Instructional Planning Report—English Department
I. Background and Analysis
Program Description
As one of the largest departments on the Cabrillo College campus, the English department serves
nearly all students in some capacity. English writing courses are prerequisites and recommended
preparation for nearly all Cabrillo classes. Our offerings align with the discipline nationwide by
focusing on three concentrations: composition, literature, and creative writing. In composition,
we offer basic skills, transfer, honors, and multi-cultural sections. Within our basic skills and
transfer composition offerings we participate in a range of learning communities (LC’s),
including ACE, Puente, STARS, REAL, and SMP. Our literature offerings provide core courses
required to transfer in the major, and also provide the community at large the opportunity for
lifelong learning. The creative writing component offers beginning and advanced classes in four
genres: fiction, poetry, screenwriting, and memoir. The depth and range of our course offerings
allow us to meet the diverse educational needs of the Cabrillo student body.
Every semester we offer a range of courses in each concentration. In composition we offer over
one hundred courses per semester with approximately thirty-five basic skills sections, sixty
transfer sections, one honors section, and four multi-cultural offerings. For fall 2010, we offered
seven ACE LC cohort sections, one Puente cohort, one STARS cohort, and one REAL cohort. In
Literature, each semester we offer approximately five courses including courses required to
transfer in the major such as “American Literature,” and transferable electives, such as
“Chicana/o-Latina/o Literature.” In creative writing we offer approximately four courses, at least
one section in each genre. By offering a range of English courses, we remain an active
department in line with the discipline nationwide.
But that’s only the outline of what we do. We are a cohesive, energized body of instructors who
sincerely hope to reach out to all Cabrillo students by integrating all four college core
competencies—Communication, Critical Thinking, Global Awareness, and Personal
Responsibility and Professional Development—in our classes. Our involvement in learning
communities, ACE, Puente, STARS, REAL and SMP, has arisen directly from the instructors
involved who actively seek new pedagogy that will increase the success of basic skills students.
We also collaborate with the Honors program to meet the needs of that student population. Some
instructors offer themed composition courses in line with ECE and Public Safety, while others
have developed multi-cultural sections or sections focusing on the human impact on the
environment. What keeps the English department strong is our never ending push to investigate
our current society and culture and bring those issues to students while teaching the intricacies of
language, literature, and writing.
Relationships
In order to complete the AA and AS degree at Cabrillo College, all students must complete
English 1A, 1AMC, 1AH or 1AMCH with a “C” or better, while numerous other English
department offerings satisfy a range of general education requirements. All Cabrillo transfer-level
composition courses are accepted by UC and CSU statewide in both the Intersegmental General
Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) and California State University General Education
(CSUGE) patterns. Every literature and creative writing course transfers as a general education
elective in Area C: Humanities and Fine Arts.
1
The English Department actively participates in shared governance throughout the college.
English instructors have continuously served as campus coordinators of Basic Skills and Student
Learning Outcomes. Many English instructors are also active members of campus committees
such as the Faculty Senate, CCFT, Basic Skills Advisory, Matriculation Advisory, Distance
Education, and Professional Development.
We have numerous collaborative ties within the college. To begin, English 100 has a co-requisite,
100L, which is taught in collaboration with the Aptos campus writing center and the Watsonville
Integrated Learning Center, while English 1A has a co-requisite, Library 10, which is taught in
collaboration with Library faculty. The Aptos campus writing center and the Watsonville
Integrated Learning Center offer both English and ESL labs, which are coordinated in
consultation with the ESL department. We also cross-list courses with Journalism and support
that program as part of our department “cluster”; a coordinating unit from the English Program
Chair assignment is used to compensate the Journalism PC.
In order to meet the needs of basic skills students, the English department actively supports
numerous learning communities (LC’s). A learning community by definition must link two or
more courses so that students gain the sense of working in a cohort that supports their educational
goals. English participates in ACE, Puente, STARS, REAL and SMP learning communities. ACE
combines English, DMC, Business, Math and other departments depending on the cohort, Puente
combines English and Counseling, STARS combines English and Reading or ESL, REAL
combines English and Reading, while SMP combines English, Reading and Counseling. Through
our participation in LC’s, the English department actively works to establish pedagogies that
work for basic skills students across various disciplines. Outside of LC’s, we are also open to
working with other disciplines in order to support the needs of their programs. As needed we
offer English 100 sections that are appropriately themed for ECE and Public Safety.
Beginning fall 2011, we will have 19 tenure track faculty and 37 adjunct instructors teaching at
least one class for the academic year. In order to support our adjunct faculty, the department
voted to collaborate with Lumina grant project originating at CSUMB. The Lumina grant seeks to
establish relationships in English with local community colleges and CSUMB; grant participants
are Hartnell, Cabrillo and CSUMB. Of the seven Cabrillo faculty participating, six are English
department adjuncts. This grant allows adjuncts to develop their teaching pedagogy while
developing their leadership skills. Through our participation in this grant we are making inroads
with the colleges in our area while supporting the professional development of our adjunct
instructors. Additionally, English faculty have participated heavily in basic skills conferences and
training, such as On Course and the FELI.
The English Department’s partnership with Poetry Santa Cruz directly contributes to Cabrillo’s
mission to enhance the cultural vitality of our community. Poetry Santa Cruz is a non-profit
organization that promotes poetry in the greater Santa Cruz County. Our partnership has led to the
creation of three annual events held on the College campus, which are free and open to the
public: the Maude Meehan Memorial Reading Series, the Mort Marcus Memorial Reading Series,
and the Muse Reading Series. Each of these events brings contemporary poets to the Cabrillo
campus thereby expanding cultural opportunities for students. In regards to literary arts, the
English department annually publishes the Porter Gulch Review as part of an English 1B class.
The Porter Gulch Review serves as a voice for the artistic expression of many in Santa Cruz
County and is highly regarded in the community.
2
Aptos Writing Center and Watsonville Integrated Learning Center
The Aptos Writing Center and ESL Lab, along with the Watsonville Integrated Learning Center,
host almost sixty sections of a dozen different English and ESL labs, most of these taken by
students for credit. The largest lab is English 100L, with anywhere from five to nine hundred
students per semester (fall is bigger than spring). Because it is a required co-requisite of English
100, about 75 percent of students who go through the English composition sequence at Cabrillo
will take 100L, either in the lab or online. The Writing Center Director is the instructor-of-record
for all writing labs in Aptos and is a member of the English Department. Besides this full-time
position, there are five units shared by part-time directors on Monday through Thursday nights, for
a total of twenty faculty units, down from twenty-three units last reporting period. Watsonville
100L and other labs fall under the purview of the ILC Coordinator position.
English/ESL tutoring staff at both sites includes ten part-time Laboratory Instructional Assistants,
mostly working thirty hours/week and nine or ten months out of the year. The Aptos Writing
Center has lost two LIA positions in the last year due to retirement and illness, which have been
permanently eliminated by the college as it copes with the current budget crisis. This conflicts
with the English Department’s first priority in its 2006 program plan: “Promote student success
with early intervention and consistent support for writing and reading skills and retain excellent,
diverse staff by increasing existing part-time LIA contracts in Aptos and Watsonville to 100% and
hiring more student assistants in the Writing Center/ESL Lab and the Watsonville Integrated
Learning Center.” Instead, the Writing Center has lost LIAs and cut ten hours/week from its
schedule (18%), significantly reducing support for evening students. The Center will also scale
back its for-credit, drop-in, individualized labs; these labs will soon disappear from the schedule to
shift focus and limited faculty and staff resources fully to English 100L and drop-in tutoring.
Although all indications point to further cuts in the upcoming year, new opportunities in student
tutoring and supplemental instruction (SI) could develop in partnerships with ACE, STARS and
other burgeoning college programs that support basic skills students (and bring additional
funding). Because of the inclusion of English 115 with the new ACE learning community learning
cohorts, there has been a slight drawdown of students enrolled in English 100L in the labs;
however, should the units for these extra English 115 sections dry up, those students will return to
the Writing Center and ILC for 100L, straining existing resources beyond current capacity.
