2012;
Sp:1/24/2013
Weekly Tutor Training Events – Fall
‘11, Spring ‘12
F:09/12/2012
to 12/2/2012
Service to department,
College, University,
community, and/or
professional society
Service to department,
College, University,
community, and/or
iPASS (e-Tutoring) Training
Sp:02/13/2013
to 05/9/2013
F: 12/17/2012
&
Sp: 2/22/2013
Weekly CTE 21st Century Workshops
(for EN101 & SP211 students)
F: 10/4/2012
to 12/4/2012
professional society
Service to department,
College, University,
community, and/or
professional society
Robin Levine
Name
Trained College Discovery staff on
using The Academic Support Services
database
Awards
Received 13.3b (CCAS – Certificate
of Continuous Administrative Service)
Service to department,
College, University,
community, and/or
professional society
Weekly CAT-W Exam Prep Training
– Fall ‘12, Spring ‘13
Awards
Received 13.3b (CCAS – Certificate
of Continuous Administrative Service)
Service to department,
College, University,
community, and/or
professional society
Modified, and as needed, created new
CAT-W Tutor/Facilitator training
materials
Achievement type (from
menu)
Service to department,
College, University,
community, and/or
professional society
Service to department,
College, University,
community, and/or
professional society
Conference, workshop,
training attended
CWC Summer Tutor
Training Institute:
CWC trainings in
collaboration with: EN
dept/Library/ACC
Contributed to and attended:
D. Pincus, J. Labozzetta,
R. Levine
Dion Pincus
Service to department,
College, University,
community, and/or
professional society
Citation
Sp: 3/6/2013
3/7/2013
3/13/2013
3/14/2013
3/20/2013
3/21/2013
F: July 2012
F: 9/10/2012
to 12/10/2012
&
Sp: 2/4/2013
to 5/9/2013
F: July 2012
Semester
Served on College’s ADA/504
Committee
Fall 2012
&
Spring 2013
Participated on College’s
Reading/Writing Placement for
Remediation Committee
Fall 2012
CUNY Best Practices in Reading and
Writing
Fall 2012
CAT-W norming/scoring; field test
scoring
Spring 2013
CAT-W Table Leader / Resolution
Scoring at QC Reading Center
Fall 2012
&
Spring 2013
30 all together
June 2013
Senate Steering Committee Liaison to
Standing Committee on Environment
Fall 2012
&
Spring 2013
Member, C2L Moving Ahead with
ePortfolios (MAeP) Leadership Team:
Fall 2012
&
Spring 2013
Materials Development
Developed Faculty Toolkit for
semesters 1-4 of MAeP project
Provided group Orientation and
Scoring sessions for MAeP faculty’s
student artifacts;
Service to department,
College, University,
community, and/or
professional society
Provided one-to-one mentoring of
MAeP faculty modifying their WI
assignments aligned with MAeP rubric
Member: College Remediation
Review Committee
Service to department,
College, University,
community, and/or
professional society
Service to department,
College, University,
community, and/or
professional society
Conceived, organized and participated
in the implementation of the CWC
Summer Tutor Training Institute:
CWC trainings in collaboration with
EN dept/Library/ACC
Fall 2012
&
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
MENU
Book - authored
Book – edited
Newspaper/Magazine Article
Journal Article, other
Journal Article, peer-reviewed
Book, Chapter
Conference Presentation, other
Conference Presentation - published as proceedings
Book, introduction, preface, etc.
Lecture (Invited)
Art Exhibit Curated
Art Exhibited (juried show)
Service to department, College, University,
community, and/or professional society
Web Site Development
Other (scholarly or creative achievements
comparable to previous categories)
D.
Direction/Choreography/Dramaturgy/Design (dance, theater,
film)
Performance (music, dance, theater)
Music Composition Published/Performed
Play Produced/Performed
Review/Commentary (including Blogging)
Awards
Patent
Materials Development
Grants awarded (title, awarding agency, amount and period
of award)
Curriculum or laboratory development, workshop conducted
Works submitted/accepted/in press or in progress; works
reprinted/republished
Service as a reviewer/editor/consultant
Conference, workshop, training attended
Other (please explain)
DEPARTMENT CHANGES,
2012-2013
INSTRUCTIONS: Choose the type of change from the menu below and fill in the other columns.
