Assessment Committee Report
February 2016
I. Reading Assessment Results
Per work undertaken by Norbert Furumo, Roberta Barra, and Seri Luangphinith, we have “qualitative”
data on three lower-level courses that represent a cross-section of the University.
Selections from textbooks were given to students in a section of ENG 100T, two lab sections of CHEM
124, and a section of ACC 201. The students were asked to paraphrase the reading selection in their
own words, and those summaries were evaluated using the following rubric:
Level 4
Advanced
Student clearly understands the passage and can make insightful and
nuanced inferences as to content of the reading. The summary is coherent
and renders the information in a highly articulate manner.
Level 3:
Competent
Student demonstrates a basic understanding of the passages and is able to
articulate the key issues in his/her own words in a comprehensible manner.
Level 2:
Emerging
Student appears somewhat unsure about the passages and cannot fully
articulate the ideas presented. The student appears to be simply reiterating
key terms and exhibits some difficulty comprehending the issues. Cannot
easily paraphrase in his/her own words.
Level 1:
Beginning
The student appears unable to comprehend the paragraphs and cannot
elucidate the key ideas or issues. The summary includes ideas or information
that is not stated by the reading.
Each anonymized summary was read by two readers. Scores beyond a 1-point difference between
readers were read again and/or sent to a third reader. Results are as follows:
ENG 100T (Fall 2015)
Students were asked to read two newspaper articles and summarize each in a short paragraph (150
words or less):
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/21/433257863/fact-check-is-refinancing-studentdebt-really-good-policy (LEXILE: 1220)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-different-solution-to-studentdebt/2015/08/20/d2e140b8-37bb-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html (LEXILE: 1490)
Average score for one section of ENG 100T (n = 13), for Fall of 2015 scores were 1.41 for the 1200-lexile
(11-12th grade) reading, and 1.16 for the 1400-lexile (college) reading.
Chemistry 124 (Spring 2015)
Average score for Chemistry 124 Labs (sections 1 and 2, n = 35) are 1.93 and 1.87 respectively for a
textbook that ranked at 1230 Lexile,
Accounting 201 (Fall 2015)
Average score ACC 201 (n = 49) was a 1.5 with only 5 (or roughly 10%) reading at the competent level
according to our rubric. The textbook for ACC 201 was rated at a 1320 Lexile.
Just a reminder that the following are the grade-bands associated with Lexile:
Grade
1
Grade
2
Grade
3
Grade
100‐
299
300‐
499
500‐
599
600‐
699
4
Grade
5
Grade
6
Grade
7
Grade
8
700‐
799
800‐
850‐
849
899
900‐
999
Grade
9
Grade
10
Grade
11-CCR
1000‐
1024
1025‐
1049
1050‐
1300
The above constitute a cross-section of courses: freshman writing, pre-engineering/pharm/nursing, and
a “gateway” course into a specific major. Across the board, we are witnessing a large-scale problem of
reading comprehension on the part of our students.
As a result of these scores, the English Department has started to undertake professional development
for ENG 100T instructors and selected tutors in Kilohana. The Chair of Assessment successfully garnered
outside funds to run a workshop on February 13, 2015. The workshop will feature Ms. Caroline Naguwa,
Reading Specialist and Interim Dean at HAWCC, who will take teachers through developing reading
curriculum to embed in their ENG 100T courses starting on Fall 2017. The grant proposal is attached as
a separate document to this report.
The English Department will also be asking for support from ALEX for a pilot training program geared
towards embedding a tutor in daily sessions of select ENG 100Y courses starting Fall 2017. The request
for a course release for the Director of Composition to undertake this pilot was submitted on February
10th.
These initiatives will be evaluated at the end of the coming academic year, and will be shared with the
teachers in Chemistry and Accounting to gauge feasibility for adoption in these other courses.
II. Core Competency Assessment (Information Literacy)
Artifacts and results have started to come in to the Assessment Support Committee. Papers from the
English Department and the Japanese Studies Program have been received and are being sent out to
Committee members for reading. Economics has undertaken its own reading and has submitted the
attached.
While it is too early to really project results, the data from these initial submissions indicate our students
are doing no better but no worse in exhibiting Information Literacy as they have been in Written
Communication or Quantitative Reasoning.