Despite recent budget woes, the Writing Center, ESL Lab, and ILC continue to innovate; in the
last few years, staff members and faculty have:
•
•
•
•
•
restructured the curriculum and materials for the ESL 200L-204L lab series;
created a new ESL lab based in film analysis that helps students to make cultural
connections while practicing writing and conversation skills;
developed, in coordination with faculty in CJ and MA, a new series of 155A-Z labs that
provide writing study skills: 155A (Academic), 155CJ (Criminal Justice), and 155MA
(Medical Assisting);
revamped the English 100L book and the class schedule to enhance the 100L experience
for students and bring the group labs into full Title V compliance regarding “arranged”
time;
attended or presented at several conferences and workshops related to basic skills,
including On Course (at home, regionally, and nationally), the Northern California
Writing Center Association, the National Conference for the First Year Experience, and a
local CRLA conference hosted by Cabrillo Reading;
3
•
•
been awarded the AGS Faculty Appreciation Award annually; and
played an interactive role with other labs and services on-campus, with whom we share
students, resources, decision-making, and advice: English and ESL departments, DSPS,
Reading Lab, Learning Skills, Tutorials, Integrated Learning Center, Math Learning
Center, and Computer Technology Center.
Our plans for the upcoming five years include a structural reorganization in Fall 2011 to cope with
reductions in staff and hours of service and to maximize the number of students we can assist on a
reduced budget while maintaining a high-quality experience. There will be a transition in the Director
position to coincide with this restructuring, which will ideally also improve communication between
daytime and evening so they can successfully share more administrative responsibility in the lab.
Throughout the transition, the Center’s staff will continue to participate actively in Cabrillo’s basic skills
initiatives and refresh our programs and services to better engage and support all Cabrillo students.
English Department Costs: 2004-2009
Course enrollment and FTES statistics in the English Department during this planning period
diverge a bit from the college-wide numbers: in English, there was a three-year dip in student
enrollment from fall 2004 to fall 2006 and then a two-year semi-recovery, with course
enrollments declining overall by 2.2% over the five-year period from 2004 to 2009. During this
time, college enrollments increased steadily by about 14%. However, despite this gap, the English
department got more FTES bang for its buck than the college: with a decline of 2.2% in course
enrollments, the department managed to increase FTES by 7.8% from 2004 to 2009. The college
increased course enrollments by 14% in the same five-year period and yielded a corresponding
14.4% in new FTES. WSCH numbers reflect the same percentages. (See Appendix 1).
The English Department generates about seven percent of college WSCH while its FTEF is at
around ten percent, and the gap has widened slightly since fall 2004. However, department
productivity when measured strictly by WSCH/FTEF, or Load, does not account for the
complexity of English faculty compensation. Most English classes are in Composition, and these
classes all have a cap of 29 students each. While this looks like a small class to the college,
according to the National Council of Teachers of English Statement on Class Size and Teacher
Workload: College, “no more than 20 students should be permitted in any writing class. Ideally,
classes should be limited to 15” since “students cannot learn to write without writing,” and “in
sections larger than 20, teachers cannot possibly give student writing the immediate and
individual response necessary for grown and improvement.” NCTE goes on to say that remedial
classes should be limited to 15 students because “it is essential to provide these students extra
teaching if they are to acquire the reading and writing skills they need in college.”
(http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/classsizecollege).
An English instructor reads and evaluates at least 174,000 words (or 600 pages) written by
students in a single class, providing individualized feedback to each based on rigorous writing
objectives. More than a third of students are in English 100 or English 255, both considered basic
skills. To address the immense amount of time spent on papers outside of class, CCFT/Cabrillo
College District contract provides English instructors with a 1.3 composition factor for
composition and creative writing courses, which means that full-time department faculty teach
four classes rather than five for a full load; those teaching exclusively writing classes also earn a
unit of overload. Class caps and writing load factor account for much of the difference between
English department load (WSCH/FTEF) and the average load college-wide.
4
Another factor impacting English department load is the coordinating unit assigned to all
instructors teaching in learning communities. These units, often paid by grants and categorical
resources, are also incorporated into the FTEF analysis. English instructors participate heavily in
STARS, Puente, ACE, and other learning communities, some of which are new since our last
program planning period.
Student Success
Due to the fact that every area of study at Cabrillo College requires competency at the college
level in reading, composition, and critical thinking, students must succeed in English courses in
order to continue in their chosen career, certificate, or degree program. English department
faculty are aware of this position on the campus and accordingly work toward enabling student
success through a variety of approaches. We continuously review our curriculum and pedagogy in
order to meet the diverse needs of the Cabrillo College student body by utilizing the SLO process,
while actively participating in campus governance, LC’s, and professional development. As
stated previously, our department aligns with the discipline nationwide by focusing on three
concentrations: composition, literature, and creative writing. Student success is comprised of a
variety of signifiers, each unique for the specific concentration.
In order to understand our role and effectiveness in regards to composition, we must look at the
paths students take through our core composition sequence from basic skills through transferlevel composition. The data varies slightly semester to semester, but there exists within the data a
constant assessment pattern where 2/3 of students enter Cabrillo needing remediation in English.
(See Appendix 2).
For 2009/2010, 63% of students succeeded in 200 level courses campus wide, while 57.9%
succeeded in English department 200 level courses; 69% of students succeeded in 100 level
courses campus wide, while 66.9% succeeded in English department 100 level courses; 71.8% of
students succeeded in transfer level courses campus wide, while 71.7% succeeded in English
department transfer level courses, which include all three concentrations. (See Appendixes 3 &
4).
These numbers indicate that we align with the student success rate for the campus as a whole, but
that at the 200 level student success could be improved. We are aware of this trend, and this is
one reason why the English department supports and participates in LC’s. Hopefully, by
maintaining and incorporating more LC’s at the 200 and 100 levels, future student success rates
will improve.
There is an important question which data provides the answer to in regards to student success in
composition: do students who begin at the 200 level succeed as they move through the
composition sequence? According to documents provided by the Cabrillo College Planning and
Research Office, the data indicates that when students begin at the 200 level they gain the
necessary skills for college level academic writing and are equally successful as students who
entered Cabrillo college ready. (See Appendix 5).
However, according to the same study, we do lose a significant number of students as they move
from the 200 level to the 100 level to the transfer level. Again, we are aware of this issue and this
is one of our major reasons for participating in and supporting LC’s at the 200 and 100 levels. As
a department, we are working toward improving the number of students that complete the
composition sequence since those who do are as successful as those who enter Cabrillo college
ready.
5
Our literature and creative writing courses lead to avenues of success that go beyond numerical
measures. Our literature classes allow lifelong learning and for students to engage the Core Four
in meaningful contexts. All of our courses demand critical writing and thinking, which translate
to an educated work force. Through our creative writing journal, the Porter Gulch Review,
Cabrillo students gain hands on experience in publishing while the community has a location
where to express its creative vision. Our faculty is committed to including multicultural texts and
texts that investigate our fragile environment into all classes in order to foster a climate of
investigation, thought, and inclusion. Student success in the English department goes beyond
grammar and mechanics, and includes students who through written language create their place as
effective members of our community.
SLO Assessment
The English department began assessing course SLOs in Spring of 2007. The assessment results
revealed a need for:
• Continued integration of the teaching of reading and writing.
• More consistent teaching of critical thinking skills throughout the curriculum, including
more emphasis in our most basic courses.
• Research into English 1B offerings at other colleges.
• More student internet access in classrooms for supplemental materials.
• The need for a novel writing course.
As a result, we rewrote some course objectives, offered more flex training on integrating reading
and writing, discussed at least one pedagogy topic at our monthly meetings, researched how many
sections we should continue to offer of English 1B, became deeply involved in the 300 building
redesign with an eye toward meeting the internet access needs to students, and created English
14F: How to Write a Novel.
In Spring 2009, the department embarked on the assessment of the Core 4. Each area revealed
needs for the continued departmental discussions of pedagogy; internal training on plagiarism,
scaffolding of assignments, and the teaching of MLA documentation; and more training in
approaches to working with students with basic skills needs.
Faculty embarked on trainings from OnCourse, the DBA (now ACE) and the Basic Skills
Initiative. The assessment results were also directly responsible for the creation of two flex
workshops that fostered important dialogue across disciplines: “Writing the Research Paper: How
to Guide Students Toward Success,” fall 2010, and “Got Cheaters? Let’s Talk,” spring 2011.
Finally, when brainstorming a direction for the department for the next six years as part of writing
our Instructional Plan, we were pleased to find what we envisioned arose directly from our
assessment results, either deepening the work we had already undertaken or extending it into new
areas. The assessment of SLOs is shaping how we see ourselves and where we are going.
