5.1 b
Program/Discipline: ENGLISH/READING
Annual Program Review Update
English
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 1 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Annual Program Review Update
*Be sure to include information from all three campuses.
Program/Discipline: English
Submitted by (names): Susan Nordlof, Pam Kessler, Judie Hinman, David Holper, Peter Blakemore, Ruth Rhodes, Ken Letko
Contact Information (phone and email): 476-4336 Susan-Nordlof@redwoods.edu
Dean / V. P.:
Validation Date:
1. Program/Discipline Changes
Has there been any change in the status of your program or area since your last Annual Update? (Have you shifted departments?
Have new degrees or certificates been created by your program? Have activities in other programs impacted your area or program?
For example, a new nursing program could cause greater demand for life-science courses.)
Note: curricular changes should be addressed under 12 (Curriculum).
No (go to next question)
Yes (describe the changes below):
Prior to this review, Reading 360 was part of the General Studies (GS) Program Review. In S09, with the retirement of the faculty GS
program coordinator and the GS program's subsequent move to Student Services, it was agreed that Reading should join English for
the purposes of Program Review because it is, in fact, part of the developmental comprehension and composition course sequence
with both curriculum and SLOs closely articulated with English 350.
The most devastating change in our program continues to be the loss of full-time faculty with no new tenure-track hires to replace
them. Since the Fall 2008 Program review, we have been hit with yet another retirement (Barbara Morrison). In addition, John
Johnston is absent for the 2009-10 academic year on unpaid leave, and Pat McCutcheon (whose health problems have prevented her
from teaching a full load since Spring 2008) will be retiring at the end of the Fall 2009 term. This depletion of full-time faculty
continues a trend that began in the 2007-8 academic year with the retirement of veteran instructors Bill Hoopes and Larry Frazier, as
well as the transfer of the one full time English instructor from Mendocino to Eureka, leaving the latter center with no full-time
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 2 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
oversight of the English program at that location. Although our report will address this crisis in Section 6 (Faculty), nonetheless, as
the most significant change in our program, the loss of full-time faculty must be referenced in Section 1 also.
This fundamental problem is related to other changes that have impacted our program negatively in the past year. With the
proliferation of new sites and the mandate to schedule more sections at non-traditional times and to grow FTES in general, the English
department has been pressured into spreading its dwindling pool of qualified instructors over an ever-expanding schedule and an
increasingly large district. We have fewer full-time instructors to train, mentor, and evaluate a growing pool of adjunct instructors,
some of whom are relatively new to teaching. At a time when studies are showing that an over-reliance on part-time instructors
weakens student transfer rates and class participation (see http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/06/adjuncts), CR's English
department is being forced to increase its numbers of adjunct instructors while we lack the proportionate number of full-time faculty
needed to maintain the consistency of curriculum and standards. To exacerbate this dilemma still more, in the summer of 2009 new
adjunct faculty were hired by an administrator without an English background--hiring decisions that tenured members of the English
department consider questionable.
Finally, the fast-tracked shift in the late summer of 2009 from Blackboard to Sekai has also affected our discipline. Not only were the
faculty forced to rebuild their established Blackboard resources on an unfamiliar program with fewer, less adaptable features than
Blackboard, but the English department in particular feels a professional responsibility to test and evaluate the new Tutor.com which
the college is promoting as equivalent to those services provided by the Writing Center. So far, our direct experience with Tutor.com
has led us to issue strong caveats to our students, since we have found the service to be very limited and the tutoring advice to be of
dubious quality. We will continue to evaluate Tutor.com and to monitor the effects of out-sourcing services which the English
department has long provided the college through its lab courses.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 3 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
2. Program/Discipline Trends
Review and analyze the Enrollment data (Table 2.01) provided by Institutional Research and answer the following questions:
Table 2.01 Enrollments
Number of students enrolled at census date
For the purposes of these charts here, course sections have been broken down by class start time. The definitions for each start time
are as follows:
 Early Morning
Before 10:00AM
 Prime Time
From 10:00AM to 2:30PM
 Late Afternoon
From 2:30PM to 5:30PM*/6:00PM
 Evening
5:30PM*/6:00PM and later
 Weekend
Saturday or Sunday classes
 TBA
No scheduled start time
* Evening is defined differently for semesters prior to Fall 2009
Each classification was weighted according to the following schedule:
 Weekend
 Evening
 Late Afternoon
 Early Morning
 Prime Time
If a section had start times that fell into more than one category, it would be placed in the higher weighted category. For example, if a
section met on a Saturday and started at 10:30AM, it would be considered a Weekend section.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 4 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
English
Fill Rate
76%
73% 63% 59%
47%
61% 69%
66% 62% 63%
33%
50% 67%
68% 69% 66%
23%
41%
73%
72%
Enrollment
572 1,497 515
181 1,394 4,159
545 1,390
516 215 1,236 3,902
474 1,376 452
167 1,215 3,684
575 1,375
Sections
27
74
30
11
70
212
27
74
30
12
65
208
26
73
24
9
60
192
30
69
FTES
81.6 203.36
69 24.58 113.76 492.31 80.61 202.29 69.91
24 109.54 486.35 69.49 204.21 62.4 26.74 101.06 463.89 110.42 253.46
WSCH
1,746 4,419 1,755
639 3,024 11,583 1,674 4,482 1,791 603 2,943 11,493 1,710 4,806 1,449
630 2,700 11,295 2,763 5,670
Reading Fill Rate
53%
53%
60%
70%
Enrollment
9
9
36
42
Sections
1
1
3
3
FTES
3.09
3.09 10.96 13.49
WSCH
144
144
432
432
Total
TBA
Evening
Late Afternoon
Prime Time
Early Morning
Total
2008 - 2009
TBA
Evening
Late Afternoon
Prime Time
Early Morning
Total
2007 - 2008
TBA
Evening
Late Afternoon
Prime Time
Early Morning
Total
2006 - 2007
TBA
Evening
Late Afternoon
Prime Time
Early Morning
2005 - 2006
70% 58% 14%
48%
515
97
347 2,909
27
6
18
150
98.08 19.61 30.65 512.23
2,277
477
972 12,159
55%
64%
11
89
1
7
3.94
28.4
144
1,008
a. Describe how changes in the discipline or area are impacting the data shown in the table above.
Over the four-year period, enrollment in the department has fallen approximately 25%. We do not know how that compares to the
district as a whole because that information has not been provided by IR. We can only speculate about the causes: 1) According to
the IR report “Baseline Measures of Developmental Education,” the percentage of new students being assessed dropped from 74% in
F2006 to 56% in F2008. Because students enroll in English courses only after being assessed, if fewer students take the assessment
test, fewer students will enroll in English. 2) In 2008-09, many English courses were impacted with full wait lists before school
began, but additional courses were not added as no faculty were available to staff them.
The English Department recommends that if Program Review would like disciplines to compare changes in enrollment to that of the
district, the necessary data should be provided and the question added to the form.
