Assessment Report July 1, 2007-June 30, 2008
Program Assessed: GE Area 1 Writing
Assessment Coordinator: Richard Bullock
General Education Assessment Plan: Area 1 Writing
1. The General Education Learning Outcomes for Area One.



use writing processes to explore, think, and learn, and to write
appropriately for various tasks and audience
develop logical and fair arguments, and observe appropriate writing
conventions
show ability to identify main ideas and evaluate, analyze and synthesize
primary and secondary sources
2. Based on these outcomes, the specific performance criteria in this
area.
At the end of ENG 102, students will:




Generate essay topics, research, draft, revise, edit and proofread
essays.
Use the accepted conventions for specific genres, tasks, and audiences.
Write arguments using sufficient, appropriate information that offers a
balanced perspective on the topic.
Summarize, analyze, and evaluate texts.
The writing program continued its ongoing assessment of several aspects of
the program. As usual, our interpretations of the Program Assessment Plan
lead us to organically adapt the criteria and monitor ever evolving
instructional activities to make sure students are meeting the GE outcomes
both in fact and in intent. Consequently, we find that our ongoing assessments
drive our activities organically, and as a result, the activities listed on the
timetable (which were devised before any official assessment took place)
simply don’t relate to our perceived needs. Here, then, is what we did last
year:
Placement: The committee, with the help of the Office of Institutional
Research, examined the accuracy of ACT scores in predicting students’
success in ENG 101, since the State of Ohio is mandating that ACT scores be
used to advise students on their readiness for first-year college writing
courses. The findings included this chart:
ACT Scores of Fall 2006 Incoming
Students Who Took ENG 101
ACT Score
13 and below
17 and below
18 and above
18
19
20
21
22
23
Passing
(C or
better)
64
325
829
81
103
120
134
90
69
Failing
(D, F,
W, X)
39
129
145
28
33
21
15
6
11
Pct.
Passing
62%
72%
85%
82%
76%
85%
90%
94%
86%
Above 23, the scores are uniformly above 90% passing. From this we
determined that students earning scores of 18 (the state’s cutoff score for
placement into ENG 101) and 23 may or may not be ready for 101, while
students with scores of 17 or below are more likely to need remedial work—
but may not, too. Our research into the predictive value of Online Directed
Self Placement produced similarly uneven results, leading us to conclude that
we must replace the current placement system. In fall, 2008, we will do that,
drawing on successful placement systems in place at the Universities of
Cincinnati and Toledo.
Writers Studio: Preliminary research showed that students attending Writers
Studio did succeed in ENG 101 in higher numbers than students who were
recommended but did not attend. The problem was that no matter what we
did, we could not entice, convince, coerce, require, or force students to
register for and attend the course. Attendance in 2007-2008 was so low that
continuing the program became unjustified, and it was eliminated. Students
will be given more tangible incentives to attend Writing Center sessions
instead.
Program Expansion: As a result of last year’s assessment, which
recommended that additional courses be added to address the needs of
particular subgroups of students, two new courses were devised:
ENG 101 for Repeaters: One section of this course will be offered in
Winter quarter, 2009. Its audience is students who have earned D or F grades
in ENG 101, and the goal will be to help those students improve and pass the
course without simply repeating it by taking a section at random.
ENG 150: This is a one-quarter course for students whose writing
demonstrates that they need only one writing course, not two. Approval for
the course is pending at the UUCAP level.
Portfolio Norming Sessions and Portfolio Trading Procedure: The
committee assessed these activities, which are crucial not only for training
GTAs but also for ongoing assessment activities and for maintaining grading
equity, and found that enrollment and participation were dwindling. The
committee reinvented both, one as a Writing Program Colloquium and the
other as an end-of-quarter Portfolio Extravaganza and, in Winter and Spring
quarters, saw greatly improved attendance and participation in both.