In addition, faculty have requested that we reinstitute our past practice of gathering the
assignments (and the rubrics used to grade them) that were used to measure SLOs into a form that
can be shared. The booklets stimulated innovation, better assignment design and proved useful in
orienting new faculty to the department. In keeping with our commitment to sustainability, we
plan to create this in an electronic format.
6
Results of Student Survey
Of 126 students surveyed in Fall ’09, 16.7% (21) were English majors, the majority (71%) taking
a 12-16 unit load with one English course (74%). Seventy percent (70%) took an English course
because it was required; close to ninety percent (90%) studied up to 6 hours per week for their
English course.
The survey, only administered in face-to-face courses, skews student preferences for F2F versus
online or hybrid English courses. The preference for “in person” versus online English courses
(90% to 8%), far under-represents the popularity of online enrollment as evidenced by fill rates
and waiting lists.
Students report high satisfaction (92%) with how frequently English faculty assess student
performance, but a much lower percentage (17%) deemed “advice from faculty” as satisfactory or
excellent. Seventy-two percent (72%) felt such advice was “in need of major improvement.”
Students disapproved of the department’s instructional equipment (76% finding it “in need of
major improvement” versus 8% deeming it satisfactory or excellent). And 76% judged the
department’s facilities (classrooms and labs) “in need of major improvement” versus 10% as
satisfactory or excellent.
Despite judging department facilities and equipment as lacking, students were satisfied with
classroom assessment practices and quality of instruction. Students endorsed (87%) as
appropriate the workload in English classes, and the accuracy of syllabi reflecting course content
(89%). Most (84%) recommended their English classes to fellow students.
Students praised faculty for their passion, understanding, encouragement, knowledge, and
proficiency. They liked “lots of good feedback and suggestions for personal improvement,”
information presented “in an interesting way” with “the choice of intellectual readings,”
cultivating “critical thinking and a new outlook,” and effective small group and peer review
activities. Instructors were deemed helpful, dedicated, and “eager to teach new material and
make it enjoyable to learn,” as were English 100L LIA’s at the Writing Center and Watsonville
ILC who “help you with writing skills.”
Respondents satisfaction with English department offerings include praising faculty for their
passion, understanding, and encouragement, as well as their being knowledgeable, proficient, and
helpful. Students applauded curriculum and instructional practices and stated that instructors gave
“lots of good feedback and suggestions for personal improvement.” Students also commented that
instructors challenged students and presented “information in an interesting way” with a “the
choice of intellectual readings” which promoted “critical thinking and provided a new outlook.”
Most English composition courses utilize small groups and peer review, and these practices were
noted as being effective by students. Classroom instructors were complimented for being helpful,
dedicated, and “eager to teach new material and make it enjoyable to learn,” as were English
100L LIA’s at the Writing Center and Watsonville ILC who “help you with writing skills.”
Curriculum Review
A committee of English instructors reviewed all courses through CurricUNET updating SLO’s,
course objectives, recommended texts, requisites and all other categories. We also “retired” a few
courses that no longer reflected our current program directions and goals. As part of this process
7
we have decided to actively review our co-requisites and pre-requisites for the composition
sequence. This work requires time, data collection, data analysis, and the assistance from PRO in
order to verify that our requisites enhance student success.
II. Program Goals and Recommendations
As a result of our SLO assessment of both course SLOs and the Core Competencies we
want to address student and faculty needs by the following:
1) Continue to develop instructional methods which increase student retention and
persistence rates.
a) Conduct multiple one day department conferences on effective pedagogical methods that
expand previous training on Integrated Reading Writing strategies (IRW) and/or that
address the multicultural needs of our diverse student population.
(1) Cost: $4000
b) Provide training to establish Supplemental Instruction (SI) to augment classroom
composition instruction.
(1) Cost: $2000
c) Increase annual departmental Writing Awards to promote and acknowledge student
achievement.
(1) Cost: $700
d) Increase extra-curricular activities to support students in Learning Communities, Creative
Writing courses, and Honors courses, such as the current reading series collaboration
with PSC and field trips to local colleges or literary sites.
(1) Cost: $700
e) Revise English department website so that all sections of composition courses list
descriptions of the class theme to enable students to select a section that interests them.
(1) Utilize opportunities in the TLC for web design.
f) Revise English 100 portfolio support materials, including reading bank and in-class essay
prompts.
(1) Composition Committee will undertake in 2011-12
g) Develop 1A research essay rubric aligned with 255 and 100 portfolio rubrics.
(1) Composition Committee will undertake in 2011-12
h) Promote multi-cultural texts, themes, and issues throughout departmental curriculum.
(1) Utilize Flex week and department meetings for discussion.
i) Promote environmental texts, themes, and issues throughout departmental curriculum.
(1) Utilize Flex week and department meetings for discussion.
2) Improve the quality of student writing across campus.
a) Hire a minimum of three tenure track instructors to replace all retirements.
(1) Cost: As per contract for full-time hire
b) Provide all Cabrillo students with tutoring in writing by adequately staffing English
100L, providing in-person and online individual tutoring, and offering ESL students a
variety of resources.
(1) Resist further LIA staff reductions beyond the two positions that were cut in
2009/2010 to stay compliant with English 100L demands and continue tutoring
students on individual projects.
(2) Mediate budget crisis by reducing the Writing Center Director teaching units
(cutting back on summer, evening and Friday open lab hours) and maximizing
the hours and duties of the remaining seven part-time LIAs over a shorter week.
8
(3) Cancel most of the eighteen sections of English and ESL individualized labs forcredit, which are staff-intensive and successfully serve just a handful of students
each semester in response to the reduced administrative oversight, lab staff, and
hours of operation.
3) Increase the number of basic skills students who complete the composition sequence.
a) Promote and expand LC’s.
(1) Cost: Collaboration TUs .5($1700)=$850 per cohort
b) Research co-requisite efficacy in the English composition sequence for English 255 &
Reading 255/206 and English 100 and English 100L/115.
(1) Use PRO to compare success and retention of students who have progressed with
and without these co-requisites/prerequisites (which are sometimes met by other
means).
(2) Survey students, staff and faculty.
(3) Examine comparable programs at other community colleges.
(4) Review financial costs to students progressing through the English sequence
(5) Revise curriculum and program requirements as recommended.
c) Continue to research and evaluate our current experiments with acceleration in
partnership with Academy for College Excellence (ACE).
(1) Compare ACE cohort portfolio results with regular English offerings.
(2) Track student progress after ACE cohort completion.
(3) Evaluate acceleration pedagogies in department meetings and Flex workshops.
(4) Revise curriculum and program requirements as recommended.
4) Create opportunities for professional development.
a) Collaborate with local high schools in a summit focused on effective instructional
methods and the intersection of high school curriculum with Cabrillo expectations for
incoming students.
(1) Cost: $1000
b) Promote a positive working and teaching environment for all instructors.
(1) Maintain and protect academic freedom in the classroom as instructors choose
course textbooks and implement pedagogical methods.
(2) Encourage participation in campus sponsored professional development
opportunities including those during Flex week, those offered by the Title V
grant, and any other opportunities that may arise.
(3) Maintain participation, especially that of adjunct instructors, in the Lumina grant
project between CSUMB, Hartnell, and Cabrillo.
c) Establish mentorship program between tenure and adjunct faculty.
(1) Utilize Flex week and department meetings for discussion and implementation.
d) Create on-line assignment bank and materials for composition sequence.
(1) Utilize opportunities in the TLC for web design.
e) Investigate effective instructional methods.
(1) Review research developed in LC’s, such as ACE and Puente, for
implementation department wide.
(2) Utilize research opportunities presented through the Basic Skills and Learning
Communities Advisory Council.
(3) Increase number of instructors using the Faculty Inquiry Network (FIN).
f) Provide training for use of smart classrooms and new technologies, such as clickers and
hybrid online courses.
(1) Utilize opportunities presented through the TLC.
g) Participate in shared governance.
(1) Promote at department meetings.
9
5) Collaborate with other departments to promote academic literacy across campus.
a) Sustain and support course offerings, LCs, and academic culture with Journalism,
Reading, and ESL departments.
(1) Utilize Flex week and department meetings for discussion.
(2) Utilize campus wide committees and meetings to develop relationships.
(3) Invite Journalism, Reading, and ESL departments to English department
professional development opportunities, such as the high school summit and
pertinent department meetings.
b) Develop humanities class.