Sections:
Over the same four-year period, the number of sections offered has decreased by 30%.
FTES:
Over the same four-year period FTES has increased even though enrollment has dropped. As no information is provided regarding
how FTES is figured or how it relates to enrollment, no meaningful analysis of these numbers is possible.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 5 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
The English Department recommends that such explanatory information be added to the Program Review document or website so that
meaningful analysis can occur.
Fill Rate:
Over the four-year period fill rates for early morning, prime time, and evening sections remained fairly constant, while the fill rate for
late afternoon sections (63-70%) increased slightly. For the 2008-09 year, fill rates for all daytime periods were roughly equivalent
(70-73%) while fill rates for evening sections were lower (58%). Despite the consistency in fill rates over time for each time block,
the total fill rate is shown as dropping from 61% to 48%. It is unclear from the data, what this means, particularly since most English
classes are impacted with full wait lists on the first day of school.
The English Department recommends that explanatory information on how the total fill rate is determined be added to the Program
Review document or website so that meaningful analysis can occur.
One notable change in the discipline is that DHR hours in the Writing Center, confusingly noted in the table as TBA, for four courses
(150L, 153L, 350L, and 353L) are now no longer tracked as separate courses. That change accounts for the drop in TBA sections from
70 in 2005 to 18 in 2008.
b. Describe how changes outside the discipline or area are impacting the data shown in the table above.
The low fill rate for TBA sections is misleading. The problem is partially addressed later in this document under Goal #6.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 6 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Review and analyze the Enrollment data (Table 2.02) provided by Institutional Research and answer the following questions:
2.02 Course Success Rates
Percentage of students enrolled at census receiving a grade of A, B, C, or Credit
2004 - 2005
2005 - 2006
2006 - 2007
2007 - 2008
2008 - 2009
Success Total Enrolled Success Total Enrolled Success Total Enrolled Success Total Enrolled Success Total Enrolled
ENGL-150
63%
837
58%
913
55%
910
56%
810
60%
867
ENGL-150L
60%
846
59%
908
58%
918
57%
784
ENGL-152
44%
338
45%
352
49%
304
33%
403
ENGL-153
73%
22
70%
10
50%
16
60%
15
50%
14
ENGL-17
79%
19
81%
21
ENGL-18
69%
35
67%
33
ENGL-1A
65%
891
63%
965
61%
976
62%
890
73%
977
ENGL-1B
70%
289
76%
289
60%
250
74%
270
70%
328
ENGL-20
67%
18
44%
9
ENGL-22
84%
83
96%
26
91%
32
ENGL-32
83%
23
73%
26
63%
19
73%
37
ENGL-33
72%
46
64%
39
75%
32
74%
43
ENGL-350
57%
595
60%
637
54%
581
52%
473
59%
511
ENGL-350L
59%
602
62%
645
57%
587
53%
481
ENGL-353
86%
14
67%
9
43%
14
60%
10
43%
14
ENGL-40
60%
10
67%
3
100%
3
100%
4
ENGL-41
89%
27
100%
8
90%
10
87%
15
93%
15
ENGL-45
67%
9
ENGL-47
74%
50
97%
30
86%
22
ENGL-52
35%
392
ENGL-61
88%
16
48%
31
ENGL-8
84%
43
89%
9
ENGL-9
76%
17
88%
16
88%
8
READ-360
75%
12
57%
101
Total
62%
4692
61%
4824
58%
4741
56%
4298
62%
3402
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 7 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
a. Describe how changes in the discipline or area are impacting the data shown in the table above.
The total success rate for 2008-09 is up from the previous year (62% compared to 56%), but is fairly consistent over the five year
period.
Not surprisingly, success rate in college-level courses is higher than that in developmental courses. In developmental English courses
success rates range from 52%-60% in Eng. 350 and from 55%-63% in Eng. 150. When compared with the average success rate of
comparable basic skills courses in Math and General Studies, the success rate in English courses is virtually the same: students at this
level, regardless of the discipline, have an average success rate of 58% according to BSI data presented in “Baseline Measures for
Developmental Education.” However, for our transfer level courses (Eng. 1A and Eng. 1B) for 2008-2009, the success rate is 7073%.
The success rate in ESL courses has dropped dramatically since 2004 (43% compared to 86% for E353 and 50% compared to 73% for
E153).
The success rate in English 1A has increased noticeably in 2008-2009 (73% compared to 61%-65% in the previous four years).
The English Department recommends that the Program Review Committee and Institutional Research reconsider the validity of data
about success rates. Because of the way that data is now collected, success rates are deflated and retention rates are inflated. See
further explanation under 2.03b.
a.
For English 1A, the curriculum change from 3-units to 4-units may account for the improved success rate. Another factor that
might account for the very high success rate of 73% could be the high percentage of associate faculty teaching Eng. 1A in 2008-2009
as contrasted with other years. Some research indicates that grades given by associate faculty are higher than those given by fulltime
faculty.
b. Describe how changes outside the discipline or area are impacting the data shown in the table above.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 8 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
b. For the ESL courses, changes in student demographics may account for the drop in success rate. The number of international
students has decreased, while the number of second-generation language learners has increased. Many of the students now coming to
CR are older with very little training in their native language. In addition, many ESL students are inappropriately placed when they
start at CR. They enroll in 353/153 only after failing 350/150.
Total enrollment in English 41 (Tutor Training) has dropped significantly since 2004-05 because the course is now offered only once a
year despite the need and demand for the class. Offering the course only once a year, has negatively impacted staffing in the Writing
Center. For more discussion of this issue, see Budget (section 4) and 2009-10 Goal # 5 (section 12 b) below.
Review and analyze the Enrollment data (Table 2.03) provided by Institutional Research and answer the following questions:
Table 2.03 Course Retention Rate
Percentage of students enrolled at census receiving a grade other than W (Withdraw)
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 9 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
2004 - 2005
2005 - 2006
2006 - 2007
2007 - 2008
2008 - 2009
Retained Total Enrolled Retained Total Enrolled Retained Total Enrolled Retained Total Enrolled Retained Total Enrolled
ENGL-150
86%
837
84%
913
78%
910
83%
810
86%
867
ENGL-150L
87%
846
84%
908
79%
918
83%
784
ENGL-152
96%
338
95%
352
97%
304
95%
403
ENGL-153
95%
22
100%
10
94%
16
93%
15
79%
14
ENGL-17
79%
19
90%
21
ENGL-18
89%
35
85%
33
ENGL-1A
88%
891
82%
965
80%
976
84%
890
90%
977
ENGL-1B
83%
289
87%
289
70%
250
84%
270
84%
328
ENGL-20
83%
18
44%
9
ENGL-22
93%
83
96%
26
97%
32
ENGL-32
91%
23
92%
26
95%
19
81%
37
ENGL-33
83%
46
82%
39
81%
32
93%
43
ENGL-350
90%
595
89%
637
87%
581
91%
473
88%
511
ENGL-350L
90%
602
89%
645
87%
587
91%
481
ENGL-353
100%
14
100%
9
93%
14
90%
10
79%
14
ENGL-40
80%
10
100%
3
100%
3
100%
4
ENGL-41
93%
27
100%
8
90%
10
87%
15
93%
15
ENGL-45
100%
9
ENGL-47
82%
50
100%
30
86%
22
ENGL-52
90%
392
ENGL-61
88%
16
58%
31
ENGL-8
95%
43
100%
9
ENGL-9
88%
17
94%
16
88%
8
READ-360
75%
12
88%
101
Total
89%
4692
86%
4824
82%
4741
86%
4298
88%
3402
a. Describe how changes in the discipline or area are impacting the data shown in the table above.
