Annual Assessment Report to the College 2010-2011
College: Humanities
Department: English
Program: Subject Matter & FYl/JYI
Committee Chairs: Dorothy Clark (SM); Kent Baxter {FYl/JYI)
Note: Please submit report to your department chair or program coordinator and to the
Associate Dean of your College. You may submit a separate report for each program which
conducted assessment activities.
Liaison: Martin Pousson
1. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s)
la. Assessment Process Overview: Provide a brief overview of the intended plan to assess the
program this year. Is assessment under the oversight of one person or a committee?
Assessment is conducted thro
the English Dept's Subject Matter Committee. ifhe plan
assesses department SLO #1 and #3 by u i
nstructors of
the English Dept. gateway course, English 355, and the Subject Matter Option's exit interview.
Subject Matter/FYI/JV! also revised its undergrad SLOs in favor of more measurable,
performance-based verbs, and Subject Matter/FYl/JYI voted unanimously to adopt the new
common departmental SLOS.
The new Subject Matter/FYl/JYI SLOS:
1. Students will demonstrate their knowledge of the nature and structure of the English language and of its
relationship to other human languages.
2. Students will apply rhetorical and composition theory.
3. Students will de1nonstrate fluency in the discourses pertaining to the disciplines of English.
Subject Matter will conduct comparative analyses of the quantitative data generated from the SLO
assessment to consider modifications to the option through curriculum adjustments and specialized seminars.
lb. Implementation and Modifications: Did the actual assessment process deviate from what
was intended? If so, please describe any modification to your assessment process and why it
occurred.
There was no deviation in the process.
2. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project: Answer questions according to the individual
SLO assessed this year. If you assessed an additional SLO, report in the next chart below.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
n
I.
Common undergrad SLO #1: Students will demonstrate critica1 reading and writing skills.
2.
Subject Matter SL0#3: Students will demonstrate fluency in the discow·ses pertaining to the
disciplines of English.
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
Depar ment-selected five-point scale and option-designed rubrics to measure all SLOs.
1. For common undergrad SLO #1, Subject Matter will assess one gateway course (English
355) and the Subject Matter Exit Interview, the Capstone Experience.
2. For Subject Matter SLO #3, Subject Matter will assess one gateway course (English 355)
and the Subject Matter Exit Interview, the Capstone Experience.
The following articulated common scale was implemented:
1: Unsatisfactory; 2: Less than Satisfactory; 3: Satisfactory; 4: More than Satisfactory; 5:
Excellent
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and
population size for this SLO. For example, what type of students, which courses, how decisions
were made to include certain participants.
Students from Spring 2011 English 355 course were assessed. Two batches of essays covering
early to late in the term were assessed as per 1-5 scale rubric. Randomly selected essays from
112 students, gathered early and late in the term, were assessed.
Students taking the exit exam for the Subject Matter Option were assessed according to the
same 1-5 scale rubric; the sample was smaller (30 students).
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed
longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a cross-sectional comparison used
(comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
A cross-sectional comparison was used, between sophomores and seniors.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were
analyzed and highlight important findings from the data collected.
/
The students showed some significant learning in regards to SLO #1: 68% of the seniors scored a
4 (More than Satisfactory) or 5 (Excellent) in the Exit Interview assessment, as opposed to only
52% of the sophomore students. Subsequently, 48% of the sophomore students scored 3
(Satisfactory) or 2 (Less than Satisfactory). Clearly there is some improvement in the mastering
of SLO #1; however, the assessment did reveal that 6% of our seniors scored 2 (Less than
Satisfactory) and 3% scored 1 (Unsatisfactory) on the assessment, indicating that some changes
should be made to the major to improve in this area.
The students showed some significant learning in regards to SLO #3: 68% of the seniors scored a
4 (More than Satisfactory) or 5 (Excellent) in the Exit Interview assessment, as opposed to only
51% of the sophomore students. Subsequently, 49% of the sophomore students scored 3
(Satisfactory) or 2 (Less than Satisfactory). Clearly there is some improvement in the mastering
of SLO #3; however, the assessment did reveal that 6% of our seniors scored 2 (Less than
Satisfactory) and 3% scored 1 (Unsatisfactory) on the assessment, indicating that some changes
should be made to the major to improve in this area.
