COMPREHENSIVE INSTRUCTIONAL
PROGRAM REVIEW
English
Norco College
Round Three 2011-2014
Revised for 2012
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
Web Resources:
http://www.rccd.edu/administration/educationalservices/ieffectiveness/Pages/ProgramReview.aspx
Need Help? Contact Dr. Jim Thomas (Jim.Thomas@norcocollege.edu) or
David Torres (David.Torres@rccd.edu) )
Last Revised: February 2012
1
Table of Contents
A.
Mission and Relationship to the College ………………………………….
3
B.
History ……………………………………………………………………..
3
C.
Data and Environmental Scan …………………………………………….
4
D.
Programs and Curriculum ………………………………………………… 16
E.
Student Outcomes Assessment …………………………………………… 22
F.
Collaboration with Other Units …………………………………………… 24
G.
Outreach …………………………………………………………………… 26
H.
Long Term Major Resource Planning …………………………………….. 27
I.
Summary ………………………………………………………………….. 27
J.
Recommendations to the Program Review Committee…………………… 28
Appendix A ……………………………………………………………………………………… 29
2
Comprehensive Instructional Program Review
English Discipline Norco College
A. Mission and Relationship to the College(s)
Norco College Mission StatementNorco College provides educational programs, services, and learning environments for a diverse
community. We equip our students with the knowledge and skills to attain their goals in higher,
career/technical, and continuing education; workforce development; and personal enrichment. To
meet the evolving community needs Norco College emphasizes the development of technological
programs. As a continuing process we listen to our community and respond to its needs while
engaging in self-examination, learning outcomes assessment, ongoing dialogue, planning, and
improvement.
The Norco College English discipline does not have its own mission statement. It operates as part
of the transfer and basic skills requirements for the college and does not have a traditionally
defined program or major. In addition to being part of the AA/AS transfer degrees, English 1A is
the only required transfer level course connected to general education requirements, including
information competency, written expression, and critical thinking.
B. History
2011
With the separation of the discipline into college-based disciplines, Norco has been working to
create its own identity in philosophy and workflow requirements. With the addition of two new
faculty members three years ago, Norco has sought to expand our expertise across the course
offerings.
With the splitting and creation of the separate college catalogues, Norco college was tasked with
identifying their own regular course offerings and elimination of courses that had not been taught
or were not going to be taught in the upcoming years. The discipline created a rotation of regular
literature/specialty classes to accompany the traditional offering each semester. Norco College
historically offers the five English courses in the progressive pattern: English 60A, 60B, 50, 1A,
1B. In addition, Norco College offers, on average, one or two literature courses each semester (or
creative writing). Recently the discipline has worked with the Humanities discipline to cross-list a
course or two each school year. We have an established pattern for rotation of additional specialty
or literature courses. Currently Norco College has 28 English courses in its catalogue.
3
At this time, Norco College has chosen to not offer an English major. It was investigated by the
discipline, but was generally not accepted as a viable opportunity at this time. This will be a
decision that will need to be revisited as the college determines its course with the majors and the
state requirements.
The discipline has been actively working toward the “technology” part of the institutional mission
in that it consistently offers online and hybrid courses in the three highest levels of instruction.
There are challenges to offering English in the distance education format: rigor, consistency of
instruction and implementation of alternative instructional platforms and modes of instruction.
ACCJC regulations present additional instructional challenges. As the discipline works to fulfill the
goal of servicing our community, we will continue to assess and modify our best practices to
ensure the quality of our instruction.
The Norco College English Discipline has stayed consistent with the district discipline’s
commitment to goals outlined in the last comprehensive program review: breadth of offerings,
tutorial/supplemental instruction, inclusion in institutional learning communities, diverse modes of
instruction, retention/success, and commitment to leadership in assessment.
C. Data Analysis and Environmental Scan
General Data:
RCCD’s most recent transfer rate is 28.0%
Success and Retention Rate from Fall 2005-Fall 2011
English Discipline-Total Retention 85.33% Total Success 69.39%.