The total retention rate has remained consistent over the five year period, ranging from a low of 82% to a high of 89%. However,
retention data shows us simply how many students chose not to withdraw officially. Of what educational value is that data?
No substantive change noted.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 10 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
b. Describe how changes outside the discipline or area are impacting the data shown in the table above.
As noted in the 2007-08 program review, students who stop attending but who do not officially withdraw from the course are counted
as retained. Thus, retention figures are inflated and success rates are deflated. The English Department recommends that this problem
be rectified by reinstating Faculty Drops and FW grades, as recommended in the BSI End-of-year Report for 2008-2009. If that
change were made, data relevant to teaching and learning could be studied
Review and analyze the Enrollment data (Table 2.04) provided by Institutional Research and answer the following questions:
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 11 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Table 2.04 English and Mathematics Basic Skills Data for Course Success (F2005-F2008)
ENGL-150
ENGL-153
ENGL-17
ENGL-18
ENGL-1A
ENGL-1B
ENGL-20
ENGL-22
ENGL-32
ENGL-33
ENGL-350
ENGL-353
ENGL-40
ENGL-41
ENGL-47
ENGL-52
ENGL-61
ENGL-9
Total
READ-360
Total
PASSED 1A
ENGL-1A
ENGL-150
ENGL-350
READ-360
UNKNOWN
Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled
60%
5
56%
132
55%
2612
52%
33
75%
4
69%
99
50%
4
57%
35
100%
2
88%
24
100%
2
75%
4
100%
1
56%
9
77%
22
63%
8
0%
2
67%
3
57%
7
62%
2795
65%
75
43%
7
67%
3
63%
206
72%
768
83%
40
83%
6
100%
1
61%
113
69%
13
63%
8
0%
1
40%
5
100%
19
82%
11
100%
8
100%
1
89%
19
71%
21
67%
12
60%
5
100%
1
78%
18
79%
33
63%
19
67%
9
100%
1
74%
34
50%
2
67%
15
56%
88
59%
1566
40%
134
51%
146
0%
1
57%
7
65%
17
43%
7
40%
15
100%
9
0%
1
91%
33
81%
43
79%
28
94%
16
100%
1
86%
14
43%
30
41%
81
28%
39
50%
16
0%
7
17%
24
67%
30
33%
6
50%
2
67%
9
86%
14
100%
2
73%
1073
62%
3162
55%
2909
59%
1646
40%
156
61%
717
100%
2
67%
6
56%
48
40%
5
100%
2
67%
6
56%
48
40%
5
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 12 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
ENGL-150
ENGL-153
ENGL-17
ENGL-18
ENGL-1A
ENGL-1B
ENGL-20
ENGL-22
ENGL-32
ENGL-33
ENGL-350
ENGL-353
ENGL-40
ENGL-41
ENGL-47
ENGL-52
ENGL-61
ENGL-9
Total
READ-360
Total
TRANSFER-LVL
MATH-120
MATH-380
MATH-375
MATH-371
UNKNOWN
Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled Success Enrolled
68%
360
63%
403
54%
883
50%
682
48%
191
49%
366
0%
3
70%
10
70%
10
40%
5
43%
7
83%
6
75%
20
75%
4
75%
4
100%
3
89%
9
82%
17
50%
2
50%
4
50%
6
67%
6
72%
830
62%
677
57%
684
59%
361
50%
84
58%
457
76%
454
62%
164
68%
106
67%
42
50%
6
71%
156
71%
14
50%
2
25%
4
100%
1
50%
6
92%
12
100%
5
100%
4
100%
2
91%
35
100%
5
70%
10
50%
6
80%
10
0%
1
72%
25
78%
27
64%
11
79%
14
67%
3
67%
3
71%
38
81%
36
62%
117
67%
512
54%
667
50%
298
49%
321
100%
1
80%
5
67%
9
45%
11
40%
10
36%
11
100%
3
100%
1
100%
3
100%
1
50%
2
92%
12
82%
11
100%
6
100%
1
100%
3
89%
35
79%
19
78%
9
43%
7
100%
1
90%
31
40%
40
38%
32
36%
39
31%
45
45%
11
27%
30
65%
23
64%
11
33%
3
50%
4
67%
6
100%
9
50%
2
50%
2
100%
3
72%
1901
63%
1485
59%
2298
54%
1855
49%
613
57%
1511
100%
2
64%
11
61%
33
20%
5
50%
10
100%
2
64%
11
61%
33
20%
5
50%
10
Given the data, what patterns can be identified in the success rate in individual courses based on the students' skill level? Identify any
important changes since the last review.
In English courses, most students are enrolled in the course appropriate for their assessment level because the courses have
prerequisites and the English Department requires that students have proof of eligibility.
A few students are moved up or down a level at their request, by instructor recommendation, or by counselors using multiple measure
overrides of the assessment score. There is no apparent pattern to the success rate of these students.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 13 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Although reading and math skills appear to be disparate, in fact, developmental math students seem to perform similarly in
developmental English courses. The same correlation applies at the transfer level.
How has the discipline/program responded to these patterns and how will the discipline/program respond in the next three years?
No response is necessary as students appear to be placed appropriately.
3. Labor Market Review (for occupational programs)
Occupational programs must review their labor market data.
Provide a narrative that addresses the following issues
a. Documentation of lab market demand
b. Non-duplication of other training programs in the region.
c. Effectiveness as measured by the employment and completion success of its students.
4. Budget Resources
List your area’s budget for the following categories in the table below. Restricted funds have a sponsor/grantor/donor (federal,
state, local government, etc). The funds are restricted by the sponsor/grantor/donor. Everything else is unrestricted.
Category
Supply and printing budget
Equipment replacement and repair
budget
Professional Development
Work-study funding
Additional Budget Items
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 14 of 43
Unrestricted Funds
N/A
Restricted Funds
0
0
5,050.00 (Standardized Tests
5/29/2016
5.1 b
ENGL 350, District-wide)
Is the funding for these areas adequate?
Yes
No
If not, describe the impact of unaddressed needs on your discipline or program.
The English department does not have a separate, transparent budget, but there seems to be an obscure "shadow" budget determining
the annual funding of the Eureka Writing Center, though no explanations have been forthcoming regarding its radical fluctuations and
no information is provided that would allow the department to anticipate the Writing Center budget for the next academic year.