It should be noted, however, that the sample size of the seniors was quite small (only 30
students) and this may have significantly skewed our data. So further assessment must be
completed in this area.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were or
will be used. For example, to recommend changes to course content/topics covered, course
sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
program SLO's, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan
changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed description of each.
The positive results of our assessment indicate that the English Department has achieved much
success with its first SLO. The committee was troubled by the 15% of our seniors who performed
poorly on the assessment, particularly the "unsatisfactory" scores. This seems to indicate that
while by and large our students are learning critical reading skills, a small number of students
are falling through the cracks. One suggestion the committee had for the department was to
identify this small population of students early in their matriculation (perhaps through their GPA
,in the major) and offer them access to some student support services to improve their
1 performance.
The positive results of our assessment indicate that the English Department has achieved much
success with Subject Matter option SLO #3. The committee was troubled by the 15% of our
seniors who performed poorly on the assessment, particularly the "unsatisfactory" scores. This
seems to indicate that while by and large our students are learning fluency in the discourses
pertaining to the disciplines of English, a small number of students are falling through the
cracks. One suggestion the committee had forthe department was to identify this small
population of students early in their matriculation (perhaps through their GPA in the major) and
offer them access to some student support services to improve their performance.
The committee also agreed that assessment of this SLO must be repeated with a larger student
sample.
Some programs assess multiple SLOs each year. If your program assessed an additional SLO,
report the process for that individual SLO below. If you need additional SLO charts, please cut &
paste the empty chart as many times as needed. If you did NOT assess another SLO, skip this
section.
See above.
3.
How do your assessment activities connect with your program's strategic plan?
Subject Matter/FYl/JYI aligned itself with the Department's strategic plan by:
1.
Revisiting its own o tion-s ecific undergrad SLO in favor of more measurable,
performance-based verbs in order to generate more valid evidence, more quantitative
data and to conduct more effective com arative analyses.
2.
Contributing to the rev ion of common undergrad SLOs, collaboratively conducting
assessment of a Department-se e
common undergrad SLO, adopting a Department-
selected five-point scale for measurement of SLO.
3. Identifying longitudinal (or cross-sectional) portals for undergrad assessment with
gateway and capstone courses; intermediate courses to be assessed in the following
AYs.
4.
Designing rubrics for assessment of specific SLOs in specific courses, to make
assessment throughout the Department more refined, more comprehensive, and more
valid.
4.
Overall, if this year's program assessment evidence indicates that new resources are
needed in order to improve and support student learning, please discuss here.
Our assessment clearly indicated that more resources are needed in the following two areas:
(1) In response to the proposed collapse of these two options as a response to budgetary
concerns: Continued resources to support adequate and option-specific advisement;
because of the technical and complex nature of these options as well as the size and
complicated nature of their student populations, advisement support is critical to the
functioning of the two options and, hence, to the continued positive performance of
students. Without adequate advisement and program coordination, student and
program performance will be substantially deleteriously affected.
• Without adequate advisement and program supervision, the number of students
who struggle with substantive subject matter academic issues would increase, more
"falling through the cracks," resulting in an increase in negative outcomes.
•
t does not simply direct students to class choice, but supports students in
uat g academic strengths and weakness, consideration of course choice within
this knowledge-based context, provides for academic counseling in areas that need
added support, arranges for workshops to support academic need as determined
from individual student performance as well as larger program assessments, provide
support for students in the "extra" program components as required by the CCTC,
the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
• Because a technical knowledge is needed as to how CCTC requirements have been
integrated in specific classes, advisement and coordination also involves articulating
these specifics to students, tracking to ensure that faculty teaching these classes are
aware of these specifics and of CCTC requirements; without this technically specific
knowledge base, advisement to students would be insufficient and the danger of
faculty not including these needed subject areas increased, thereby, putting the
academic performance of students in these options at risk.
• Because the population base of these options is more complicated and diverse than
others, technical knowledge of the CCTC requirements is critically necessary as part
of advisement and advisement has "added-on" dimensions not required by other
options; without support, students from these diverse domains would be in danger
of not getting adequate support and, hence, not performing satisfactorily in the
subject matter required areas.
(2) Continued resources to address the needs of students who are not getting the full
benefit of classroom instruction. While the English Department is clearly accomplishing
its SLOs there is a small population of majors who need more individualized attention.
5.