(1) Cost: Collaboration TUs .5($1700)=$850 per cohort
c) Promote the integration of reading and writing throughout all academic disciplines.
(1) Utilize Flex week to hold forums and presentations on academic literacy.
(2) Invite all disciplines to English department professional development
opportunities, such as the high school summit and pedagogy conferences.
6) Support students who will transfer by adjusting English offerings to better meet their
needs.
i) Establish an AAT degree
ii) Establish ongoing rotation of faculty who work in honors program; add an honors
1B.
iii) Create a Humanities course—see 5b
iv) Examine English 1C requirements and improve our ability to meets the needs of
students who must take 1C.
v) College tours and local events—see 1d
10
June 14, 2011
ENGL Program Planning
Goals and Recommendations
1.
Description:
Improve the quality of student writing across campus: Hire a minimum of
three tenure track instructors to replace all retirements.
Cost
As per contract for full-time hires
2.
Continue to develop instructional methods which increase student retention
and persistence rates: Conduct multiple one day department conferences on
effective pedagogical methods that expand previous training on Integrated
Reading Writing strategies (IRW) and/or that address the multicultural needs
of our diverse student population.
3.
Increase the number of basic skills students who complete the composition
sequence: Promote and expand LC’s.
4.
Create opportunities for professional development: Collaborate with local
high schools in a summit focused on effective instructional methods and the
intersection of high school curriculum with Cabrillo expectations for incoming
students.
$1,000
5.
Continue to develop instructional methods which increase student retention
and persistence rates: Provide training to establish Supplemental Instruction
(SI) to augment classroom composition instruction.
$2,000
6.
Continue to develop instructional methods which increase student retention
and persistence rates: Increase annual departmental Writing Awards to
promote and acknowledge student achievement.
$700
7.
Continue to develop instructional methods which increase student retention
and persistence rates: Increase extra-curricular activities to support students
in Learning Communities, Creative Writing courses, and Honors courses,
such as the current reading series collaboration with PSC and field trips to
local colleges or literary sites.
$700
8.
Collaborate with other departments to promote academic literacy across
campus: Develop humanities class.
.
All other items under "Goals and Recommendations" do not have costs
beyond faculty time and energy.
$4,000
Collaboration TUs .5($1700)=$850
per cohort
Collaboration TUs .5($1700)=$850
per cohort
.
.
.
Cabrillo College
6/14/2011 11:28 AM
ENGL - Program planning data for 2009/10
3
5
2
3
3
5
3
5
Business, English & Language Arts (BELA)
English
Course Enrollment
Academic
Year
Change
#
#
#
#
#
Fall
Spring
Fall
NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN
4,264
4,006
4,303
4,392
4,361
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Source: Data Warehouse
FA
SP
Fall
Spring
390.0
382.3
412.6
427.5
417.0
Fall
SP
Fall
Count
NNNNNNNNN
77.4%
76.8%
78.1%
83.5%
82.1%
icroL
4
7
1
2
2
8.3
7.0
8.0
14.0
6.5
0
0
0
0
0
Skill Certificates
Count
Time
N
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N
0
0
0
0
0
{CM
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Source: Datatel
Percent of College
WSCH
Fall
Spring
WSCH/FTEF = Load
Spring
NNNNNNNNN
Time
Certificates of
Achievement
Count
Time
NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN N N
73.5%
73.8%
78.7%
80.9%
81.2%
SP
Fall
10,477.2
10,293.6
11,131.3
12,195.2
12,242.8
Degrees
Spring
NNNNNNNNN
63.6%
62.3%
63.5%
65.0%
67.4%
FTEF
NNNNNNNN N
12,062.9
11,823.7
12,771.9
13,231.8
12,883.6
Fall
NNNNNNNNN
67.6%
65.4%
65.4%
68.4%
67.5%
FA
Spring
NNNNNNNNN
338.8
332.8
358.9
394.0
392.5
Spring
NNN N NNNNN
220
252
263
244
263
WSCH
NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
NNNNNNNNN
224
219
268
260
274
FA
Retention
Success
Spring
NNNNNNNNN
3,645
3,420
3,695
4,034
4,138
FTES
Academic
Year
Change
Majors
Fall
NNNNNNNNN
Spring
NNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNN NN NNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN
icroLine}
28.1
29.2
30.1
31.0
29.6
28.4
27.7
29.2
30.2
30.7
429.4
404.5
424.3
427.3
434.8
369.6
372.1
381.6
404.3
399.2
3
5
3
5
Percent of College
FTEF
Fall
Spring
7.43%
7.50%
7.59%
6.98%
6.93%
6.71%
6.72%
6.81%
6.69%
6.91%
9.89%
10.12%
9.86%
9.97%
9.99%
NNNNNNNNN
{CMicroLine}
9.75%
9.33%
9.55%
10.09%
10.45%
Source: Datatel XFAS report [Faculty Assignment Sheets.]
3
5
4
College Totals
Course Enrollment
Academic
Year
Change
#
#
#
#
#
Fall
Spring
NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN
47,997
48,151
51,362
56,005
52,855
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Success
Dept. Majors
Fall
NNNNNNNNN
46,652
47,024
51,727
51,634
49,920
Spring
NNNNNNNNN
6,870
7,531
8,425
8,948
8,726
Fall
Spring
NNNNNNNNN
7,082
7,954
8,572
8,677
8,446
NNNNNNNNN
67.2%
66.7%
67.3%
68.5%
69.7%
Degrees
Retention
67.8%
66.6%
67.8%
68.9%
70.6%
Fall
NNN N NNNNN
81.0%
80.6%
80.6%
85.7%
85.3%
Spring
NNNNNNNN N
Count
icroL
NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN NNNN NNNNN NNNNNNNNN
80.9%
80.3%
82.0%
84.6%
84.7%
College Enrollment includes both Credit and Non-Credit coures.
Time
Certificates of
Achievement
Count
Time
828
769
863
787
905
9.6
10.1
10.1
10.6
10.8
127
98
89
366
547
Skill Certificates
Count
NNNNNNNNN
13.3
16.0
14.4
9.2
11.0
Time
NNNNNNNNN
141
165
149
192
145
{CM
10.8
10.5
12.1
10.0
12.3
Source: Datatel
Source: Data Warehouse
FA
Academic
Year
Change
SP
FA
SP
FTES
Fall
Spring
NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
5,217.8
5,068.5
5,405.1
6,088.1
5,978.4
5,014.3
4,927.0
5,248.1
5,862.5
5,666.0
Fall
NNNNNNNNN
162,371.3
157,687.2
168,320.7
189,534.5
186,017.0
Source: Datatel XFAS report [Faculty Assignment Sheets.]
Cabrillo College
Planning Research
FA
SP
WSCH
Spring
NNNNNNNNN
156,095.9
153,261.4
163,414.1
182,199.1
177,199.9
FTEF
Fall
NNNNNNNNN
283.9
288.8
305.3
310.5
296.7
WSCH/FTEF = Load
Spring
NNNNNNNNN
290.8
296.5
305.3
299.0
293.4
Fall
NNNNNNNNN
571.9
546.1
551.4
610.3
627.0
Spring
NNNNNNNNN
icroLine}
536.9
516.9
535.3
609.3
604.0
Success - Grade was A,B,C, or CR or P
Retention
WSCH
FTES
FTEF
Time
- Grade was any except W
- Weekly Student Contact Hours
- Full Time Equivalent Students
- Full Time Equivalent Faculty
- Average semesters to award (2 per year)
Detailed Notes: http://pro.cabrillo.edu/pro/factbook/InOut_How_Use2010.PDF
(English Appendix 1)
1/20/2011 11:45 AM
Cabrillo College Assessment Course Placements
STUDENT PERFORMANCE
255: Basic
205: Intro to
Reading
College Reading
241
10%
380
16%
56
8%
104
15%
215
9%
342
15%
65
9%
96
13%
234
8%
370
13%
76
9%
129
14%
233
8%
426
15%
119
12%
161
16%
190
413
15%
7%
103
9%
171
15%
READING
Fall 2005
Spring 2006
Fall 2006
Spring 2007
Fall 2007
Spring 2008
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
254: Essential 154: Elementary
Mathematics
Algebra
635
26%
537
22%
182
26%
164
24%
581
24%
486
20%
207
29%
194
27%
566
20%
567
20%
246
30%
206
25%
641
23%
615
22%
319
32%
269
27%
693
25%
565
20%
323
32%
248
25%
MATH
Fall 2005
Spring 2006
Fall 2006
Spring 2007
Fall 2007
Spring 2008
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
255: Basic
English
628
26%
Fall 2005
170
24%
Spring 2006
566
24%
Fall 2006
171
23%
Spring 2007
603
22%
Fall 2007
217
24%
Spring 2008
664
24%
Fall 2008
300
29%
Spring 2009
629
25%
Fall 2009
293
26%
Spring 2010
Source: Assessment Center
ENGLISH
52
51%
152: Intermed.