Norco College-Total Retention 84.9% Total Success 68.00%
Norco College English Discipline Efficiency average=548
4
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM REVIEW --DATA SUPPORT- ENGLISH - NOR
1. Enrollment Analysis
NOR English Enrollments,
Retention and Success Rates, Fall 2000 - 2009
2,500
100%
90%
2,000
80%
70%
1,500
60%
50%
1,000
40%
30%
500
20%
10%
-
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Enrollments
1,062
1,428
1,609
1,634
1,984
2,130
2,097
2,168
2,371
2,269
Retention
84.1%
88.6%
88.1%
85.6%
89.2%
87.9%
88.3%
87.5%
88.3%
85.0%
Success
60.4%
67.4%
67.4%
68.2%
70.1%
67.4%
67.2%
68.4%
70.9%
68.0%
2. Efficiency Analysis
NOR English Efficiencies,
Fall Terms 2005 -2009
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Efficiency
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
530.46
545.41
565.91
604.00
641.51
5
0%
3. FTEF and WSCH
NOR English FTEF and WSCH,
Fall Terms 2005 -2009
15,000
20.0
12,000
15.0
9,000
10.0
6,000
5.0
3,000
FTEF
WSCH
25.0
0.0
FTEF
Discipline WSCH
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
23.42
23.40
21.96
23.01
20.48
12423.45
12762.65
12427.40
13898.14
13138.21
Please contact RCCD Institutional Research for more detailed research needs.
Send requests via email to david.torres@rcc.edu or call (951) 222-8075.
6
0
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM REVIEW
Data Support - Explanatory Notes
For Enrollments, Retention and Success Rates

This data comes from the California Community Colleges’ Chancellor’s Office
referential data files.

Enrollments are aggregated by the discipline / department, and are duplicated
headcounts. This means if a student enrolled in two courses of the same discipline /
department, they are counted twice during the semester. Only enrollments that
earned the following grades are included: A, B, C, D, DR, F, I,NP, P, W.

Retention rate is calculated as the total of A, B, C, D, DR, F, I,NP, and P grades divided
by the total of A, B, C, D, DR, F, I,NP, P, W grades, multiplied by 100. This is the
percentage of students who did not withdraw from the course, regardless of final
grade.

Success rate is calculated as the total of A, B, C, and P grades divided by the total of
A, B, C, D, DR, F, I,NP, P, W grades, multiplied by 100. This is the percentage of
students who successfully completed the course.
For discipline / department Full-Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF), Weekly Student
Contact Hours (WSCH), and Efficiencies (WSCH per FTEF):

The data for these graphs come from RCCD Fact Books, 2006-2009.

These data only reflect non-cross listed sections.

From the 2009 RCCD Fact Book: “WSCH are based on our Term Length Multiplier
driven by the Calendar for the fiscal Year. The Standard Measure of Efficiency of 525
is defined by the state for a primary Term. However each discipline or campus may
be limited by Program restrictions, advanced courses or other such limitations to
achieve the efficiency level of 525.” (For more information on these accounting
methods, please contact Raj Bajaj, Institutional Reporting, raj.bajaj@rcc.edu, or
(951) 222- 8979.
7
4. Success Analysis Retention Analysis
Norco College English Discipline has identified some new Institutional goals in support of these
goals:

Course Level Leaders-One result of Spring 2011 assessment of English 1A was to select
individual faculty to “lead” efforts for each matriculated course. Areas of instructional support
include: Identify Best-Practices; Create a Handbook; and serve as mentor/resource for support,
including pedagogical, to all faculty teaching at that course level. In addition, course leaders,
working with colleagues will establish a framework of standard practices for each course.

Develop Accelerated English Course As a result of identified need to improve student successENG 885- Pilot implemented-A self-paced, open-entry/open-exit, Writing and Reading Centerbased modular course designed for those who need concentrated attention in various areas of
grammar, punctuation, and composition. Offered Fall 2011 and Spring 2012.

Establish Course Level College-based Assessments and a Rotation for Continued Dialogue and
Implementation
The discipline is developing a rotation and timeline for assessing the matriculated courses at the
college level. As the first step in transfer and the requirement for graduation, a collaborative
8
assessment of English 1A was undertaken in Spring 2011. While assessment was directly
connected the three general education outcomes--information competency, written expression,
and critical thinking—the assessment was relevant to the student learning outcomes (SLOs)
embedded in the course outline of record (COR). As a result of this assessment, English 1A is
being reassessed in Spring 2012 along with English 60A. The discipline continues to participate
in district-wide assessments (such as literature courses) where appropriate.