Typically, at the beginning of each academic year, Leslie Leach (the Writing Center director) attempts to hire qualified work study
tutors needed to help serve the sudents in Writing Center, and she does so with no foreknowledge of a budget, hoping that the tutors
will be paid. In the academic year 2008-09, 5822.36 was ultimately delegated to fund Writing Center tutors: 1637.69 taken from BSI
funds and 4184.67 from Federal Work Study/Discretionary funds. (For comparison, in past years, the bulk of the funding has come
from BSI rather than FWS/Discretionary, or the two funding sources have been tapped more equally.) In Fall 2009, Leslie Leach
requested that the district fund work study tutors at a rate comparable to 2008-09 but was informed that only $719 would be allocated.
This sum is less than 14% of last year's funding--at a time when the enrollment is up, including the number of developmental English
sections with required lab components. The English department--and indeed, the Dean of Faculty--does not know why support for
trained student tutors is being cut so severely--at a time when enrollment is up-- nor do we know what the Writing Center funding is
apt to be in the future.
With no Writing Center budget information to draw upon, Leslie Leach is unable to make formal requests for either federal or district
work study tutors or lab assistants. She attempts to engage qualified students, but neither she nor the English Area Coordinator (nor,
in the past, the Humanities/Communications Division Chair) is privy to the budgeting decisions and allocations that determine how
the college funds the work study student saleries (though the allocations from past years are available by request). In general,
however, the Writing Center has a much greater need for district work study students than federal because those students qualified to
work as tutors are a highly specialized group: they have completed ENGL 1A successfully with an instructor's recommendation to
enroll in the ENGL 41 tutoring course and then have completed ENGL 41 successfully, earning their tutor certification.
In addition to work study tutors, the Writing Center budget covers printing costs (for handouts, assessment materials, etc) which have
varied in recent years from $171.35 (2008-09) to $299.01 (2007-08).
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 15 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
At the Eureka campus, the English program depends on consistent funding for theWriting Center--for the Writing Center director and
trained work study tutors. When funding is cut, as in 2009-10, those who most suffer are those who can least bear it: the
underprepared students enrolled in our developmental writing classes, ENGL 350 and ENGL 150, both of which require a Writing
Center lab component. The mystery enshrouding the Writing Center budget also has a negative impact on the students who rely on the
English lab. Without any real information, the English department has had to argue and appeal for funding, and while this process
goes on, we run the risk of losing our most qualified tutors, who are forced to seek work elsewhere.
The tutors working in the Writing Center have been trained specifically for that role and are nationally certified through the course,
ENGL 41 - English Skills Tutoring. Part of the requirement for ENGL 41 is to practice tutorials in the Writing Center, so in the
semesters when the course is offered, the English department has a reduced need for paid work study tutors since the ENGL 41
students help to serve the students in the ENGL 350 and 150 labs. Five years ago, however, the administration insisted that the
English program cut back to offering ENGL 41 in spring term only, and consequently, our need for trained work study tutors has
become greatest in the fall. Offering ENGL 41 both spring and fall would help to offset this increased works study requirement.
Most of all, our program needs the Writing Center funding to be adequate, transparent, and stable to best promote student learning.
This is doubly important since not only is the Writing Center serving more students as enrollment has increased but the majority of
those students are in developmental courses--the group now being targeted by the Chancellor's Basic Skills Initiative. The English
program needs some commitment from administration to fund the Writing Center consistently.
Regarding the standardized tests (Degrees of Reading Power) which are required assessments for both ENGL 350 and RD 360, with
the support of Dean Anderson, the Humanities-Communications budget has now allocated $5,050 to purchase testing materials for the
ENGL 350 and RD 360 courses offered districtwide. However, approximately 1500.00 more is needed to purchase enough of these
mandatory assessments to serve the entire district adequately. The ENGL and RD departments also request that $500 annual
replacement funding for damaged or lost test materials be built into future Humanities-Communcations budgets.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 16 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
5. Learning Resource Center Resources
Is the level of resources provided by the Library (Learning Resource Center) adequate?
Yes
No If No, Complete the following:
Library Needs Not Covered by Current Library Holdings1 Needed by the Unit over and above what is currently provided.
These needs will be communicated to the Library
List Library Needs for Academic Year 2009-10
Please list/summarize the needs of your unit on your campus below. Please be as specific and as brief as possible. Place items on
list in order (rank) or importance.
1. Expanded JSTOR access
Reason: Students in college-level courses requiring research--particularly ENGL 1A, 1B, and literature courses--are limited by the
restricted JSTOR access provided by the current CR library subscription.
2.
Reason:
3.
Reason:
4.
Reason:
5.
Reason:
6.
Reason:
1 If your SLO assessment results make clear that particular resources are needed to more effectively serve students please be sure to note that in the “reason” section of this form.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 17 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
6. Faculty
Table 6.01 – Faculty Load Distribution by semester
2005 - 2006
2006 - 2007
2007 - 2008
2008 - 2009
FTEF % of Total FTEF % of Total FTEF % of Total FTEF % of Total
English Associate Faculty
7.58
33% 8.01
38% 7.98
38% 16.2
63%
Regular Staff/Non-Overld
10.1
67% 9.59
62% 9.03
62% 10.49
37%
Staff
Staff - unknown status
Total
17.68
100% 17.6
100%
17
100% 26.68
100%
Reading Associate Faculty
1.02
63%
Regular Staff/Non-Overld
0.23
100%
0.7
38%
Total
0
0%
0
0% 0.23
100% 1.72
100%
a. Describe the status of any approved, but unfilled full-time positions.
 b. If you are requesting a Full-Time Faculty position, fill out the current faculty position request form and attach it to
this document.
c. If your Associate Faculty needs are not being met, describe your efforts to recruit Associate faculty and/or describe
barriers or limitations that prevent retaining or recruiting Associate Faculty
English adjunct postions are being advertised on an ongoing basis, and the English Department Chair reviews all applications
forwarded by HR and/or the Dean of Faculty, but many applicants lack minimum qualifications and/or experience teaching college
composition. In addition, the department maintains a close working relationship with the English program at Humboldt State
University, particularly reagrding its MA in the Teaching of Writing graduate TAs and recent MA graduates. Unfortunately, the
enrollment numbers in this program have been declining, and even greater declines are anticipated for the future. Clearly, CR can no
longer look to the HSU MATW program to provide a reliable supply of qualified adjunct instructors in English to meet our needs.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 18 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
The relative remoteness of the District and the very few options for contingent academic work make it difficult for CR to attract
qualified adjunct instructors beyond the very limited number who live within the district, most of whom already work for CR, HSU, or
both institutions.
Another barrier is our increasing shortage of full-time English faculty, who are necessary to maintain the standards and quality of a
coordinated composition program. An English program cannot function successfully as a collection of independent, atomistic adjunct
faculty.
Finding qualified Reading instructors is, and probably always will be, a challenge locally. Ongoing professional development
activities would support retaining qualified faculty.
