COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CAR)
Revised 08/15/2012
Course Prefix, Number and Title: ENG 98R-Preparatory Composition
Division/Unit: School of Liberal Arts
Submitted by: Erika Bein and Natalie Russell
Contributing Faculty: Full and Part-Time English Faculty
Academic Year: 2011-2012
Complete and electronically submit your assessment report to your Department Chair/Coordinator/Director. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or
a narrative description of the assessment activities in your course.
Course Outcomes
In the boxes below, summarize
the outcomes assessed in your
course during the year.
Outcome #1
Write clear and purposeful
paragraphs leading to overall
essay development.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
Effect on Course
In the boxes below, summarize
the methods used to assess course
outcomes during the last year.
In the boxes below, summarize
the results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below, summarize
how you are or how you plan to
use the results to improve student
learning.
Based on the results of this
assessment, will you revise your
outcomes? If so, please
summarize how and why in the
boxes below:
In this cycle, we used the final
argument (claim or thesis-based)
paper in 098 as our assessment
model. All sections of 98R
assign this type of assignment.
The scores for the spring
assessment were significant and
informative. Our norming
session helped develop a strong
consensus in scoring. Four of the
five main core indicators are
close to passing level, but we can
observe that more work is still
needed in these areas for full
competency. In past assessments,
we noted deficiencies in Critical
Reading, and this is an area that
still requires additional attention.
This may be addressed with the
addition of two new full-time
Reading faculty. The core
indicator of Thesis development
was also noted as an area of
concern in the past assessment,
but we see marked improvement
in this area, with the total falling
just below the passing level. As
the scores in the other two areas
1. The English department needs
to spend more time teaching
our students how to
incorporate and cite sources
in text and format papers in
correct MLA style. This
indicator was our lowest
score, and this is a skill our
students must have moving
forward into the next class in
the composition sequence,
English 101.
A final suggestion is to revisit
our Learning Outcomes, since we
will be doing this for 101 and
102.
We sampled 37 sections of
English, and we randomly
selected 20% of the essays turned
in (4 essays selected from each
section based on the class roster).
The assessment committee used
the same core indicators as the
2009 test but weighted
“Audience” and “MLA
Formatting” less than the other
indicators: Essay Structure and
Organization, Thesis, Paragraph
Development and Coherence,
Critical Reading and
Interpretation, and Mechanics
and Usage. Since the assessment
Page 1
2. For the next assessment cycle,
the department needs to drill
down and assess skills on a
smaller scale. This can be
partially addressed through
the assessment rubric itself.
The current model is too
comprehensive and needs
more refining. For instance,
the next assessment can
COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CAR)
Course Prefix, Number and Title: ENG 98R-Preparatory Composition
Division/Unit: School of Liberal Arts
Submitted by: Erika Bein and Natalie Russell
Contributing Faculty: Full and Part-Time English Faculty
Academic Year: 2011-2012
Course Outcomes
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
assignment was different
according to each instructor’s
curriculum, we needed a broad
view of the measures to refine in
the next 098 assessment in the
cycle. For the five main
indicators, the assessment readers
scored them on a five point scale:
0=incompetent and 5=superior.
A score of 3 on the 5 point scale
on the individual indicators was
an acceptable passing score. The
indicators of Audience and MLA
Formatting were scored on a
three point scale (0=incompetent
and 3=strong). The committee
agreed that a score of 19 was an
acceptable overall passing score.
The assessment readers met for a
two hour norming session before
the reading began. Each essay
was read twice. If the overall
score had a variation of more
than 3 points or more, then the
essay was given a third read.
indicate, particular attention
should be directed toward
instruction in MLA formatting.
These deficiencies may be partly
due to the ambiguity of the area
of audience and the difficulty in
assessing it. In the MLA
formatting section, we asked
reviewers to evaluate in-text
citations, works cited page
formatting, along with basic
essay formatting. This category
may need to be streamlined in
future assessments. We may also
need to distinguish more
explicitly between incorporation
of sources in the Critical Reading
category and the use of in-text
citations in the MLA Formatting
section.
focus on critical reading,
audience awareness, and
appropriate citations.
3. The department recommends
keeping the adjunct faculty
involved in the assessment
process. The integration of
members between full and
part-time instructors helps
generate a better
dissemination of assessment
data to all the instructors.
4.
While we wish to emphasize
the areas that need
improvement, the
department recommends that
we continue to focus on all
areas in the classroom, so we
will not diminish the gains
shown in this assessment
cycle.