•
Other information, assessment or reflective activities not captured above.
Rubrics Designed for Assessment of the specific SLOs assessed this AV:
Common Undergraduate SLO Rubric
Outcome: Common Undergraduate SLO #1
Students will demonstrate critical reading skills.
5
Excellent
4
More than
Satisfactory
3
2
Satisfactory
Less than Satisfactory
Analyzes and
Makes some
Makes simplistic,
Begins to analyze and
interprets texts in an
connections in order
superficial, and
interpret texts.
insightful manner.
to analyze and
limited connections in
interpret texts.
order to analyze and
Derives meaning from
challenging texts.
interpret texts.
Generally constructs
meaning from texts.
Makes connections
Constructs meaning
from texts but
sometimes in a
Constructs meaning
confused and/or
from texts in a limited
inaccurate way.
between genres,
Generally makes
experiences, and/or
connections between
prior knowledge.
genres, experiences,
Shows limited ability
connections between
and/or prior
to make connections
genres, experiences,
knowledge.
between genres,
and/or prior
experiences, and/or
knowledge.
Comprehends and
reflects upon the
fashion.
Starts to make
author's perspectives,
Frequently
purposes, and
comprehends and
techniques.
reflects upon the
Comprehends and
comprehend and
author's perspectives,
reflects upon the
reflect upon the
purposes, and
author's perspectives,
author's perspectives,
techniques.
purposes, and
purposes, and
techniques.
techniques.
Rethinks and refines
ideas in the process
of responding to,
interpreting, and
Usually rethinks and
prior knowledge.
Begins to
analyzing various
texts.
refines ideas in the
process of responding
to, interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
Has difficulty
rethinking and
refining ideas in the
process of responding
to, interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
Is unable to rethink
and refine ideas in
the process of
responding to,
interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
Gateway Course: English 355: Writing About Literature
futensive study of the literary genres of poetry, prose fiction, and drama. Emphasis on written
analysis of selected works in each genre. Development of criteria for responsible judgment.
Measurement of sample student analysis, according to outcome, rubric & scale.
Rank 1-5 for each below:
#1:
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
Outcome: Subject Matter Option SLO #3
Students will demonstrate fluency in the discourses pertaining to the disciplines of English
5
4
Excellent
More than
Satisfactory
3
2
Satisfactory
Less than Satisfactory
Student does not
show sufficient use of
the discourses
pertaining to the
disciplines of English.
Student may identify
Student shows
complete command
of discourses
pertaining to the
disciplines of English.
Student shows good
command of the
discourses pertaining
to the disciplines of
English. Student is
Student shows some
command of the
discourses pertaining
to the disciplines of
English. Student is
Student is able to
identify and explicate
all of the important
aspects of the texts
and does so with the
correct use of
analytical terms and
able to identify and
explicate most of the
important aspects of
the texts and does so
with the correct use
of analytical terms
and theoretical
approaches.
able to identify and
explicate some
aspects of the texts
and does so with the
correct use of
analytical terms and
theoretical
approaches.
theoretical
approaches.
and explicate some
aspects of the texts
but does so with the
incorrect use of
analytical terms and
theoretical
approaches.
and refine id·
the process c
responding t'
interpreting,
analyzing var
texts.
Gateway Course: English 355: Writing About Literature
Intensive study of the literary genres of poetry, prose fiction, and drama. Emphasis on written
analysis of selected works in each genre. Development of criteria for responsible judgment.
Measurement of sample student analysis, according to outcome, rubric & scale.
Rank 1-5 for each below:
#1:
•
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
Survey Attached to the Assessment Form for the Senior Student Population at the
Capstone Experience (asks Professors to assess interviewee in the areas of poetry, short
fiction, and drama, but the results were inconclusive)
ADDITIONAL SURVEY FOR FACULTY TO ASSESS LITERARY TEXTS COMPONENTS OF EXIT
INTERVIEW:
1
Unsatisfactory
2
Less than
Satisfactory
3
Satisfactory
4
More than
5
Excellent
Satisfactory
Poetry
Short
Fiction
Drama
•
See Appendix for Subject Matter Exit Assessment Interview General Information, Prompt,
and Rubric
6. Has someone in your program completed, submitted or published a manuscript which
uses or describes assessment activities in your program? Please provide citation or
discuss.
NA