Discipline Facilitator- As a result of recognizing the need for a discipline leader focused on
pedagogy, assessment, and district wide curriculum who will facilitate regular meetings and
projects specifically related to discipline needs.
The discipline continues to work on defining the role of a Norco College Discipline Facilitator as it
pertains to the district discipline, the college, and our colleagues at the other two campuses.
Since the last program review, the Norco College English Discipline has continued to work
collaboratively with the district discipline in matters of curriculum. Numerous sample assignments
were added to the COR documents for the district in the Spring of 2010 making all of our
curriculum current in CurricuNet.
The graduation requirement changed from English 50 to English 1A in 2010. Data has been
requested from Institutional Research pertaining to the implications of the narrowing of the
pipeline due to continuing course reductions. This is the only course required for all students for
degree award or transfer. Further research is necessary to determine the future implications of this
change. Success and retention data remain consistent for Norco College with overall success
averaging 87.9% (retention: Fall 07-Fall 10) 69.5% (success Fall semesters 07-10); 82.5%
(retention Spring semesters 07-10) 67.2 (success Spring semesters 07-10).
Writing Center/Lab Facility: The discipline requirement of eighteen lab hours to be arranged
with each course in the sequence of courses, has presented difficulties regarding implementation
and space. The Norco College Writing Center was redesigned and designated an Integrated
Learning Center. The Integrated Learning Center (LRC) is a shared facility with English, Reading,
CIS, and Math participating. It also houses placement testing, tutorial services, and various office
spaces. The pedagogical concept of a Writing Center is far from the current configuration. Norco
English discipline has been forced to give up their dedicated space, dedicated tutorial budget and
the ability to provide one-on-one faculty instruction at any viable level.
TBA Labs: Beginning in October of 2007, the State Chancellor’s office distributed three Legal
Advisories regarding TBA hours. These advisories are an attempt to clearly define the types of
activities that are allowable for arranged hours. The impact of these advisories was a redirecting of
efforts toward specially designed activities that would directly address the SLOs at the course
level. These directed learning activities (DLAs) would be assigned by the course instructor to
achieve compliance with the legal advisories. At Norco College, the DLAs became difficult to
administer at the Writing Center. They became less institutional and more instructor-directed in so
much that individual instructors must facilitate the labs rather than a broad lab-based system which
administers to a larger population (like the Chaffey model). The onsite maintenance was
prohibitive due to logistics and cost of maintaining the supplies necessary for implementation i.e.
9
printing costs, updating, workshop or larger group instruction, and necessary textbooks.
The district administration was equally interested in these TBA labs as there was a run-through
audit of some of the TBA labs across the district. Norco College English discipline participated in
this audit providing sample activities, sample orientation materials and log-in records for the
sections being audited. No further follow-up was required or requested.
In addition to the state legal advisories, it was brought to the attention of the English District
discipline that there may be irregularities in the way that the TBA labs were being reported as
either WSCH or DSCH depending upon the scheduling method. The need to meet specified
requirements where students must demonstrate regular attendance and minimum minute
requirements resulted in several outcomes: 1) the discipline recognized it had no control over the
reporting of the TBA hours to the state; and 2) the discipline felt compelled to reconfigure the use
and pedagogical foundation upon which the writing center existed. A local Norco College proposal
also included course-level direct instruction for each lab that would be conducted for all labs and
scheduling all labs at assigned times in the LRC. This would facilitate opportunities for assessment
and the labs would meet all state requirements. Further discussion and collaboration will be needed
for full implementation of such a plan. Discipline meetings have been scheduled for further
dialogue. Labs in the shorter sessions (winter and summer) will be scheduled in the LRC for
instructor directed lessons. There has been some progress made with a scheduling grid that would
allow for labs to be directly scheduled with each class; however, implementation of this plan was
put on hold until further research could be conducted. The discipline remains committed to creating
both an English lab area that would be in compliance with state regulations and a Writing Center
for students across all disciplines and areas of the college to receive one-on-one tutorial in writing.