5.
The department agrees that
we should refine our
argument essay assignments,
so that the expectations and
requirements are more
consistent among the
different sections.
Reviewers noted vast
discrepancies in assignment
The overall scores indicate
emerging competence in a
majority of the core indicators.
Page 2
Effect on Course
COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CAR)
Course Prefix, Number and Title: ENG 98R-Preparatory Composition
Division/Unit: School of Liberal Arts
Submitted by: Erika Bein and Natalie Russell
Contributing Faculty: Full and Part-Time English Faculty
Academic Year: 2011-2012
Course Outcomes
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
Effect on Course
expectations and design.
Addressing this has the
potential of streamlining the
assessment process and
outcomes.
6.
Outcome # 2
Develop a clear thesis.
See Above.
See Above.
This process also
demonstrated an increased
need for a strong department
sub-committee to focus
primarily on developmental
course requirements,
expectations, and student
success. This committee had
been established in the past
but has lost its active
membership in recent
semesters. We recommend
reforming this committee
and working to maintain its
strength and influence in our
department. Its members
would be made up of fulltime English faculty,
Reading faculty, and parttime 98R faculty.
See above.
Page 3
See Above.
COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CAR)
Course Prefix, Number and Title: ENG 98R-Preparatory Composition
Division/Unit: School of Liberal Arts
Submitted by: Erika Bein and Natalie Russell
Contributing Faculty: Full and Part-Time English Faculty
Academic Year: 2011-2012
Course Outcomes
Outcome #3
Analyze texts and present their
meanings in writing.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
Effect on Course
See Above.
See Above.
See Above.
See Above.
Outcome #4
Write a persuasive argument
using textual evidence.
See Above.
See Above.
See Above.
See Above.
Outcome #5
Find and fix grammar and
punctuation errors.
See Above.
See Above.
See Above.
See Above.
Please enter your name and date below to confirm you have reviewed this report:
Title
Name
Date
Dept. Chair/Coordinator/Director
Erika Bein
5/23/2012
Dean
Armida Fruzzetti
8/10/2012
Vice President of Academic Affairs & Student Services
John G. Tuthill
8/24/2012
Page 4
COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CAR)
Course Prefix, Number and Title: ENG 98R-Preparatory Composition
Division/Unit: School of Liberal Arts
Submitted by: Erika Bein and Natalie Russell
Contributing Faculty: Full and Part-Time English Faculty
Academic Year: 2011-2012
English 098—Spring 2012 Assessment Report
The Assessment:
The last English 098 assessment was conducted fall 2008 and completed in the spring 2009 semester. At that time the English
department used a consistent, assigned reading and a blanket writing prompt as the assessment vehicle. The department felt that this
was an overly artificial means of assessment. This was due to many variables, including the fact that individual course curriculum did
not often dovetail the assessment reading or prompt. Therefore, students found a disconnect between what they had learned in class
and what they were asked to write about. The results of our assessment were therefore skewed. So in this cycle, we used the final
argument (claim or thesis-based) paper in 098 as our assessment model. All sections of 98R assign this type of assignment.
We sampled 37 sections of English, and we randomly selected 20% of the essays turned in (4 essays selected from each section
based on the class roster). The assignment is a typical final assignment in 098, an argument driven essay incorporating at least one
source and formatted in proper MLA style. The students had a minimum of two weeks to complete the assignment, and they were able
to seek assistance on the paper from the Writing Center, Smartthinking.com, or peer review. The students were allowed to employ
whatever writing/revision techniques they had used throughout the semester.
The assessment committee used the same core indicators as the 2009 test but weighted “Audience” and “MLA Formatting” less than
the other indicators: Essay Structure and Organization, Thesis, Paragraph Development and Coherence, Critical Reading and
Interpretation, and Mechanics and Usage. Since the assessment assignment was different according to each instructor’s curriculum,
we needed a broad view of the measures to refine in the next 098 assessment in the cycle. For the five main indicators, the
assessment readers scored them on a five point scale: 0=incompetent and 5=superior. A score of 3 on the 5 point scale on the
individual indicators was an acceptable passing score. The indicators of Audience and MLA Formatting were scored on a three point
scale (0=incompetent and 3=strong). The committee agreed that a score of 19 was an acceptable overall passing score. The
Page 5
COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CAR)
Course Prefix, Number and Title: ENG 98R-Preparatory Composition
Division/Unit: School of Liberal Arts
Submitted by: Erika Bein and Natalie Russell
Contributing Faculty: Full and Part-Time English Faculty
Academic Year: 2011-2012
assessment readers met for a two hour norming session before the reading began. Each essay was read twice. If the overall score
had a variation of more than 3 points or more, then the essay was given a third read.