Algebra
748
30%
188
27%
753
32%
195
27%
993
36%
193
24%
969
34%
239
24%
818
30%
233
23%
100: Elements
of Writing
964
40%
257
37%
1018
43%
300
41%
1225
44%
349
39%
1215
43%
425
41%
1181
44%
484
42%
Reading Placement - Spring 2010
255
9%
100: College
52: Speed and
Reading
Comprehension
561
23%
1249
51%
144
21%
397
57%
602
26%
1180
50%
163
22%
414
56%
696
25%
1480
53%
201
23%
484
54%
652
23%
1496
53%
245
24%
505
49%
646
24%
1448
54%
289
25%
584
51%
205
15%
Transfer
Math
371
15%
105
15%
371
16%
82
11%
427
15%
90
11%
403
14%
85
9%
416
15%
101
10%
1A: College
Composition
785
32%
259
37%
706
30%
245
33%
897
32%
300
34%
880
31%
284
28%
841
31%
340
30%
ESL*
Referral
54
15
52
21
52
21
46
21
40
27
Transfer
Retest
175
49
189
48
228
75
210
82
266
101
Totals
7%
7%
8%
7%
8%
9%
7%
8%
10%
11%
2,466
688
2,380
726
2,781
810
2,838
994
2,758
1,012
2%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2,431
701
2,342
737
2,777
887
2,805
1,030
2,691
1,144
English Placement - Spring 2010
100:
42%
254
32%
10%
1A:
30%
152
23%
100
25%
2,431
701
2,339
738
2,780
890
2,807
1,030
2,697
1,147
Totals
Math Placement - Spring 2010
Retest
10%
Totals
255:
26%
154
25%
255: Basic
205: Intro to
254: Essential
154: Elementary
100: College
52: Speed and
Transfer
Retest
152: Intermed.
ESL*
2%
255: Basic
100: Elements
1A: College
ESL*
*In the fall of 2003, Cabrillo converted to English as a Second Language (ESL) "informed self-placement".
Note: Placement considers test scores, multiple measures, students’ self reported educational backgrounds and plans.
CABRILLO COLLEGE 2010 FACTBOOK version 1.12. Jan.10.2011
(English Appendix 2)
Enrollment, Success, and Retention in English
STUDENT PERFORMANCE
200 level English Courses (Basic Skills)
Year
Enrollments
2005/06
1,360
2006/07
864
2007/08
727
2008/09
755
2009/10
731
% Change
-3.2%
Success
64.5%
56.5%
58.3%
61.5%
57.9%
-5.9%
Retention
76.8%
70.7%
79.7%
83.1%
86.1%
3.6%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Success
Retention
50%
40%
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
MIS Course [CB08]="B" (Basic Skills)
Includes courses: ENGL250, ENGL251, ENGL255, ENGL256E, ENGL256SL, ENGL290
Note regarding the drop in course enrollments in 2006-07:
Starting in Fall 2006, English corequisites for ENGL-255 students were discontinued in favor of a Reading coreqiuiste.
100 level English Courses
Year
Enrollments Success Retention
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
% Change
3,248
3,189
3,523
3,694
3,861
4.5%
65.2%
66.6%
64.9%
66.7%
66.9%
0.3%
75.0%
78.3%
79.8%
84.1%
81.1%
-3.6%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Success
50%
Retention
40%
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Includes courses: ENGL100, ENGL100L, ENGL115, ENGL151, ENGL153, ENGL155A, ENGL155CJ, ENGL155MA
Transfer level English Courses
Year
Enrollments Success Retention
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
% Change
4,242
4,368
4,684
4,936
4,741
-4.0%
69.7%
65.9%
68.1%
70.6%
71.7%
1.6%
78.0%
76.3%
78.8%
82.3%
83.1%
1.0%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Success
Retention
50%
40%
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Includes Courses: ENGL12A, ENGL12B, ENGL12C, ENGL12E, ENGL14A, ENGL14B, ENGL14C, ENGL14E, ENGL1A, ENGL1A
ENGL1B, ENGL1BMC, ENGL1C, ENGL2, ENGL20B, ENGL23A, ENGL24A, ENGL24B, ENGL2H, ENGL2MC, ENGL2MCH, ENG
ENGL30B, ENGL34, ENGL39, ENGL46A, ENGL46B, ENGL48A, ENGL49A, ENGL49B, ENGL50, ENGL80S
Success = Course enrollment divided by the number of grades A, B, C, or P awarded
Retention = Course enrollment divided by the number of grades A, B, C, D, F, P, or NP awarded
Special grade codes of IF, XX, UD, UG, RD are not include in computations.
Source: Data Warehouse
CABRILLO COLLEGE 2010 FACTBOOK version 1.12. Jan.10.2011 (English Appendix 3)
Enrollment, Success and Retention by Course Level
STUDENT PERFORMANCE
Transfer Level Courses
Year
Enrollments
2005/06
68,080
2006/07
69,342
2007/08
73,887
2008/09
78,365
2009/10
74,707
% Change
-4.7%
Success Retention
69.1%
81.7%
68.6%
81.3%
69.1%
82.1%
70.4%
85.8%
71.8%
85.6%
2.0%
-0.2%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
Success
2005/06
2006/07
Retention
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Transfer status [CB05] = A or B (course transfers to UC or CSU)
100 Level Courses (Degree Applicable)
Year
Enrollments Success Retention
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
% Change
21,737
20,645
22,085
23,279
21,771
-6.5%
68.4%
67.2%
69.0%
68.8%
69.0%
0.3%
82.1%
81.4%
82.6%
85.3%
84.8%
-0.6%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
Success
2005/06
2006/07
Retention
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2008/09
2009/10
2008/09
2009/10
Credit Status [CB04] = D (Degree Applicable) and Transfer status [CB05] = C (not transferable).
200 Level - Basic Skills Courses
Year
Enrollments Success Retention
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
% Change
6,506
5,561
4,778
4,944
4,544
-8.1%
69.5%
66.4%
62.7%
63.6%
63.0%
-0.9%
82.0%
81.8%
80.4%
85.2%
84.4%
-0.9%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
Success
2005/06
2006/07
Retention
2007/08
Credit Status [CB04] = C (not Degree Applicable) and Basic Skills status [CB08] = B (Basic Skills)
200 Level (other)
Year
Enrollment
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
% Change
56
262
1,317
1,798
2,072
15.2%
Success Retention
73.2%
82.1%
80.0%
85.4%
80.3%
85.5%
76.5%
84.8%
70.1%
81.5%
-8.4%
-3.9%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
Success
2005/06
2006/07
Retention
2007/08
Credit Status [CB04] = C (not Degree Applicable) and Basic Skills status [CB08] = N (not a Basic Skills course)
Success = Course enrollment divided by the number of grades A, B, C, or P awarded
Retention = Course enrollment divided by the number of grades A, B, C, D, F, P, or NP awarded
Special grade codes of IF, XX, UD, UG, RD are not include in computations.