Distance Education: Norco College English discipline offers distance education courses in hybrid
and online formats for English 1A and 1B, and in hybrid for English 50. Consistent offerings in
English 1A and 50 have been offered for three and five years respectfully. These offerings directly
align to the mission of the college in that they address the changing needs of the community. In the
current economy students are not as able to participate as full-time students or come to campus for
classes as often due to work and family commitments. These classes have consistent fill rates.
Success rates for the discipline are lower for online instruction but remain consistent with other
online instruction. The hybrid success and retention rates are also consistent with other modes of
instruction.
In an effort to determine the overall success of the distance education course offerings, the
discipline asked institutional research for some data regarding total numbers of students enrolling
and subsequent success. All this data reflects courses take between Summer 2009 and Spring 2011
Hybrid English 50 Breakdown:
 Completed Eng 50 between Summer 09 and Spring 2011: 1,959
 Of these students, completed the Eng 50 hybrid course: 355
 Of these students, then completed an English 1A lecture course: 27
10
Online English 1A Breakdown:
 Completed Eng 1A between Summer 2009 and Spring 2011: 1,793
 Of these students, completed the Eng 1A online course: 199
 Of these students, then completed an English 1B lecture course: 8
Hybrid English 1A Breakdown:
 Completed Eng 1A between Summer 2009 and Spring 2011: 1,793
 Of these students, completed the Eng 1A hybrid course: 191
 Of these students, then completed an English 1B lecture course: 29
The number of students that complete a hybrid or online course and enroll in a lecture course is
statistically small. Further research is necessary to determine the factors which contribute to the
lower subsequent enrollment data at Norco College.
For this data, further research of the 199 students who completed the English 1A online course
revealed that many of these students simply did not enroll in an English 1B lecture course. As of
Spring 2011, a total of 22 students had enrolled in an English 1B course, either online, hybrid,
lecture, and web-enhanced. As of Spring of 2011, 39 graduated or attained a certificate and were
no longer at Norco College. Further research is needed to determine how this might reflect or
correlate to face-to-face statistics.
Coupled with the persistence data was data on the grade distributions from the distance education
courses.
Students who completed Eng 50 Hybrid and Eng 1A lecture
Grade
N
%
A
6
22.2%
B
11
40.7%
C
6
22.2%
D
0
0.0%
F
1
3.7%
W
3
11.1%
Total
27
100%
Students who completed Eng 1A online and Eng 1B lecture
Grade
N %
A
3
37.5%
B
2
25.0%
C
1
12.5%
D
1
12.5%
F
0
0.0%
W
1
12.5%
Total
8
100%
11
Students who completed Eng 1A hybrid and Eng 1B lecture
Grade
A
B
C
D
F
W
Total
N
7
11
7
1
1
2
29
%
24.1%
37.9%
24.1%
3.4%
3.4%
6.9%
100%
While the small samples make the information statistically insignificant, it remains an interesting
research question that the discipline will continue to explore.
The total success statistics for the English 1A online (51.2%), English 1A Hybrid (56.18%) and
English 50 Hybrid (58.14%) are around the total state statistics for success (57%). The average
success for all English 1A for the same time period was 67.36% and the average success for all
English 50 sections was 75.83%.
The retention data is of concern. The state retention rate for Distance Education is 78%. Norco
College English 1A Online is 67.8%, English 1A Hybrid 73.23% and English 50 Hybrid 73.1%.
Norco College’s English 1A average retention for all sections is 79% and for all English 50
sections is 85.6%. The state retention average is 85%.
A survey conducted by the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office of more than 9,000
California Community College students who had withdrawn from a distance education course
indicated that the primary reason for dropping was related to challenges presented by their personal
lives, family, health, job or child care. Approximately 30% of the students reported that they could
not handle the combination of their study schedule and work duties. In addition another 30%
reported that they had fallen behind and it was too difficult to catch up. This is significant to the
Norco data as most of the Distance Education courses offered by the discipline are in the shortened
semester format. Interestingly, only 3.6% reported that they dropped because they thought that the
Distance Education format would be easier than the face-to-face.
The discipline recognizes its responsibility to work on improving student learning and success in
all delivery modes, including distance education formats. The discipline has representation on the
Norco Student Success Committee which is currently undertaking the task of identifying ways of
improving student learning in all delivery modes, especially distance education formats. Focus is
on both faculty training (pedagogically and technologically) as well as student preparation for the
online environment. This work is ongoing.