Type (from menu)
Description of
Change
Reason for
Change
Date/Semester
Evaluation of
Change*
Personnel or
organizational change
Resignation of
CWC Associate
Director
New job and
residence out-ofstate
Fall 2012
Personnel or
organizational change
Withdrawal of
one F/T HEO
series personnel
line
Administration’s
decision, upon
resignation of
CWC Associate
Director
Fall 2012
Personnel or
organizational change
CCAS (13.3b)
awarded: Mr.
Joseph
Labozzetta,
Tutor/e-Tutor
Coordinator
CCAS (13.3b)
awarded: Ms
Robin Levine,
Test Prep
Coordinator
Reclassification:
Mr. Joe
Labozzetta, from
HEa to HEA
(Learning Center
Manager)
Longevity as F/T
HEO series
member
Spring 2013
Longevity as F/T
HEO series
member
Spring 2013
Privileges of CCAS
conferred
Significant
accretion of job
duties as a result
of organizational
restructuring
Spring 2013
Rank and Title of HEA:
Learning Center
Manager conferred;
Personnel or
organizational change
Personnel or
organizational change
Position left vacant;
reporting and
organizational chart
restructured
Reduction in CWC
staffing strength by 1
F/T member; new
division of labor to
accommodate
downsized staffing
Privileges of CCAS
conferred
CCAS (13.3b)
suspended, pending
successful 1-year
evaluation conducted in
the new title
*Please note that, if change has been too recent to evaluate, you may indicate NA.
MENU
Type of change
Personnel or organizational change
Service, program, or project change
Facilities/space
Equipment
Other
Description
New personnel, retirees, resignations, organizational changes, addition of
departmental responsibilities, CCAS (13.3b), reclassification, merit increase,
etc.
Changes to the number, volume, or type of services, programs, or projects
Renovations or development of new facilities (i.e., computer laboratories or
relocation)
Acquisition of new or disposition of old equipment
Other changes affecting the department not included above and including
interactions with other departments
E.
ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION FOR ACADEMIC YEAR JUST
COMPLETED, AY 2012-2013
INSTRUCTIONS: Please fill in the table below according to the assessment you conducted this academic year. In
the column, “recommended action plan,” please indicate the reasons for the recommended action(s) and any
recommended modifications to target outcome(s).
Key Performance
Indicator*
Target Outcome(s) for
Key Performance
Indicator**
Actual
Outcome(s)
Recommended
Action Plan
Recommended
Status of Core
Activity and KPI
(see drop down)
Tutoring/etutoring
1.
Course
outcomes
1. Course outcomes
1(a). Students who
receive tutoring/etutoring for a course will
pass their course(s)
with a grade of C or
better, at a rate equal to
or greater than 85%.
1(a.) Of the 3,153
unique students
who received
tutoring / e-tutoring
services for a
course, 2,924
students completed
the course, and
2,529 (86.5%)
passed their
course(s) with a
grade of C or
better.
1(a). Continue
tutor training.
1(a). Continuing
1(b). The frequency of
tutoring / e-tutoring
contacts will continue to
be explored and
assessed, relative to
students’ completion of
their course(s) with a
grade of C or better.
1(b.) Outcomes
by frequency of
utilization of
tutoring / e-tutoring
services for
coursework:
1(b.) Continue to
encourage faculty
to consider
requiring multiple
CWC tutoring
sessions for their
students.
1(b.) Continuing
and Modified
1 appt:
1,526 of 1,787
students (85%)
received grades of
C or better.
2 or 3 appts:
666 of 773 students
(86.2%) received
grades of C or
better.
4+ appts:
337 of 364 students
(92.5%) received
grades of C or
better
1(c). The relationship of
the outcomes of CWCtreated students to the
mean of all students
enrolled in the 5 highestvolume courses for
which tutoring was
provided will continue to
be explored and
comparatively assessed.
1(c). *See table
below; Mean
Outcomes provided
by IT.
1(c). Continue to
explore and
comparatively
assess the
relationship of
outcomes of CWCtreated students to
the mean of all
students enrolled in
the 5 highestvolume courses for
which tutoring was
provided.
1(c). Modified.
Writing Center’s
“outperformance”,
particularly for
students tutored in
EN101 and EN102,
will be more finely
tracked, and a
longitudinal
assessment will
commence,
comparing :
i. Outcomes in those
courses for students
“treated” vs “not
treated” by CWC,
with specific
attention to the
persistence and
retention of students
progressing through
EN101/102 course
“sequences”.