7. Staff Resources
Complete the Classified Staff Employment Grid below (please list full- and part-time staff). This does not include faculty, managers,
or administration positions. If a staff position is shared with other areas/disciplines, estimate the fraction of their workload dedicated
to your area. (To add additional rows to this table, press Tab when the cursor is in the far right-hand cell)
Staff Employed in the Program
Assignment (e.g., Math, Full-time (classified)
English)
staff (give number)
ENGLISH
Part-time staff (give
number)
Gains over Prior Year
Losses over Prior Year
(give reason: retirement,
reassignment, health, etc.)
Leslie Leach 0006751.
Do you need more full-time of part-time classified staff?
Yes
No
If yes, fill out the current staff request form (to be provided by Administrative Services)
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 19 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
8. Facilities, and Classroom Technology
Are teaching facilities adequate for achieving the educational outcomes of this discipline/program?
Yes
No
If No was checked, complete a Facility Form for each instructional space that does not meet the needs of this discipline/program.
Additional facilities forms are available at the end of this document for each separate facility being addressed.
Facilities, and Classroom Technology Form
Program/Disciplines: ENGLISH/READING
Submitted by: Susan Nordlof, Peter Blakemore, Ruth Rhodes
Year: 2009
List classroom or instructional space name/number: Eureka / FM 206
Check if any of the following are not adequate:
Ventilation / room
ADA
temp
access
Other (briefly describe):
Number of seats / work stations
Technology (computers, projectors, internet)
Describe the specific action and cost to make this space adequate for your instructional needs: 1) The projector has no spare bulbs,
and the current bulb is well into its 1000-hour life span. There are no department or division monies to replace these bulbs. We
absolutely should have a spare in the warehouse. $300.00
2) There should be a presenter for the multi media system. $50.00
3) The photographic projector is on the same cart as the overhead, and the photographic projector cords are too short for the
overhead to function in the center of the room. We need separate carts for these two devices.
List the average number of discipline/program sections scheduled in this room each semester, and the total number of students
enrolled in these sections.
Sections: 10+
Students: 280+
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 20 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Describe how these changes will improve student learning outcomes: Offering students the most up-to-date learning environment,
including enhanced multimedia and internet connectivity, will increase their ability to understand concepts and participate
interactively. It will also increase their exposure to modern information technology and help them to more clearly and critically
understand how technological systems affect their lives
9. Equipment
Is the available equipment (other than classroom specific equipment described in the facilities section) adequate to achieve the
educational outcomes of your program/discipline?
Yes
No
If No was checked, complete an equipment form.
If No was checked, complete the following grid for each piece of equipment being requested for this area/discipline:
(To add additional rows to this table, press Tab when the cursor is in the far right-hand cell)
Equipment
Clear One
MAX Attach
Conference
Phone / CLRMaxAttach
3Pod
Price, include
tax and
shipping
Approx.
$1100.00
($999.99 plus
$70 plus $25)
Number of
students using
equipment each
semester
With current
expectations for
department
meetings,
outcomes
assessment, and
curriculum
revision,
essentially all
of the students
taking English
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 21 of 43
Describe how the equipment
allows achievement of
program/discipline educational
outcomes
A departmental conference phone
will allow English faculty to
coordinate curriculum review,
assessment activities, and
educational planning at the three
campuses. With heightened
collaboration and participation,
disciplinary expertise will be
shared and students enrolled in
English courses will receive the
highest quality of educational
5/29/2016
5.1 b
courses will be
"using" (or, at
least, directly
benefitting
from) the
equipment
every semester.
experience.
Equipment Repair
Does the equipment used for your discipline/program function adequately, and does your current budget adequately provide adequate
funds for equipment repair and maintenance? This does not include classroom specific equipment repair described in the facilities
section.
Yes
No
If No, provide the following information to justify a budget allotment request:
(To add additional rows to this table, press Tab when the cursor is in the far right-hand cell)
Equipment
requiring repair
Repair Cost /
Annual
maintenance
cost
Number of
students using
equipment each
semester
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 22 of 43
Describe how the equipment
allows achievement of
program/discipline educational
outcomes
5/29/2016
5.1 b
10. Learning Outcomes Assessment Update
Program and Course Learning Outcomes
Refer to the assessment analysis forms that track discipline meetings held to summarize and discuss SLO assessment. Use that information to
complete the following table for each SLO and/or PLO analyzed during the previous academic year. Additional tables are available at the end of
this document to summarize the results for each SLO and/or PLO analyzed.
Course SLO Measured: ENGL 350: Generate and organize general and specific support derived from personal
experiences to develop a point in a paragraph and in a basic essay
Or PLO Measured :
Describe assessment
tool/ assignments
faculty/staff used to
measure the SLO or
PLO.
All SLO assessments for English are in progress this semester and have not yet been
completed.
Assessment Tool/Assignment: Random selection of ENGL 350 competency exams from
Spring 2009.
During the Fall 2009 competency exam norming session, ENGL 350 instructors will assess the target SLO in a
random selection of last spring's exam essays, using a rubric that will assess the students’ abilities as
“inadequately demonstrates the outcome,” “adequately demonstrates the outcome,” or “exceeds expectations at
demonstrating the outcome." We expect at least 70% of the essays will reach the level of "adequate" or
"exceeds expectations" for the outcome being measured. (The 70% cut-off corresponds to the minimum
passing grade for English courses as agreed upon by department vote several years ago.) The findings will be
compiled and summarized briefly, and assessors will discuss their significance, drawing up plans (if necessary)
for changes, actions, or resource requests that may improve student learning.
Summarize the overall
results of your
department, including
performance data if
applicable.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 23 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
How will your
department address the
needs and issues that
were revealed by your
assessment?
List the TOP 3 TO 6
actions/changes
faculty judge will most
improve student learning
Provide a timeline for
implementation of your
top priorities.
Course SLO Measured: ENGL 150: Use concrete details and specific examples to develop and explain general
ideas.
Or PLO Measured :
Describe assessment
tool/ assignments
faculty/staff used to
measure the SLO or
PLO.
All SLO assessments for English are in progress this semester and have not yet been completed.
Assessment Tool/Assignment: Random selection of ENGL 150 competency exams from Spring 2009.
During the Fall 2009 competency exam norming session, ENGL 150 instructors will assess the target SLO in a
random selection of last spring's exam essays, using a rubric that will assess the students’ abilities as
“inadequately demonstrates the outcome,” “adequately demonstrates the outcome,” or “exceeds expectations at
demonstrating the outcome." We expect at least 70% of the essays will reach the level of "adequate" or
"exceeds expectations" for the outcome being measured. (The 70% cut-off corresponds to the minimum
passing grade for English courses as agreed upon by department vote several years ago.) The findings will be
compiled and summarized briefly, and assessors will discuss their significance, drawing up plans (if necessary)
for changes, actions, or resource requests that may improve student learning.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 24 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Summarize the overall
results of your
department, including
performance data if
applicable.