In addition to the regular challenges presented in the Distance Education format, RCCD will be
transitioning to the new Blackboard 9.1 format. English faculty at Norco, interested in teaching in a
distance education format, have taken steps to ensure integrity in course offerings with the
transition to Blackboard 9.1. Faculty have participated in various workshops that provide steps for
12
transitioning to the new format, and part of this transition, all distance education English courses
offered in Fall 2011 were offered in Blackboard 9.1.
Basic Skills: New Course Creation-English 885/English 80
Progression through the course series and subsequent enrollments remain an issue for the
discipline. Too many students do not make it through the sequence of Basic Skills courses, English
60A and English 60B
During the period of Fall 2005 – Summer 2006, 839 NOR students attempted ENG-60A. Of these
students, 568 (67.7%) passed the course. Of the number of students who passed ENG-60A, 415
(73.1%) attempted the next highest level, ENG-60B. Of these students, 358 (86.3%) passed that
course. Of the number of students who passed ENG-60B, 261 (72.9%) attempted the next highest
level course, ENG-50. Of these students, 218 (83.5%) passed that course. Of the number of
students who passed ENG-50, 163 (74.8%) attempted the next highest level course, ENG-1A. Of
these students, 139 (85.3%) passed that course.
Of the original 839 students who started in ENG-60A, 139 (16.6%) successfully completed ENG1A during the 5 years under examination.
The chart also shows the number of students who were successful in the previous English course
but did not take the subsequent English course.
Of the 568 students who successfully passed ENG-60A, 153 (26.9%) did not enroll in ENG-60B.
Of the 358 students who successfully passed ENG-60B, 97 (27.1%) did not enroll in ENG-50.
Of the 218 students who successfully passed ENG-50, 55 (25.2%) did not enroll in ENG-1A.
13
900
800
700
ENG-60A Students Progressing to ENG-1A, NOR
Students
Fall 2005 to Spring 2010
Not Continuing
271
Not Successful
Successful
600
500
153
400
57
300
97
568
43
200
55
24
358
218
100
139
0
ENG-60A
ENG-60B
ENG-50
ENG-1A
This pattern is not unique to Norco College. It is a common trend in most community colleges to
lose students as they progress through the basic skills sequence.
Norco College has chosen to address this concern with the development of a pilot accelerated
English course, English 885. This course has been designed based on a model from Chabot
College. In addition to piloting English 885, Norco faculty members have worked with our
colleagues at Moreno Valley College to develop a new English course, English 80, which has been
introduced into the curriculum approval process. Faculty involved in the curriculum development
of these two courses anticipate that they may address many of the possible solutions to the pipeline
problem described above.
Fall of 2011, English 885 was first taught at Norco. The course descriptions states:
ENG 885 is a zero-unit, one-semester accelerated developmental course that leads directly to
college English (ENG 1A). The emphasis of this accelerated English course will be on reflective
writing, active reading, and critical thinking. These first groups of students will be tracked, as they
are the first cohorts to participate in this pilot. At this time 18 students moved forward into English
1A courses at Norco.
14
In addition to reducing the exit points, the shift to an acceleration model calls for a shift in
pedagogy and course design. It is hoped that English 80 will create a community of learners,
challenge their capacity with a focus on Core Skills in a “backward design.” This course will
demand student commitment to the six-unit structure as they will attend class three or four days a
week building community and consolidating learning. In addition, research from other institutions
(Chabot) suggests this increased pace of learning creates positive feedback and momentum.
The accelerated pedagogy model challenges students’ capacity to learn rather than drilling their
deficits. It creates high-challenge, low-risk settings and tasks, so that students feel comfortable
stretching, experimenting, and making mistakes. English 80 has a curricula designed away from
front-loading of discrete sub-skills giving students practice in core skills and ways of thinking
required at the college level. Students engage in the same kinds of reading, thinking, and writing as
in transfer English courses, but with more scaffolding and support in the imbedded developmental
skills. The activities and assignments—reading, writing, discussion—are designed to elicit higher
order reasoning with respect to some of the larger conversations of our culture producing critical
thinking at the beginning rather than as a skill taught later. The bulk of class time is devoted to
reading, discussion, and the students’ own writing. Students participate in source-based writing.