* Comparison of pass rates (≥C): CWC-treated students vs mean outcomes of all students enrolled in selected
courses for which a high-volume of tutoring was provided .
Course
EN101
EN102
PH110
SP211
SS310
SS510
Outcomes of CWC
Students
# served
% ≥C
895
666
63
138
51
75
88%
88%
84%
79%
82%
73%
(790)
(583)
(53)
(110)
(42)
(55)
Mean Outcomes of All
Students
#
% ≥C
enrolled
4,682
82% (3,833)
4,110
84% (3,464)
940
74% (699)
3,043 87% (2,642)
2,930
75% (2,184)
2,928
65% (1,890)
Number of % points difference
CWC (+ or - ) Mean
CWC (+6 %)
CWC (+4 %)
CWC(+10%)
CWC (-8 %)
CWC (+7 %)
CWC (+8 %)
pts
pts
pts
pts
pts
pts
above Mean
above Mean
above Mean
below Mean
above Mean
above Mean
The table above illustrates the ≥C pass rates for students who received CWC tutoring in the 5 highest-volume
service delivery courses. CWC students exceeded the mean ≥C pass rates for all students enrolled in 4 of the 5
courses, with the exception of SP211. CWC will provide tutors with additional training in SP211 content and
strategies over FY 13-14.
Key Performance
Indicator*
Target Outcome(s)
for Key Performance
Indicator**
Actual
Outcome(s)
Recommended
Action Plan
Recommended
Status of Core
Activity and KPI
(see drop down)
2.
3.
Volume of
service delivery
Student
satisfaction
Key Performance
Indicator*
2. Volume of service
delivery
2. Volume of
service delivery
2. Volume of
service delivery
2. Volume of
service delivery
2(a.) The volume of
tutoring/e-tutoring
delivery to unique
students will be ≥ (equal
to or greater than) the
volume of service
delivery from the prior
AY 2011-2012 service
delivery.
2(a.) The number
of unique students
served with
tutoring/e-tutoring
services over AY
2012-2013 was
3,436 – an
increase of 12%
over the prior AY
2011-2012 service
delivery.
2(a.) Continue
outreach to student
through such
means as email,
direct faculty
contact, WAC/WI
trainings,
classroom and InCenter visits,
distributing flyers,
and maintaining a
visible presence on
the quad during
high traffic hours.
2(a.) Continuing
2(b.) Continue
efforts to modify
and improve the
CWC website for
relevant student
learning content,
and ease of
navigation.
2(b.) Continuing
3. Student satisfaction
3. Student
satisfaction
3. Student
satisfaction
3(a.) Students who
receive tutoring/etutoring services will
report that their overall
experience with their
tutor(s) was very
satisfactory / excellent at
a rate of 85% or higher.
3(a.) Of the 428
students who
completed and
returned their
student satisfaction
survey during AY
2012-2013, 97.6%
reported that
their overall
experience was
very satisfactory /
excellent.
3(a). Continue
Tutor Orientations,
weekly in-service
tutor training, and
front desk training
for customer
service skills.
Target Outcome(s)
for Key Performance
Indicator**
Actual
Outcome(s)
Recommended
Action Plan
3(a). Continuing
Recommended
Status of Core
Activity and
KPI (see drop
4. Exit-fromremediation Writing
exam prep
workshops
4. Exit-fromremediation Writing
exam prep workshops
4. Exit-fromremediation
Writing exam
prep workshops
4. Exit-fromremediation
Writing exam
prep workshops
4. Exit-fromremediation
Writing exam
prep workshops
4(a.) CWC Pass rates
of unique students who
prepare with the
Writing Center for their
exit-from-remediation
exam in writing will
complete their prep and
pass their retest at a rate
≥ (equal to or greater
than) the average passrate of students taking
their re-test at the end
of a terminal remedial
writing course, i.e.,
BE112 and BE205.
4(a.) Of the total
number of
unique students
(640) who
prepared for their
CAT-W exitfromremediation
exam in writing
with the Writing
Center during
FY 2012-2013,
78% (499)
passed their retest.
4(a.)