How will your
department address the
needs and issues that
were revealed by your
assessment?
List the TOP 3 TO 6
actions/changes
faculty judge will most
improve student learning
Provide a timeline for
implementation of your
top priorities.
Indicate where learning outcome assessment forms (Course-Discipline, Course-Section) are archived (e.g, Division Office, Dean’s
Office). This is required to provide accreditation documentation of the District’s assessment activities.
To promote objectivity in assessment and to maintiain the essential separation of assessment from faculty evaulation, the English
department asserts that section-level assessment data must be kept securely and privately within the department and should be
shredded annually. Generally, Course-Section forms and other data re. specific sections will be archived for no more than one year in
the English Department Chair's office.
The Course-Discipline forms will not only be submitted and posted with the next Program Review and therefore maintained as public
documents by IR, but they also may be archived where they will be freely accessible. A division office would be the best location if
storage space can be found
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 25 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
11. Curriculum Update
Identify curricular revisions and innovations undertaken
a.
in the last year.
None
b.
planned for the coming year.
1. The curriculum revisions to ENGL 10 and ENGL 9 (Intro to Classical and Modern Literature) which are currently in progress will
realize plans that the English department agreed upon two years ago: that these two world literature courses should be revised to cover
a global survey instead of their former focus on Western literature alone. This change reflects widespread developments in the
discipline and may bring the courses into a closer alignment with comparable courses at both four- and two-year institutions.
2. In the spring of 2010, ENGL 22 (Greek Mythology) will be deleted from the English course offerings. For many years, this course
has been taught in an honors-only format by a single instructor in the district. After this instructor retires at the end of Fall 2009, the
department will have little reason to maintain the course, which is not a common lower -division literature offering at four-year
institutions.
3. To bring our literature offerings into closer alignment with both four- and two-year institutions, the English department will develop
an Introduction to Literature course (structured around literary genres rather than period surveys). Such a course is a standard lowerdivision English course nationwide and will be designed to fulfill GE and AA Liberal Arts-Humanities/Communications options
(though typically such courses do not also fulfill lower division English major requirements, as do English and American period
survey).
c. Complete the grid below. The course outline status report can be located at:
http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Reports/Curriculum/Curriculum_Course_Outlines.htm
(To add additional rows to this table, press Tab when the cursor is in the far right-hand cell)
Course
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 26 of 43
Year Course Outline Last Updated
Year Next Update Expected
5/29/2016
5.1 b
ENGL-10
Intro to Classical Literature
ENGL-9
Intro to Modern Literature
ENGL-150
Precollegiate Reading/Writing
ENGL-153 ESL
Precollegiate Read/Write
ENGL-17
Amer Lit: Beg. to Civil War
ENGL-18
Amer Lit: Civil War-WW II
ENGL-1A
Analytical Reading & Writing
ENGL-1B
Critical Inquiry & Literature
ENGL-20
Intro to Non-Western Lit
ENGL-22
Greek Mythology
ENGL-32
Creative Writing: Poetry
ENGL-33
Creative Writing: Prose
ENGL-350
Reading & Writing Skills
ENGL-353
ESL Reading & Writing Skills
ENGL-40
Independent Study in English
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 27 of 43
11/22/2002
11/22/2002
Fall 2009
(currently in progress)
Fall 2009
(currently in progress)
10/12/2007
2012
10/12/2007
2012
10/12/2007
2012
10/12/2007
2012
03/06/2007
2012
12/09/2005
2010
10/12/2007
2012
05/09/2008
2013
04/13/2007
2012
09/28/2007
2012
10/12/2007
2012
10/12/2007
2012
03/14/2008
2013
5/29/2016
5.1 b
ENGL-41
English Skills Tutoring
ENGL-47
Intro to Shakespeare
ENGL-52
English Lab Practicum
ENGL-60
Intro Brit Lit: Beg-18th Cent
ENGL-61
Intro Brit Lit:Romanc-Present
READ-360
Basic Academic Literacy
10/12/2007
2012
10/26/2007
2012
04/25/2008
2013
05/11/2007
2012
05/11/2007
2012
03/28/2008
2013
If the proposed course outlines updates from last year’s annual update (or comprehensive review) were not completed, please
explain why.
Both ENGL 9 and ENGL 10 have been overdue for revision, but the ever-shrinking number of full-time English faculty means that the
same amount of departmental duties must now be performed by a department which is nearly half the size it was just three years ago.
Under these circumstances, essential departmental work--such as updating curriculum--will inevitably be slowed down.
12. Action Plans
List any action plans submitted since your last annual update. Describe the status of the plans. If they were approved, describe
how they have improved your area.
N/A
13. Goals and Plans. Address either item a. or b. in the section below
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 28 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
a. If you have undergone a comprehensive review, attach your Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) and address progress made on the
plan and list any new plans that have been developed (using a new QIP form).
QIP Attached
N/A
b. If you do not have a QIP, refer to the goals and plans from your previous annual update.
For each goal and/or plan, comment on the current status of reaching that goal and/or completing the plan.
08/09 Goals and Plans: ENGLISH
1. Articulate and measure several program-wide outcomes.coursework.
Status: The department drafted English program outcomes in Spring 2009 but has since reconsidered the benfits of having programatic
outcomes independent from the institutional GE and AA Liberal Arts outcomes. Since the end of the Spring 2009 term, the
institution itself has stalled on progressing with AA Liberal Arts and GE assessment policies and procedures, so this goal is on hold
until the college moves forward with these large-scale programatic assessment plans.
2. Identify and begin assessing individual course learning outcomes.
Status: Ongoing progress--see Section 10.
3. Explore the possibility of offering high-quality on-line and hybrid courses.
Status: With the our current staffing crisis from the loss of full-time English faculty, we simply do not have the personnel to develop
time-consuming new projects such as this. As we have mentioned in other sections, essential departmental duties must now be
performed by a department nearly half the size it was just three years ago--a triage state which precludes innovative and ambitious
new undertakings. In addition, the lack of intensive institutional inservice training for quality distance education renders this goal
even more impossible to fulfill at this time.
4. Identify common interests and streamline course offerings with HSU.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 29 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Status: In the face of HSU's budget emergency, the HSU English department is in the process of substantially redefining its own
course offereings. When the dust settles and our colleagues in Arcata have a clear vision of the new directions they will be taking, we
will meet with them and take up this goal once again. (see new goals).
5. Improve knowledge of and increase use of technology in the classroom.
Status: After English faculty worked intensively for eight months on plans for a mobile writing lab, the project was halted by
administrative and financial roadblocks.
6. Develop curriculum to increase student and community interest in English
Status: With the our current staffing crisis from the loss of full-time English faculty, we simply do not have the personnel to develop
time-consuming new projects such as this. As we have mentioned in other sections, essential departmental duties must now be
performed by a department nearly half the size it was just three years ago--a triage state in which new undertakings are inevitably
stalled or, at the least, slowed down.