The Results: (Average results in all categories)
Essay Structure
/Organization
Thesis
Par. Developmt.
/Coherence
Crit. Reading
Mechanics &
Usage
Audience
MLA Formatting
Total
1st
read
2nd
read
total
2.91
3.03
2.87
2.85
2.89
2.94
2.74
2.42
2.73
2.36
2.735
2.39
2.74
1.79
1.48
17.11
2.87
1.78
1.46
16.92
2.805
1.785
1.47
17.015
Page 6
COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CAR)
Course Prefix, Number and Title: ENG 98R-Preparatory Composition
Division/Unit: School of Liberal Arts
Submitted by: Erika Bein and Natalie Russell
Contributing Faculty: Full and Part-Time English Faculty
Academic Year: 2011-2012
3
2.5
2
1st read
1.5
2nd read
Total
1
0.5
0
Str/Org
Thesis
Dev/Coh
Cr.Read
Mech
Aud.
MLA
The scores for the spring assessment were significant and informative. Our norming session helped develop a strong consensus in
scoring. Four of the five main core indicators are close to passing level, but we can observe that more work is still needed in these
areas for full competency. In past assessments, we noted deficiencies in Critical Reading, and this is an area that still requires
additional attention. This may be addressed with the addition of two new full-time Reading faculty. The core indicator of Thesis
development was also noted as an area of concern in the past assessment, but we see marked improvement in this area, with the total
falling just below the passing level. As the scores in the other two areas indicate, particular attention should be directed toward
Page 7
COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CAR)
Course Prefix, Number and Title: ENG 98R-Preparatory Composition
Division/Unit: School of Liberal Arts
Submitted by: Erika Bein and Natalie Russell
Contributing Faculty: Full and Part-Time English Faculty
Academic Year: 2011-2012
instruction in MLA formatting. These deficiencies may be partly due to the ambiguity of the area of audience and the difficulty in
assessing it. In the MLA formatting section, we asked reviewers to evaluate in-text citations, works cited page formatting, along with
basic essay formatting. This category may need to be streamlined in future assessments. We may also need to distinguish more
explicitly between incorporation of sources in the Critical Reading category and the use of in-text citations in the MLA Formatting
section.
The overall scores indicate emerging competence in a majority of the core indicators.
Recommendations:
1. The English department needs to spend more time teaching our students how to incorporate and cite sources in text and format
papers in correct MLA style. This indicator was our lowest score, and this is a skill our students must have moving forward into the
next class in the composition sequence, English 101.
2. For the next assessment cycle, the department needs to drill down and assess skills on a smaller scale. This can be partially
addressed through the assessment rubric itself. The current model is too comprehensive and needs more refining. For instance,
the next assessment can focus on critical reading, audience awareness, and appropriate citations.
3. The department recommends keeping the adjunct faculty involved in the assessment process. The integration of members between
full and part-time instructors helps generate a better dissemination of assessment data to all the instructors.
7. While we wish to emphasize the areas that need improvement, the department recommends that we continue to focus on all areas
in the classroom, so we will not diminish the gains shown in this assessment cycle.
Page 8
COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CAR)
Course Prefix, Number and Title: ENG 98R-Preparatory Composition
Division/Unit: School of Liberal Arts
Submitted by: Erika Bein and Natalie Russell
Contributing Faculty: Full and Part-Time English Faculty
Academic Year: 2011-2012
8. The department agrees that we should refine our argument essay assignments, so that the expectations and requirements are more
consistent among the different sections. Reviewers noted vast discrepancies in assignment expectations and design. Addressing
this has the potential of streamlining the assessment process and outcomes.
9. This process also demonstrated an increased need for a strong department sub-committee to focus primarily on developmental
course requirements, expectations, and student success. This committee had been established in the past but has lost its active
membership in recent semesters. We recommend reforming this committee and working to maintain its strength and influence in our
department. Its members would be made up of full-time English faculty, Reading faculty, and part-time 98R faculty.
10. A final suggestion is to revisit our Learning Outcomes, since we will be doing this for 101 and 102.
Page 9