Continuing
and Modified
(For purposes of
comparison, the table
below shows the
outcomes of
BE112/BE205 students
on their CAT-W exit
exam re-test during AY
2012-2013 – research
provided by QCC
Information
Technology)
(Research
provided by IT)
2012-2013
BE112/205
TOTAL
Avg. 49%
2012-2013
BE112 only
2012-2013
BE205 only
Semester
USIP/Summer
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
June 2013
USIP/Summer
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
June 2013
USIP/Summer
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
June 2013
Maintain CWC
CAT-W exitfrom-remediation
writing exam
workshop pass
rates at a rate at
least 5% higher
than the
BE112/205 CATW pass rate for
the same FY.
4(b.) The
average pass-rate
of students
taking their retest at the end of
a terminal
remedial writing
course, i.e.,
BE112 and BE20
during AY 20122013 was: 49%.
Enrolled/Completed
# Passed CAT-W
% Passed CAT-W
87
532
410
43
52
274
180
19
60%
52%
44%
44%
29
256
199
17
23
163
110
8
79%
64%
55%
47%
58
276
211
26
29
111
70
11
50%
40%
33%
42%
*The items in this column correspond to “indicators to be assessed” in part A, column 3.
**To be more effective and meaningful, assessment efforts should focus on selected KPIs
each academic year; over time, assessments should be rotated through all the department’s
KPIs.
DROP DOWN MENU
Completed
Continuing
Modified
Discontinued
E(1).
Core activity has been completed
Core activity and KPI will continue as before
Core activity and KPI have been modified
Core activity and KPI have been discontinued
Additional ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION – as relevant to
planning for the upcoming year 2013-2014 – for ACADEMIC YEAR
JUST COMPLETED, AY 2012-2013
The following AY 2012-2013 data comprise elements of CWC research which the program hopes to develop into
more fully longitudinal studies. These are some of the emergent patterns which help to point the way forward,
toward programmatic directions and project designs which align with the Strategic Plan’s retention/graduation goals.
1
2
Category / Classification
of CWC data
Total number ALL students
provided ANY CWC service
Total number of students:
a.
# students,
duplicative
33,431
Of the 2,752 unique tutees,
684 – 25% -- came for help
in multiple subjects.
2,752
411
Both f2f and e-tutoring:
63
251
Total number students completing
CAT-W workshop & re-testing
499
N/A
c.
Application for research or
Assessment Plan 13-14
3,436
265
b. e-tutoring only:
% Pass-rate
(if applicable)
7,620
f2f tutoring only:
(for 1 course)
(for multiple courses)
3
# students,
unique
5,014
78%
Data indicates students have a
preference for a single
modality, rather than
combined modalities.
Criteria for assessment of:
a) Outcomes/best practices
of CWC vs. DAL treatment,
and
4
Total number students provided
tutoring or other assistance using
computers/laptops
5
Total number of In-Center visits
(section of course)
3,112
47
25,850
b) longitudinal tracking of
CWC cohort through EN
101/102 (vs. DAL cohort).
Supports futuring which
focuses on more robust tutor
training in new(er)
educational technologies used
by students.
In-Center visits are entire
sections of a course, with the
Category / Classification
of CWC data
# students,
unique
# students,
duplicative
% Pass-rate
(if applicable)
Application for research or
Assessment Plan 13-14
instructor, working in CWC.
6
Total number of students served
by In-Center visits
764
Number and % of students from
In-Center visits who return to
CWC voluntarily
199
929
Services for the 929 students
represents 1,638 hours of
service delivery. (budget)
26% return rate (328 hrs.) of
students underscores the
success of the CWC’s InCenter initiative: “breaking
the ice” and de-stigmatization
of tutoring.
(26% of 764)
Tracking cohorts of students
served by CWC in either tutoring,
or CAT-W Prep, to explore
impact on persistence, retention
and outcomes in EN 101 and EN
102 – degree requirements.
a.
b. Of the students in 6a., the
number and % who
persisted/were retained and
enrolled in EN 102 in Spring
2013:
c.
Of the students in 6b., the
percentage who completed
EN 102 and received a grade
≥ C in Spring 2013:
1,514 hours of EN 101
service delivery to students
in Fall 2012.
625
Total number of students
provided tutoring for EN 101
during Fall 2012:
425
68%
380
89.3%
(EN102 ≥ C)
Writing Center would like
to refine its data collection
and assessment methods so
as to:
a) establish a longitudinal
study tracking CWC
tutoring and CAT-W
workshop cohorts,
beginning with:
1.