Major writing projects require students to integrate skills from the outset.
Basic skills, craft, habits of mind are built up in the context of these larger projects—the
studio model.
Projects draw on multiple sources—personal experience, texts, cultural artifacts, fieldwork—so as to bring students into the big conversations.
Intensive and extensive reading builds the foundation for much of the critical thinking and writing.
A variety of texts, including challenging, college-level texts, move students from where they are
outwards, to situate themselves and their experience in larger contexts and broader conversations.
Intensive reading, modeled and practiced in class, develops strategies of active reading and critical
thinking. Extensive reading, including one full-length work, builds fluency, and vocabulary.
Assignments are geared toward college-level at all times and not as remedial or developmental.
This focus on adult/mature learning behaviors reinforces the need for success and acceleration
toward their college-level goals.
The District English Discipline Action Plan for English 80 is shared.
 Approve Eng 80 COR at one or more of the colleges (Discipline Approval Fall 2011Deparment Approval pending)
 Approve Eng 80 as Eng 1A prerequisite, district-wide.
 Pilot at least two sections, spring 2012 (Norco College has been piloting a test class as ENG
885 for two semesters Fall 2011 and Spring 2012)
 Promote the sections
 Manage enrollment: placement, IDSs, counselors.
 Train and support instructors.
 Assess SLOs; track and compare student success in 1A.
 Improve and revise: based on what we learn, we can revise the COR, etc. with the ultimate
goal of approving a district-wide Eng 80.
15
The collaborative work being done by the district discipline to create this new course is driven by
the high expectations for its success and the success of our students. It is expected this new course
will provide an increased opportunity for students’ success and retention.
D. Programs and Curriculum
Course Outlines of Record: The district discipline continues to review all course outlines and
make changes to them as required by the state recently including sample lessons and activities for
all courses.
Special Populations: Norco College English discipline participates in three learning communities:
honors, Puente, and T3P. Each of these programs involves coordination with other disciplines on
the college campus and participation in district activities.
 The Honors program has a regularly scheduled rotation of two English classes. Currently
there are no issues with filling these courses.
 The Puente program schedules and fills its scheduled program of classes. It has undergone a
rotation of instructors for both English and guidance. There is not currently a second
“team” of instructors. The identification and training of another Puente team is one goal for
the program. The current enrollment would support expansion of this program.
 The T3P program has entered its fifth year. This program has clearly met its initial goals for
enrollments and sustainability. It has a regular schedule of classes. Recently they added the
Library 1 Information Competency class to the schedule paired with English 1A. This was
not a successful pairing. Further research will be conducted to determine areas for
improvement.
Programmatic Assessment/Questions of Interest
Preparation vs. Placement:
In addition to addressing the way that students met the challenge of progressing through the courses, Norco
examined the success of students who had completed the prerequisite course compared to the student who
placed into English 1A. The following is from the Institutional Research Report.
The purpose of this study was to determine if English 1A course success1 differs based on whether a student
placed in English 1A or completed the prerequisite course (English 50). Fall 2010 was the term used in this
study.
First, we identified the students that enrolled in English 1A during Fall 2010. Students that enrolled in
English 1A were divided into three groups:
 First time college students (FTCS) that completed the assessment between March 1st and September
1st 2010 and enrolled in the course in Fall 2010 (Group 1).
 Students that successfully completed the English 50 prerequisite and enrolled in the course in Fall
2010 (Group 2).2
 Students who did not fit into the other two categories (Group 3).
Success is a grade of A, B, C; Unsuccessful is a grade of D, F, or W
Students were included if they completed the prerequisite English course
between Fall 2004 and Summer 2010.
1
2
16
Group #3
Placed into ENG-1A through Placement Test (Non FTCS)
Placed into ENG-1A through Placement Test (FTCS - tested before
3/1/2010 or after 9/1/2010)
English 50 Equivalency from Other Institution (Non FTCS)
Completed Prerequisite Course(s) at RCCD (Non FTCS)
Total
136
13
26
5
180
After the three groups were identified in the English 1A cohort, their grades were obtained for Fall
20103.