CABRILLO COLLEGE 2010 FACTBOOK version 1.12. Jan.10.2011
Source: Data Warehouse
(English Appendix 4)
English Appendix 5
English Course Placement
Students, and their progress in the English core sequence
according to students' starting level
ENGL-100
ENGL-255
Trend
NNNNNNN
326
301
523
511
NNNNNNN
77.0%
77.1%
76.3%
72.2%
N
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
NNNNNNN NNNNNNN
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
Repetitions
Individual
(after one or Average no. Average no.
of
of
Headcount
more
% of cohort
Enrollments Enrollments who attempt
(each student attermpts)
leading to leading to NO the next
counted
Success
Success
Success
once)
Rate
Level
Individual
(after one or Average no. Average no.
of
of
% of cohort
Headcount
more
Enrollments Enrollments who attempt
(each student attermpts)
leading to leading to NO the next
counted
Success
Success
Success
Level
once)
Rate
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
ENGL-1A
Repetitions
Repetitions

58.9%
56.5%
59.8%
54.2%
NNNNNNN
192
170
313
277
NNNNNNN
74.0%
81.8%
83.7%
79.8%
N
NNNNNNN
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
NNNNNNN
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.3
Individual
(after one or Average no. Average no.
of
of
Headcount
more
Enrollments Enrollments
(each student attermpts)
leading to leading to NO
counted
Success
Success
Success
once)
Rate

44.3%
42.9%
53.4%
50.9%
NNNNNNN
85
73
167
141
NNNNNNN
NNNNNNN
74.1%
80.8%
80.2%
78.0%
NNNNNNN
CMicroLine
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
Students starting 2 levels below transfer [ENGL-255]
ENGL-100
ENGL-1A
Repetitions
Repetitions
Individual
(after one or Average no. Average no.
of
of
Headcount
more
% of cohort
Enrollments Enrollments who attempt
(each student attermpts)
leading to leading to NO the next
counted
Success
Success
Success
once)
Rate
Level
Trend

2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
NNNNNNN
1,297
1,166
1,037
978
NNNNNNN
77.9%
77.5%
77.5%
76.9%
NNNNNNN
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
NNNNNNN
NNNNNNN
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
Individual
(after one or Average no. Average no.
of
of
Headcount
more
Enrollments Enrollments
(each student attermpts)
leading to leading to NO
counted
Success
Success
Success
once)
Rate

53.4%
53.8%
57.2%
57.0%
NNNNNNN
692
627
593
557
NNNNNNN
N
80.1%
79.6%
79.3%
78.5%
NNNNNNN
CMicroLine
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Students starting 1 level below transfer [ENGL-100]
ENGL-1A
Repetitions
Cohorts formed around the level and year
of the student's first English enrollment.
Individual
(after one or Average no. Average no.
of
of
more
Headcount
Enrollments Enrollments
(each student attermpts)
leading to leading to NO
Success
counted
Success
Success
Rate
once)
Outcomes within three years of first English enrollment.

2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
NNNNNNN
889
1,014
1,063
960
NNNNNNN
NNNNNNN
79.5%
82.1%
81.6%
77.7%
Students starting at transfer level
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
NNNNNNN
CMicroLine
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.5
Transfer and Basic Skills
Departmental Assessment Analysis Form
Note: Individual Assessment Form precedes this form.
Use the form below to summarize the results of the department meeting in
which you discussed the core competency assessment process or the
assessment of course SLOs. Append this form to your Instructional Plan and
incorporate the results into the narrative of your plan.
Department
English
Meeting Date
April 23, 2010
Number of Faculty/Staff
participating in dialogue
FULLTIME
12
ADJUNCT
2
Number of Faculty/Staff sharing
Assessment Results
Total number of faculty/staff in
department
Core Competency or Course
SLOs measured
Global Awareness
Assessment Tools
(Give examples of major
assignments your faculty/staff
used to measure the
competency or course SLOs)
Writing assignments: summary, literary analysis,
interpretive analysis, film analysis, argument paper;
Group presentations on readings addressing issues of
global awareness; Awards exercises recognizing
important work in the world.
Need more background before challenging
assignments; more instruction on sources and
documentation, punctuation, thesis formation, close
analysis to avoid generalization.
Assessment Results
(Summarize the overall results
of your department
What student needs and issues
were revealed?
Were there any areas where
student performance was
outstanding?
Any areas where it can be
improved?
Students are passionate and energetic and creative;
give elegant argumentation; able to use assignments
for self discovery (see Geneffa’s analysis)
More scaffolding; exercises to facilitate depth of
thought and critical thinking.
Global Awareness 1
Next Step in the Classroom
to Improve Student Learning
o
How might student performance
be improved?
o
o
Check all the items faculty/staff
felt would help them address
the needs and issues that were
revealed by the assessment.
o
When filling out this form
on a computer, please
indicate selections by
deleting unselected items.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Next Step in the Department
to Improve Student Learning
Check all that the department
felt would help them improve
student learning.
When filling out this form
on a computer, please
indicate selections by
deleting unselected items.
State goals or objectives of assignment/activity more
explicitly
Revise content of assignment/activities
Revise the amount of writing/oral/visual/clinical or
similar work
Revise activities leading up to and/or supporting
assignment/activities
Increase in-class discussions and activities
Increase student collaboration and/or peer review
Provide more frequent or more comprehensive
feedback on student progress
Increase guidance for students as they work on
assignments
Use methods of questioning that encourage the
competency you measured
State criteria for grading more explicitly
As an instructor, increase your interaction with
students outside of class
Ask a colleague to critique assignments/activities
Collect more data
Nothing; assessment indicates no improvement
necessary
Other (please describe)
o Offer/encourage attendance at seminars, workshops
or discussion groups about teaching methods
o Consult teaching and learning experts about teaching
methods
o Encourage faculty to share activities that foster
competency
o Write collaborative grants to fund departmental
projects to improve teaching
o Purchase articles/books on teaching about
competency
o Visit classrooms to provide feedback (mentoring)
o Create bibliography of resource material
o Have binder available for rubrics and results
o Analyze course curriculum,, so that the department
can build a progression of skills as students advance
through courses
o Nothing; assessments indicate no improvements
necessary
o Other (please describe)
Global Awareness 2
Priorities to Improve Student
Learning
(List the top 3-6 things
faculty/staff felt would most
improve student learning)
Implementation
(List the departmental plans to
implement these priorities)
Timeline for Implementation
(Make a timeline for
implementation of your top
priorities)
Have a departmental discussion about scaffolding for
difficult assignments.
Share assignments on Global Awareness.
Have departmental discussion about the nuts and bolts
of citation in order to establish a consistent approach
from class to class.
Share
Agenda item on Fall 10 flex meeting: documentation
nuts and bolts.
Department activity on scaffolding
Department activity to share assignments addressing
global awareness.
Fall 10 flex: nuts and bolts of documentation.
Department meetings 2010-11: activities on
scaffolding and assignments.
Global Awareness 3
Transfer and Basic Skills
Departmental Assessment Analysis Form
Department
Meeting Date
English
Feb. 5, 2009
FULLTIME
Number of Faculty/Staff
participating in dialogue
Number of Faculty/Staff sharing
Assessment Results
Total number of faculty/staff in
department
ADJUNCT
17
16
13
9
18 active
(2 on sabbatical)
45
Core Competency or Course
SLOs measured
Core Competency 1: Communication
Assessment Tools
(Give examples of major
assignments your faculty/staff
used to measure the
competency or course SLOs)
Research papers, summary assignment, oral
presentation, persuasive essays, in-class essays, film
analysis, logical analysis (fallacies).
Assessment Results
(Summarize the overall results
of your department
Though some students perform well consistently, most struggle
with at least one aspect of communication, and many have weak
academic reading and writing skills.
What student needs and issues
were revealed?
Many students are not fully engaged in assignments; many do not
demonstrate facility with research and documentation processes;
some struggle with basic fluency. Many students are intimidated
by institutional culture.
Were there any areas where
student performance was
outstanding?
Students work well in groups; engage effectively when they are
given freedom to choose topics within a clear framework; excel
and develop voice when they are fully engaged.
Any areas where it can be
improved?
Research and documentation; developing voice and authority;
reading and writing skills.
Core Competency 1: Communication 1
Next Step in the Classroom
to Improve Student Learning
How might student performance
be improved?
•
•
•
•
•
•
State goals or objectives of assignment/activity
more explicitly
Revise content of assignment/activities
Revise activities leading up to and/or supporting
assignment/activities
Increase student collaboration and/or peer review
Provide more frequent or more comprehensive
feedback on student progress
As an instructor, increase your interaction with
students outside of class
Ask a colleague to critique assignments/activities
•
Other:
• Teach speaking/oral presentation skills.
• Develop strategies for engaging students’ genuine
interest.
Next Step in the Department
to Improve Student Learning
•
•
•
•
•
Offer/encourage attendance at seminars,
workshops or discussion groups about teaching
methods
Encourage faculty to share activities that foster
competency
Write collaborative grants to fund departmental
projects to improve teaching
Visit classrooms to provide feedback (mentoring)
Analyze course curriculum,, so that the
department can build a progression of skills as
students advance through courses
Other:
• Create peer tutoring program.