Tutorial and Workshop
support for exit-fromremediation re-test
preparation,
And following the tutees
and workshoppers through
subsequent semesters, to
determine:
b) whether persistence /
retention to the subsequent
semester’s enrollment in
EN101 and/or EN102 is
evident for the cohorts;
c) whether the cohort
students return to the
Writing Center for
assistance (and what type)
in EN101 and/or EN102;
d) what the student
cohorts’ outcomes are for
EN 101 and/or EN 102; and
e) to compare Writing
Center’s data for 6a(1), 6b,
and 6d, against the same
data for equivalent cohorts
of DAL students [in 6a(1)].
F.
ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR NEW YEAR (AY 2013-2014)
Instructions: Please note: Once you have completed the report through column 4 below, you must submit it to your
division head for discussion and approval.
Core Activity
(New Year)
Tutoring/etutoring
Key Performance
Indicator
(New Year)
Target Outcome(s)*
Plan for
Achieving
Target
Outcome
1.
Course
outcomes
1. Continue
1. Students who
Orientation
receive tutoring/eand intutoring for a course
service tutor
will pass their
training.
course(s) with a grade
of C or better, at a rate
equal to or greater than
85%.
2.
Volume of
service
delivery
2. The volume of
tutoring/e-tutoring
delivery to unique
students will be ≥
(equal to or greater
than) the volume of
service delivery from
the prior FY.
2. Continue
outreach to
students and
faculty via
paper,
interpersonal
and electronic
media.
3.
Student
satisfaction
3. Students who
receive tutoring/e-
3. Continue
tutor and front
Divisional
Head
Approval
Assessment
Office
Review
(Date)
(Date)
Exit-fromremediation
Writing exam
prep workshops
CAT-W exam
pass rate
Core Activity
(New Year)
Key Performance
Indicator
(New Year)
tutoring services will
report that their overall
experience with their
tutor(s) was very
satisfactory/excellent
at a rate of 85% or
higher.
Students participating
in CWC CAT-W
workshops will pass
the CAT-W exam at a
rate ≥ (equal to or
greater than) the
average pass-rate of
students taking their
re-test at the end of a
terminal remedial
writing course, i.e.,
BE112 and BE205.
Target Outcome(s)*
Refine data
collection and
assessment
methods so as
to establish a
longitudinal
study tracking
CWC tutoring
and CAT-W
workshop
cohorts,
beginning with:
desk training
Continue
CAT-W
workshop
facilitator
training and
materials
development.
Plan for
Achieving
Target
Outcome
Keep accurate
EMPLID
records of all
students who
receive
targeted CWC
services,
starting with
Summer 2013.
a. Tutorial and
Workshop
support for
exit-fromremediation
re-test
preparation
And following
the tutees and
workshoppers
through
subsequent
semesters, to
determine:
1) whether
persistence /
retention to the
Course outcomes;
Comparison of
Establish benchmark
% of cohort students’
enrollment in EN 101
CUNYFirst
enrollment
data for
Divisional
Head Approval
Assessment
Office Review
(Date)
(Date)
subsequent
semester’s
enrollment in
EN101 and/or
EN102 is
evident for the
cohorts;
pass-rates
and/or 102 during the
semester subsequent
to their eligibility.
courses.
2) whether the
cohort students
return to the
Writing Center
for assistance
(and what type)
in EN101
and/or EN102;
Volume of service
delivery.
Establish benchmark
% of cohort students
who return to the
Writing Center for
assistance in EN101
and/or EN102 during
the semester
subsequent to their
eligibility.
CWC database
tracking of
cohort
students’
service
delivery.
d) what the
student
cohorts’
outcomes are
for EN 101
and/or EN 102;
and
Course outcomes;
Establish benchmark
% of cohort students
who complete their
EN101 and/or EN102
course with a grade of
C or better.
Request
report(s) from
Information
Technology.
e) to compare
Writing
Center’s data
for 6a(1), 6b,
and 6d, against
the same data
for equivalent
cohorts of DAL
students [in
6a(1)].
Course outcomes;
Establish benchmark
% of comparable
BE112/205 students
who complete their
EN101 and/or EN102
course with a grade of
C or better.
Request
report(s) from
Information
Technology.
Comparison of
pass-rates,
Comparison of
pass-rates.
*Targets indicated here will direct assessment efforts for the following year – see part A, column 3.
Respectfully submitted,
^
Dion Pincus
Director of the Campus Writing Center