Each group was compared on two measures: success/nonsuccess and individual grades. In
addition, each analysis was performed including Withdrawals (W's) and excluding W's. We relied
on a one-way ANOVA to determine if there was a significant difference between the three groups.
However, we also relied on crosstabs (chi square) to determine where the differences specifically
existed between the groups.
In order to perform a one-way ANOVA the grades were coded and ranged from 4 (A), 3 (B), 2 (C),
1 (D), 0 (F), and 0 (W). Additionally, the responses were coded so that the means could be
computed with a range from 4 (A) to 0 (F or W).
English 1A (including W's)
One-way ANOVA
Table 1 shows the number of students in each group when W’s were included.
Table 1: Counts of students in ENG-1A, Fall 2010
English 1A
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Total
Count
33
385
185
603
%
5.5%
63.8%
30.7%
100.0%
Table 2 shows the success rate for each group. A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant
difference in success rates between groups.
Table 2: Success rates for each group, ENG-1A, Fall 2010
3
The following grades were removed from the statistical analysis: DR and IC.
17
Success/Non-Success
Success
Non-Success
Total
Group 1
21
12
33
%
63.6%
36.4%
100.0%
Group 2
268
117
385
%
69.6%
30.4%
100.0%
Group 3
146
39
185
%
78.9%
21.1%
100.0%
Table 3 shows the grades earned for each group. When individual grades were used in the
analysis, the results indicated that students in group 3 were more likely to obtain a better grade in
English 1A than students in group 2 (F=4.334, df, 2, p<.05).
Table 3: Grades earned by students for each group, ENG-1A, Fall 2010
1A, Fall 2010
Grades
A
B
C
D
F
W
Total
Group 1
10
8
3
3
5
4
33
%
30.3%
24.2%
9.1%
9.1%
15.2%
12.1%
100.0%
Group 2
59
127
82
33
37
47
385
%
15.3%
33.0%
21.3%
8.6%
9.6%
12.2%
100.0%
Group 3
54
50
42
9
11
19
185
%
29.2%
27.0%
22.7%
4.9%
5.9%
10.3%
100.0%
W’s accounted for 11.6% of the grades in English 1A for Fall 2010.
English 1A (including W’s)
Crosstabs (Chi square)
Table 4 shows the number of students in each group when W’s were included.
Table 4: Counts of students in ENG-1A, Fall 2010
English 1A
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Total
Count
33
385
185
603
%
5.5%
63.8%
30.7%
100.0%
Table 5 shows the success rate for each group. Crosstabs revealed no significant difference in
success rates between groups.
Table 5: Success rates for each group, ENG-1A, Fall 2010
18
Success/Non-Success
Success
Non-Success
Total
Group 1
21
12
33
%
63.6%
36.4%
100.0%
Group 2
268
117
385
%
69.6%
30.4%
100.0%
Group 3
146
39
185
%
78.9%
21.1%
100.0%
Table 6 shows the grades earned for each group. When individual grades were used in the
analysis, the results indicated that students in group 3 were more likely to earn an “A” than
students in group 1 and group 2 (χ = 24.218, df=10, p<.05).
Table 6: Grades earned by students for each group, ENG-1A, Fall 2010
Grades
A
B
C
D
F
W
Total
Group 1
10
8
3
3
5
4
33
%
30.3%
24.2%
9.1%
9.1%
15.2%
12.1%
100.0%
Group 2
59
127
82
33
37
47
385
%
15.3%
33.0%
21.3%
8.6%
9.6%
12.2%
100.0%
Group 3
54
50
42
9
11
19
185
%
29.2%
27.0%
22.7%
4.9%
5.9%
10.3%
100.0%
English 1A (excluding W’s)
One-way ANOVA
Table 7 shows the number of students in each group when W’s were not included.
Table 7: Counts of students in ENG-1A, Fall 2010
English 1A
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Total
Count
29
338
166
533
%
5.4%
63.4%
31.1%
100.0%
Table 8 shows the success rate for each group. A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant
difference in success rates between groups.