• Have department-wide discussion re: affective
domain and student responsibility (attendance,
motivation, self-efficacy)
Priorities to Improve Student
Learning
1) Develop effective strategies for teaching
• reading, including research
• incorporating source material responsibly into
writing
• ways of engaging with assignments and college
culture
2) Establish peer tutoring program
3) Address affective and cultural barriers:
• Successful students take responsibility for their own
learning. Teachers can help students develop student
identity.
• Many students feel oppressed or threatened by
institutional academic culture and therefore have
difficulty engaging in the processes teachers take
Core Competency 1: Communication 2
for granted.
Implementation
(List the departmental plans to
implement these priorities)
1) Offer Staff Development activities exploring
strategies for mitigating fear and alienation
experienced by students in an effort to make them
more comfortable in the institution, and to bring
them “into the conversation.” When they are
genuinely engaged, students will more effectively
learn the conventions of academic reading and
writing, including research and documentation.
2) Review curricula for relevance and cultural
sensitivity
3) Investigate avenues for establishing a peer
tutoring program to help students strengthen
basic reading and writing skills.
Timeline for Implementation
(Make a timeline for
implementation of your top
priorities)
1) A task force will prepare a workshop for Fall 09
Flex Week focusing on strategies for addressing
affective factors, such as fear, in student
engagement.
2) Review of curricula is ongoing. Formal
discussion of course outlines will take place as
we head into Instructional Planning in Spring
2010.
3) Composition Committee will discuss options
for a peer tutoring program during Spring 2009
and will present findings to the department at
the May meeting.
Core Competency 1: Communication 3
Transfer and Basic Skills
Departmental Assessment Analysis Form
Note: Individual Assessment Form precedes this form.
Use the form below to summarize the results of the department meeting in
which you discussed the core competency assessment process or the
assessment of course SLOs. Append this form to your Instructional Plan and
incorporate the results into the narrative of your plan.
Department
English
Meeting Date
August 27, 2009
FULLTIME
ADJUNCT
Number of Faculty/Staff
participating in dialogue
17
17
Number of Faculty/Staff sharing
Assessment Results
19 combined full-time and adjunct
Total number of faculty/staff in
department
18 active; two on sabbatical
30
Core Competency or Course
SLOs measured
Critical Thinking
Assessment Tools
(Give examples of major
assignments your faculty/staff
used to measure the
competency or course SLOs)
Research paper
Interpretive analysis
Position/Argument paper
Literary analysis
Cinematic performance
Descriptive writing
Assessment Results
(Summarize the overall results
of your department )
1. In general, students struggle with analyzing
complexities in reading and writing, formulating logical
arguments, collecting/evaluating information and
incorporating it into assignments, thinking abstractly and
negotiating figurative language
1. What student needs and
issues were revealed?
2. Were there any areas where
student performance was
outstanding?
3. Any areas where it can be
improved?
2. In general, students are good at collaboration, applying
learning to personal experience, analyzing visual and
audio texts. Some students demonstrate excellent
reasoning skills.
3. See above to “needs and issues.”
Critical Thinking 1
Next Step in the Classroom
to Improve Student Learning
o
How might student performance
be improved?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Next Step in the Department
to Improve Student Learning
o
o
o
o
o
Priorities to Improve Student
Learning
(List the top 3-6 things
faculty/staff felt would most
improve student learning)
State goals or objectives of assignment/activity more
explicitly
Revise content of assignment/activities
Revise activities leading up to and/or supporting
assignment/activities
Increase student collaboration and/or peer review
Provide more frequent or more comprehensive
feedback on student progress
Increase guidance for students as they work on
assignments
Use methods of questioning that encourage the
competency you measured
Other: Sequential assignments, personal connection
on research paper topics
Offer/encourage attendance at seminars, workshops
or discussion groups about teaching methods
Consult teaching and learning experts about teaching
methods
Encourage faculty to share activities that foster
competency
Have binder available for rubrics and results
Other: Flex activity on teaching the research paper
1. Flex activity on teaching the research paper
2. Offer/encourage attendance at seminars,
workshops or discussion groups about teaching
methods
3. Consult teaching and learning experts about
teaching methods
Implementation
(List the departmental plans to
implement these priorities)
1. Flex activity on teaching the research paper—fall
10 or spring 11.
2. Offer/encourage attendance at seminars,
workshops or discussion groups about teaching
methods—ongoing example: OnCourse, DBA
training, Puente training, ACES/BSI workshops
3. Consult teaching and learning experts about
teaching methods—ongoing example: DBA
research team, SF State Reading and Writing
Curriculum experts, other national conferences
including First Year experience.
Critical Thinking 2
Timeline for Implementation
(Make a timeline for
implementation of your top
priorities)
Most of these activities are ongoing and faculty
circulate through them:
Fall 2009: OnCourse, DBA training, Puente training,
ACES/BSI workshops; DBA research team
Spring 2010: OnCourse, DBA training, Puente training,
ACES/BSI workshops
Fall 2010/Spring 2011: Flex Activity on research paper;
OnCourse, DBA training, Puente training, ACES/BSI
workshops; SF State Reading and Writing Curriculum
experts, other national conferences including First Year
experience.
Critical Thinking 3
Transfer and Basic Skills
Departmental Assessment Analysis Form
Note: Individual Assessment Form precedes this form.
Use the form below to summarize the results of the department meeting in
which you discussed the core competency assessment process or the
assessment of course SLOs. Append this form to your Instructional Plan and
incorporate the results into the narrative of your plan.
Department
English
Meeting Date
August 26, 2010
FULLTIME
ADJUNCT
Number of Faculty/Staff
participating in dialogue
14
10
Number of Faculty/Staff sharing
Assessment Results
12
8
19
35
Total number of faculty/staff in
department
Core Competency or Course
SLOs measured
Personal Responsibility and Professional
Development
Assessment Tools
(Give examples of major
assignments your faculty/staff
used to measure the
competency or course SLOs)
Late paper policies, late paper tickets, attendance policy
and logs, progress reports, plagiarism unit and exercises,
small group development of posters and policies, On
Course text and activities.
Assessment Results
(Summarize the overall results
of your department
What student needs and issues
were revealed?
Were there any areas where
student performance was
outstanding?
Any areas where it can be
improved?
Though some students show high levels of personal
responsibility as demonstrated by turning in work on
schedule and arriving to class on time and prepared,
other students miss on these very important measures.
Though most students intend to complete work honestly
and through their own efforts, the concept of plagiarism
is still an issue; students have bought work off the
internet or other students, students have
Personal Responsibility and Professional Development 1
copied all or significant parts of assignments from
other students or previous work, and students have
copied directly from published sources and not cited
their sources correctly.
The number of students who plagiarize knowingly and
on purpose are few, but still this is a problem to
address; on a larger scale is the problem of
unintentional plagiarism where students copy from
each other or from published sources without sufficient
citation.
Next Step in the Classroom
to Improve Student Learning
o
How might student performance
be improved?
o
o
Check all the items faculty/staff
felt would help them address
the needs and issues that were
revealed by the assessment.
o
o
o
When filling out this form
on a computer, please
indicate selections by
deleting unselected items.
o
Next Step in the Department
to Improve Student Learning
o Offer/encourage attendance at seminars, workshops
or discussion groups about teaching methods
o Consult teaching and learning experts about teaching
methods
o Encourage faculty to share activities that foster
competency
o Purchase articles/books on teaching about
competency
o Analyze course curriculum, so that the department
can build a progression of skills as students advance
through courses
Check all that the department
felt would help them improve
student learning.
When filling out this form
on a computer, please
indicate selections by
deleting unselected items.
State goals or objectives of assignment/activity more
explicitly
Revise content of assignment/activities
Revise activities leading up to and/or supporting
assignment/activities
Increase in-class discussions and activities
Increase student collaboration and/or peer review
Increase guidance for students as they work on
assignments
State criteria for grading more explicitly
Personal Responsibility and Professional Development 2
Priorities to Improve Student
Learning
(List the top 3-6 things
faculty/staff felt would most
improve student learning)
1. Review policy and guidelines more
thoroughly in the classroom.
2. Set clear attendance, tardy, and late
policies.
3. Utilize or buy software that scans
essays for plagiarized content.
4. Review course objectives to include
citation through the composition
sequence, and then teach MLA citation
through the composition sequence.
Implementation
(List the departmental plans to
implement these priorities)
1. Flex week activity on plagiarism.
2. Attend On Course workshops and other forms
of professional development.
3. Review curriculum to include MLA citation
through composition sequence.