08/09 Goals and Plans: READING
1. Continue to coordinate college success and Reading efforts with BSI committee and the college’s plans to increase student
retention, persistence and success.
Status: The college's BSI committee was disbanded in S09. As of 9/24/09, it has not been reassembled.
2. Ensure continuance of program after Barbara Morrison leaves [retired at end of Sp. 09 semester].. If, at the end of F08, the GS
coordinator’s 4.5 TLU’s of reassigned time is indeed eliminated, who will complete the bulleted responsibilities listed on pp. 7-8?
Status: Reading 360 continues as part of the English department's Program Review.
3. Continue to work with Student Services on ways to integrate services and support more effectively.
Status: In F09, Students Services expanded their Learning Communities program significantly. One of the associates teaching GS
361 has become a student mentor for some Reading 360 students. Many others are receiving services through EOPS.
4. Explore the possibility of expanding the program by offering a college success class for every level of student entering CR in a
degree or certificate program.
Status: College successs classes, traditionally part of the GS program, have been subsumed under Student Services.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 30 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
5. Upgrade Fm 212 to promote student success.
Status: Computer upgrades in X09 have improved the workstations. Further upgrades are necessary. (See #8 above)
Each of these Reading goals articulates in its way with CR’s Strategic Plan to
*Reduce barriers to persistence (Objective 1.1)
*Improve basic skills in Math and English as a foundation for student success (Objective 1.2)
*Enable degree and certificate completion in a timely manner (Objective 5.2)
List any new goals and plans your area has for the coming year, and indicate how they are aligned with the goals/objectives in
CR’s Strategic Plan. (CR’s strategic plan is located on the web at http://inside.redwoods.edu/StrategicPlanning/strategicplan.asp).
Goals and Plans: ENGLISH
1. Maintain uniform departmental control over the English curriculum, insuring its high academic quality districtwide.
See Strategic Plan Goal 1: Enable student achievement of academic goals (1.2, 1.3);
Goal 3: Build a culture of assessment (3.1)
2. Lobby the administration for technology to improve communication between campuses and centers (particularly essential for
districtwide assessment work on course and program learning outcomes).
See Strategic Plan Goal 2: Develop …resources to effectively support the learning environment (2.3)
Goal 3: Build a culture of assessment (3.1, 3.5)
3. Develop curriculum and/or expand course offerings districtwide to increase student and community interest in English.
See Strategic Plan Goal 2: Enable student achievement of academic goals (1.3, 1.4, 1.5);
Goal 4: Contribute to the economic, social, and cultural well-being of the Northcoast community (4.5)
Goal 5: Ensure student access (5.2)
4. Maintain communication with the HSU English department to stay abreast of its changing program and to help our transfer students
to achieve their educational goals as efficiently as possible.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 31 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
See Strategic Plan Goal 1: Enable student achievement of academic goals (1.2, 1.5)
5. Beginning in the 2010-2011 academic year, offer English 41 Tutor Training every semester as we did prior to 2005-06 to increase
the number of trained peer tutors in the Writing Center.
See Strategic Plan Goal 1: Enable student achievement of academic goals (1.1, 1.2)
Goal 2: Develop …resources to effectively support the learning environment (2.4)
6. Recommend to the Academic Senate that Faculty Drops and FW Grades be reestablished in order to make success and retention
data more accurate and petition for changes in the fill rate calculation for the DRP lab course ENGL 52 to render English fill rate data
more accurate.
See Strategic Goal 3: Build a culture of assessment (3.4)
Goals and Plans: READING
1. Continue with assessment efforts outlined above.
2. Continue with upgrades to FM 212
3. Track the success fo those Reading 360 students enrolled in GS 361 against those who are not.
Each of these Reading goals articulates in its way with CR’s Strategic Plan to
*Reduce barriers to persistence (Objective 1.1)
*Improve basic skills in Math and English as a foundation for student success (Objective 1.2)
*Enable degree and certificate completion in a timely manner (Objective 5.2)
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 32 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Additional Forms
Facilities and Classroom Technology Form
List classroom or instructional space name/number: Eureka/FM 208
Check if any of the following are not adequate:
Ventilation / room temp
ADA access
Number of seats / work stations
Technology (computers, projectors, internet)
Other (briefly describe):
Describe the specific action and cost to make this space adequate for your instructional needs: Needs new screen (96" x 96")
List the average number of discipline/program sections scheduled in this room each semester, and the total number of students
enrolled in these sections.
Sections: 10+
Students: 280+
Describe how these changes will improve student learning outcomes: Offering students the most up-to-date learning environment,
including enhanced multimedia and internet connectivity, will increase their ability to understand concepts and participate
interactively. It will also increase their exposure to modern information technology and help them to more clearly and critically
understand how technological systems affect their lives
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 33 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Facilities and Classroom Technology Form
List classroom or instructional space name/number: Eureka/AD 107
Check if any of the following are not adequate:
Ventilation / room temp
ADA access
Number of seats / work stations
Technology (computers, projectors, internet)
Other (briefly describe):
Describe the specific action and cost to make this space adequate for your instructional needs: 1) The projector has no spare bulbs,
and the current bulb is well into its 1000-hour life span. There are no department or division monies to replace these bulbs. We
absolutely should have a spare in the warehouse. $300.00
2) There should be a presenter for the multi media system. $50.00
3) There should be a photographic presenter to replace the aging overhead machines. Samsung SDP-900DXA Digital Presenter:
$2,600.00.
4) There should also be a rolling cart for the photographic presenter to replace the broken table that the overhead currently sits on.
List the average number of discipline/program sections scheduled in this room each semester, and the total number of students
enrolled in these sections.
Sections: 10+
Students: 280+
Describe how these changes will improve student learning outcomes: Offering students the most up-to-date learning environment,
including enhanced multimedia and internet connectivity, will increase their ability to understand concepts and participate
interactively. It will also increase their exposure to modern information technology and help them to more clearly and critically
understand how technological systems affect their lives
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 34 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Facilities and Classroom Technology Form
List classroom or instructional space name/number: Eureka/AD 103
Check if any of the following are not adequate:
Ventilation / room temp
ADA access
Number of seats / work stations
Technology (computers, projectors, internet)
Other (briefly describe):
Describe the specific action and cost to make this space adequate for your instructional needs: 1) The projector has no spare bulbs,
and the current bulb is well into its 1000-hour life span. There are no department or division monies to replace these bulbs. We
absolutely should have a spare in the warehouse. $300.00
2) There should be a presenter for the multi media system. $50.00
List the average number of discipline/program sections scheduled in this room each semester, and the total number of students
enrolled in these sections.
