General Education Annual Course Assessment Form
Course Number/Title ____English 100W__________GE Area _____________Z_________________
Results reported for AY _2012-2013___# of sections _____5________ # of instructors _3_____
Course Coordinator: _____Cindy Baer_____________
E-mail: __fecitlana@hotmail.com _____
Department Chair: __John Engell____________College: _________H & A___________________
Instructions: Each year, the department will prepare a brief (two page maximum) report that documents the
assessment of the course during the year. This report will be electronically submitted, by the department
chair, to the Office of Undergraduate Studies, with an electronic copy to the home college by September 1 of
the following academic year.
Part 1
To be completed by the course coordinator:
1.What SLO(s) were assessed for the course during the AY?
SLO 3: Students shall be able to organize and develop essays and documents for both professional
and general audiences, including appropriate editorial standards for citing primary and secondary
sources.
(2) What were the results of the assessment of this course? What were the lessons learned from the
assessment?
Specific Assignments: brief description of guidelines/requirements etc.: The SLO was assessed
using a Bibliographic Research Essay. The assignment focused on developing an informed critical
analysis of a literary text for a literary audience that incorporates and responds to literary criticism
published in multiple scholarly sources.
Exactly what students had to demonstrate on assignment to show achievement of the SLO:
Students had to show that they could analyze a literary text for a literary audience by locating,
incorporating, and responding to published literary criticism. The also had to use MLA style
documentation.
How assignment was scored (rubric? Breakdown of grade assigned to show how this particular
SLO was targeted: The assignment was scored using scoring guides/rubrics prepared by the
instructors. All scoring guides/rubrics targeted SLO#3 by scoring the following criteria specific to
SLO#3: Sense of audience and Purpose, Appropriate tone, voice, and diction, and MLA style
formatting/documentation.
Quantitative data/analysis: grades/percentages/scale of high-low
Assessment data was collected from 5 sections of English 100W. A total of 100 students completed
the assignment. The numbers below compile the data for all five sections.
__11%__students scored at an “Excellent” level on the SLO specific criteria.
__22%__ students scored at a “Good” level on the SLO specific criteria.
__52%__ students scored at a “Satisfactory” level on the SLO specific criteria.
__15%__ students scored at an “Unsatisfactory” level on the SLO specific criteria.
Based on the above data, the following conclusion is drawn:
33% exceeded the standard set for the SLO
52% met the standard set for the SLO
15% failed to meet the standard set for the SLO
Qualitative analysis:
On the whole, English 100W is doing a good job of helping the majority of students (85%) achieve
SLO#3. Only a small minority (15%) is unable to demonstrate the required outcomes for this SLO.
This failure comes in spite of the careful definition of audience and purpose outlined in the
assignments, reviewed in workshops, explicated in self-reflection (cover sheets), and detailed in
scoring guides (to which students have access before they submit their essays). Hours of classroom
workshop and discussion, aimed at defining the expectations of this audience (in terms of evidence,
form and format, and editing) did not help these seven students achieve this SLO (see syllabus for
section 3).
Instructors account for this in several ways: A few students simply did not attend class regularly or
failed to complete the assignment on time. But most were markedly unprepared for upper-division
writing – possibly because these students had managed to just scrape through lower-division courses
with relatively low grades, sometimes after multiple attempts. It seems that students, especially those
whose language skills have required remediation in the past, find the informed, critical close reading
of literary language in English 100W beyond their comprehension. As a result, they are unable to
develop the critical acumen, vocabulary, and analytical/editing skills required to address a
professional or literary audience.
(3) What modifications to the course, or its assessment activities or schedule, are planned for the
upcoming year? (If no modifications are planned, the course coordinator should indicate this.)
We plan to increase the focus on teaching close reading and literary explication/analysis so that
more students are able to learn this skill effectively.
Part 2
To be completed by the department chair (with input from course coordinator as appropriate):
(4) Are all sections of the course still aligned with the area Goals, Student Learning Objectives (SLOs),
Content, Support, and Assessment? If they are not, what actions are planned?
Yes. Regular review and systematic coordination by the Coordinator and the Department’s
Curriculum Committee has ensured that all sections of English 100W are fully aligned with the area
Goals, SLOs, Content, Support, and Assessment.