Timeline for Implementation
(Make a timeline for
implementation of your top
priorities)
Spring 2011—Flex week meeting on plagiarism.
Spring 2011—Flex week On Course Workshop Spring
2011 onwards—review curriculum to include MLA
citation.
Personal Responsibility and Professional Development 3
Transfer and Basic Skills
Departmental Assessment Analysis Form
Note: Individual Assessment Form precedes this form.
Use the form below to summarize the results of the department meeting in
which you discussed the core competency assessment process or the
assessment of course SLOs. Append this form to your Instructional Plan and
incorporate the results into the narrative of your plan.
Department
Meeting Date
English
Spring 2007
Number of Faculty/Staff
participating in dialogue
31
Number of Faculty/Staff sharing
Assessment Results
28
Core Competency or Course
SLOs measured
Assessment Tools
(Give examples of major
assignments your faculty/staff
used to measure the
competency or course SLOs)
Assessment Results
(Summarize the overall results
of your department)
What student needs and issues
were revealed?
Were there any areas where
student performance was
outstanding?
Any areas where it can be
improved?
Course SLOs for Literature, Film, and
Creative Writing Courses (except for courses taught
only in spring): Engl 12A, B, C, E; Engl 14E; Engl
24A; Engl 30A; Engl 46A; Engl 48A; Engl 49A
Representative assignments:
12A: Finished work of Fiction
12C: A screenplay
30A: Research Paper
46A: Research Paper
Students generally produce strong final projects in
these courses.
Students would benefit from more access to online
materials during class periods and, in some cases,
higher quality media presentation tools.
Students would benefit from a novel-writing course.
Students in these courses are often highly prepared
and motivated, and produce top-quality work.
Less-prepared students would benefit from stronger
preparation in reading and textual analysis.
We do not offer a novel-writing course.
Course SLOs for Lit, Film & CW 1
Next Step in the Classroom
to Improve Student Learning
How might student performance
be improved?
Check all the items faculty/staff
felt would help them address
the needs and issues that were
revealed by the assessment.
Next Step in the Department
to Improve Student Learning
Check all that the department
felt would help them improve
student learning.
Priorities to Improve Student
Learning
(List the top 3-6 things
faculty/staff felt would most
improve student learning)
Increase in-class discussions and activities, including
use of better internet connectivity in classrooms and
presentation media.
o Increase guidance for students as they work on
assignments, in particular for less prepared
students
o Collect more data
o Other: strongly recommend to less prepared
students that they take English 1B or 1BMC
before taking literature courses.
--develop a novel-writing course
o
o Other: Faculty discussion of technology needs in
classrooms.
o Faculty to develop requests for technology needs.
o Faculty discussion of English 1B and 1BMC
offerings.
o Faculty member to develop a novel-writing course
o Other: Faculty discussion of technology needs in
classrooms.
o Faculty to develop requests for technology needs.
o Faculty discussion of English 1B and 1BMC
offerings.
o Development of a novel-writing course
Course SLOs for Lit, Film & CW 2
Implementation
(List the departmental plans to
implement these priorities)
Timeline for Implementation
(Make a timeline for
implementation of your top
priorities)
Faculty representatives will be active on redesign of 300
Building and 450 Forum
Faculty will investigate numbers of English 1B offerings
at other colleges and make recommendations to
department.
Faculty member will develop a novel-writing course.
Spring 2007: Faculty representatives will be active in
Building 300 design.
Fall 2007 and continuing: Faculty representatives will
investigate numbers and content of English 1B offerings
in other colleges.
Fall 2007-Spring 2008: One faculty member will
include development of a novel-writing course in
sabbatical project.
Course SLOs for Lit, Film & CW 3
Transfer and Basic Skills
Departmental Assessment Analysis Form
Note: Individual Assessment Form precedes this form.
Use the form below to summarize the results of the department meeting in
which you discussed the core competency assessment process or the
assessment of course SLOs. Append this form to your Instructional Plan and
incorporate the results into the narrative of your plan.
Department
English
Meeting Date
Feb. 2, 2007
Number of Faculty/Staff
participating in dialogue
31
Number of Faculty/Staff sharing
Assessment Results
28
Core Competency or Course
SLOs measured
Composition Sequence SLOs
(Engl 255/256, Engl 100, Engl 1A
Engl 1B, Engl 2)
Assessment Tools
(Give examples of major
assignments your faculty/staff
used to measure the
competency or course SLOs)
•
•
•
•
•
Engl 255 Essay: A Meaningful Gift
Engl 100 Essay: Writing about a Place
Engl 1A Essay: Research Paper
Engl 1B Essay: Poetry Analysis
Engl 2 Group Activity: Analysis of a Professional
Argumentative Essay
Assessment Results
(Summarize the overall results
of your department)
•
Throughout comp. sequence, students need stronger
critical-thinking skills., from summary and paraphrasing
or readings to analysis and evaluation of text.
What student needs and issues
were revealed?
•
Faculty noted a persistent decline in reading and
writing preparation among entering students.
Integrated writing and reading curriculum important
SLOs throughout sequence should address crit. thinking
Students who had access to ongoing tutoring were more
successful, especially ESL & bilingual/ bicultural
students.
Need for teaching multi-cultural/global perspectives as
one basis for teaching critical thinking.
Were there any areas where
student performance was
outstanding?
Any areas where it can be
improved?
•
•
•
•
Course SLOs for Composition Sequence 1
Next Step in the Classroom
to Improve Student Learning
o
How might student performance
be improved?
o
o
Check all the items faculty/staff
felt would help them address
the needs and issues that were
revealed by the assessment.
o
o
o
o
o
Next Step in the Department
to Improve Student Learning
Check all that the department
felt would help them improve
student learning.
State goals or objectives of assignment/activity more
explicitly
Revise content of assignment/activities
Revise activities leading up to and/or supporting
assignment/activities
Increase guidance for students as they work on
assignments
Use methods of questioning that encourage the
competency you measured
State criteria for grading more explicitly
Collect more data
Other:
--Professional development activities to include
integrated writing and reading curriculum
--Professional development activities to include
strategies for teaching critical thinking
--Increased access to tutoring in writing at all levels
o Offer/encourage attendance at seminars, workshops
or discussion groups about teaching methods
o Consult teaching and learning experts about teaching
methods
o Encourage faculty to share activities that foster
competency
o Have binder available for rubrics and results
o Analyze course curriculum,, so that the department
can build a progression of skills as students advance
through courses
o Prioritize full-time basic-skills instructor hire
o Other: --Integrate SLOs for critical thinking at all
levels of comp. sequence.
--Devote department meeting time to study and
discussion of teaching critical thinking
--Make materials on critical thinking pedagogy
available to all faculty
--Prioritize full-time writing-and reading-lab staff in
program plan.
--Create and staff departmental committee for
communicating with English departments in local
high schools
--Prioritize learning communities for basic skills
students
Course SLOs for Composition Sequence 2
Priorities to Improve Student
Learning
(List the top 3-6 things
faculty/staff felt would most
improve student learning)
Implementation
(List the departmental plans to
implement these priorities)
„ Prioritize full-time basic-skills instructor hire
„ Integrate SLOs concerning critical thinking at all
levels of composition sequence.
„ Devote department meeting time to discussion of
pedagogical issues
„ Prioritize learning communities for basic-skills
students
„ Prioritize full-time writing- and reading-lab staff
„ Request full-time faculty position for a basicskills specialist
„ Departmental compositional committee to
compose SLOs for critical thinking skills at all
levels
„ Spend time in department meetings discussing one
pedagogical issue related to critical thinking each
month
„ Work with Reading and ESL departments to form
basic-skills learning communities
„ Investigate models for learning-community
organization and implementation
„ Include need for lab tutors in next program plan
Course SLOs for Composition Sequence 3
Timeline for Implementation
(Make a timeline for
implementation of your top
priorities)
„ Spring 07: Hire full-time basic-skills instructor
„ Fall 08: New full-time basic-skills instructor to
work with current basic skills instructor to update
curriculum and assessment.
„ Spring 07 and Fall 08: Rewrite SLOs for each
composition course.
„ Immediate and ongoing: devote department
meeting time to discussion of pedagogical issues.
„ Spring 07 and ongoing: Work with ESL and
Reading faculty to create learning communities.
„ Spring 07: Begin investigation of learningcommunity practices.
„ Fall 08: Report to department on learningcommunity practices.
Course SLOs for Composition Sequence 4