Sections: 10+
Students: 280+
Describe how these changes will improve student learning outcomes: Offering students the most up-to-date learning environment,
including enhanced multimedia and internet connectivity, will increase their ability to understand concepts and participate
interactively. It will also increase their exposure to modern information technology and help them to more clearly and critically
understand how technological systems affect their lives
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 35 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Facilities and Classroom Technology Form
List classroom or instructional space name/number: Eureka LRC 102/Writing Center
Check if any of the following are not adequate:
Ventilation / room temp
ADA access
Number of seats / work stations
Technology (computers, projectors, internet)
Other (briefly describe):
Describe the specific action and cost to make this space adequate for your instructional needs: The ventilation in room 102 of the
LRC has never worked properly. The temperatures sometimes rise into the eighties. With no air circulation in a room that may
have up to 40 people including students, instructors, and tutors involved in academic pursuits needs to be not just addressed, but
fixed. The second year the Writing Center was open, 2004, a survey was taken of the students' responses to the Writing Center.
The number one complaint, far and above any others, was the hot, stuffy atmosphere, which caused students to wish that they were
not required to be there and to ask if they could go somewhere else to receive credit in the Writing Center.
The Writing Center needs eight new task chairs: about $70 each/$560 total, as well as six wooden library chairs.
List the average number of discipline/program sections scheduled in this room each semester, and the total number of students
enrolled in these sections.
Sections: 24+
Students: Approx 550
Describe how these changes will improve student learning outcomes: A close, stuffy/smelly, and hot atmosphere is distracting and
soporific. Improving the atmosphere will remove a barrier to effective learning. More chairs will allow more students to engage in
reading and writing tasks most effectively perfomed when sitting down.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 36 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Program and Course Learning Outcomes
Course SLO Measured: ENGL 1A: Integrate and correctly cite the ideas of others through paraphrase,
summary, and quotation into an essay that expresses the writer’s own voice, position, and analysis
Or PLO Measured :
Describe assessment
tool/ assignments
faculty/staff used to
measure the SLO or
PLO.
All SLO assessments for English are in progress this semester and have not yet been
completed.
Individual ENGL 1A instructors will select a 20% sample from an assignment that is focused on this outcome.
Using a rubric that will assess the students’ abilities as “inadequately demonstrates the outcome,” “adequately
demonstrates the outcome,” or “exceeds expectations at demonstrating the outcome,” a group of 1A instructors
will confer and compare their findings. We expect at least 70% of the essays will reach the level of "adequate"
or "exceeds expectations" for the outcome being measured. (The 70% cut-off corresponds to the minimum
passing grade for English courses as agreed upon by department vote several years ago.) The findings will be
compiled and summarized briefly by December 2009, and assessors will discuss their significance, drawing up
plans (if necessary) for changes, actions, or resource requests that may improve student learning.
Summarize the overall
results of your
department, including
performance data if
applicable.
How will your
department address the
needs and issues that
were revealed by your
assessment?
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 37 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
List the TOP 3 TO 6
actions/changes
faculty judge will most
improve student learning
Provide a timeline for
implementation of your
top priorities.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 38 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Program and Course Learning Outcomes
Course SLO Measured: ENGL 1B: Use examples, details, and evidence from primary and secondary sources to
support or validate thesis and other generalizations.
Or PLO Measured :
Describe assessment
tool/ assignments
faculty/staff used to
measure the SLO or
PLO.
All SLO assessments for English are in progress this semester and have not yet been
completed.
Individual ENGL 1B instructors will select a 20% sample from a a formal critical essay assignment. Using a
rubric that will assess the students’ abilities as “inadequately demonstrates the outcome,” “adequately
demonstrates the outcome,” or “exceeds expectations at demonstrating the outcome,” a group of 1B instructors
will confer and compare their findings. We expect at least 70% of the essays will reach the level of "adequate"
or "exceeds expectations" for the outcome being measured. (The 70% cut-off corresponds to the minimum
passing grade for English courses as agreed upon by department vote several years ago.) The findings will be
compiled and summarized briefly, and assessors will discuss their significance, drawing up plans (if necessary)
for changes, actions, or resource requests that may improve student learning.
Summarize the overall
results of your
department, including
performance data if
applicable.
How will your
department address the
needs and issues that
were revealed by your
assessment?
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 39 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
List the TOP 3 TO 6
actions/changes
faculty judge will most
improve student learning
Provide a timeline for
implementation of your
top priorities.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 40 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Program and Course Learning Outcomes
Course SLO Measured: ENGL 52: Apply feedback from conferences with instructors and peers in order to
develop strategies to strengthen reading and writing skills.
Or PLO Measured :
Describe assessment
tool/ assignments
faculty/staff used to
measure the SLO or
PLO.
All SLO assessments for English are in progress this semester and have not yet been
completed.
At the end of the Fall 2009 term, English faculty will collect a 20% sample from the self-assessment of
reading/writing skills and progress which are required for all ENGL 52 students earning credit fin the course.
Using a rubric that will evaluate the students’ responses as “inadequately demonstrates the outcome,”
“adequately demonstrates the outcome,” or “exceeds expectations at demonstrating the outcome,” a group of
Englush instructors will confer and compare their findings. We expect at least 70% of the self-assessments will
reflect the level of "adequate" or "exceeds expectations" for the outcome being measured. (The 70% cut-off
corresponds to the minimum passing grade for English courses as agreed upon by department vote several
years ago.) The findings will be compiled and summarized briefly, and assessors will discuss their
significance, drawing up plans (if necessary) for changes, actions, or resource requests that may improve
student learning.
Summarize the overall
results of your
department, including
performance data if
applicable.
How will your
department address the
needs and issues that
were revealed by your
assessment?
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 41 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
List the TOP 3 TO 6
actions/changes
faculty judge will most
improve student learning
Provide a timeline for
implementation of your
top priorities.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 42 of 43
5/29/2016
5.1 b
Program and Course Learning Outcomes
Course SLO Measured: READING 360: Construct and write a variety of simple, grammatically correct
paragraphs.
Or PLO Measured :
Describe assessment
tool/ assignments
faculty/staff used to
measure the SLO or
PLO.
Summarize the overall
results of your
department, including
performance data if
applicable.
How will your
department address the
needs and issues that
were revealed by your
assessment?
A common, holistically graded in-class, on-demand written competency exam using a
common, shared rubric articulated to those used in English 350 and 150
List the TOP 3 TO 6
actions/changes
faculty judge will most
improve student learning
Using one common written competency exam.
Using one, common grading rubric.
Wholistically grading the final written competency exam.
Compiling and analysing writing performance throughout the semester as it relates to final competency results.
See above.
Provide a timeline for
implementation of your
top priorities.
In S09, 32 out of the 34 students in the three sections who took the final inclass written competency, passed the
competency with a grade of 3 or higher using the course rubric. 24 of the 34 passed the class. Although the
writing prompts for the competency were the same for all three sections, due to the absence of the one FT
Reading faculty member, the competencies were not wholistically graded.
In F09, we will again use the same final writing competency exam. And we will also wholistically grade them.
In S10, we will use the same rubric for all writing assignments throughout the semester and analyse semester
long performance as it relates to final competency results.
Annual Program Review Template, Approved Spring 2009
Page 43 of 43
5/29/2016