Table 8: Success rates for each group, ENG-1A, Fall 2010
Success/Non-Success
Success
Non-Success
Total
Group 1
21
8
29
%
72.4%
27.6%
100.0%
Group 2
268
70
338
%
79.3%
20.7%
100.0%
Group 3
146
20
166
%
88.0%
12.0%
100.0%
Table 9 shows the grades earned for each group. When individual grades were used in the
analysis, the results indicated that students in group 3 were more likely to obtain a better grade in
English 1A than students in group 2 (F=4.860, df, 2, p<.01).
19
Table 9: Grades earned by students for each group, ENG-1A, Fall 2010
Grades
A
B
C
D
F
Total
Group 1
10
8
3
3
5
29
%
34.5%
27.6%
10.3%
10.3%
17.2%
100.0%
Group 2
59
127
82
33
37
338
%
17.5%
37.6%
24.3%
9.8%
10.9%
100.0%
Group 3
54
50
42
9
11
166
%
32.5%
30.1%
25.3%
5.4%
6.6%
100.0%
W’s accounted for 9.9% of the grades in English 1A for Fall 2010.
English 1A (excluding W’s)
Crosstabs (Chi square)
Table 10 shows the number of students in each group when W’s were not included.
Table 10: Counts of students in ENG-1A, Fall 2010
English 1A
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Total
Count
29
338
166
533
%
5.4%
63.4%
31.1%
100.0%
Table 11 shows the success rate for each group. Crosstabs revealed no significant difference in
success rates between groups.
Table 11: Success rates for each group, ENG-1A, Fall 2010
Success/Non-Success
Success
Non-Success
Total
Group 1
21
8
29
%
72.4%
27.6%
100.0%
Group 2
268
70
338
%
79.3%
20.7%
100.0%
Group 3
146
20
166
%
88.0%
12.0%
100.0%
Table 12 shows the grades earned for each group. When individual grades were used in the
analysis, the results indicated that students in group 3 were more likely to earn an “A” than
students in group 1 and group 2 (χ = 23.661, df=8, p<.05).
Table 12: Grades earned by students for each group, ENG-1A, Fall 2010
Grades
A
B
C
D
F
Total
Group 1
10
8
3
3
5
29
%
34.5%
27.6%
10.3%
10.3%
17.2%
100.0%
Group 2
59
127
82
33
37
338
20
%
17.5%
37.6%
24.3%
9.8%
10.9%
100.0%
Group 3
54
50
42
9
11
166
%
32.5%
30.1%
25.3%
5.4%
6.6%
100.0%
Conclusion
In summary, when individual grades were used in the analysis (one-way ANOVA), the findings
suggest that students in group 3 are more likely to obtain a better grade in English 1A than students
in group 2. According to the crosstabs analysis, the findings suggest that students in group 3 have
a greater chance of earning an “A” in the course.
This analysis was interesting in that it revealed quite a few things. Students who had completed the
prerequisite were successful. It will be interesting to add in the newest course into this analysis to
determine the preparation of those students as well as the students who place into the course and
those who matriculate in via English 50 and what would appear to be the more traditional route.
Placement and matriculation remain significant issues for Norco College and for the district.
21
E. Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Assessment of student learning outcomes has transitioned from course-based across the district
to college-based. Norco College encouraged section-based assessment in its initial phase, but the
Norco Assessment Committee has implemented course-based assessments at the college level
much as the district previously performed. This does not present any new challenges to the
discipline outside the scope of planning and implementation. The English 1A classes were used
Spring 2010 for the college based General Education assessment. Assessments in 60A and 1A
are scheduled for Spring of 2012. Regularly scheduled assessments are planned.
Spring 2011 1A Assessment Project
Last spring, we pulled a random sample (approximately 25%) of final out-of-class 1A papers in
order to assess student achievement of GE outcomes. A rubric was developed to consider three
GE SLO’s: Communication Skills (divided into two categories of unity /coherence and stylistic
control), Critical Thinking, and Information Competency.
The percentage of students demonstrating competency in each category were as follows:
Written Expression 1: unity and coherence
67.1%
Written Expression 2: stylistic control
78.6%
Critical Thinking
53%
Information Competency
50.6%
We are disappointed that less than 70% of our students demonstrated competency of unity and
coherence. More disturbing, however, is that only about 50% of the students demonstrated
competency in critical thinking and information competency. While it seems that many students
simply lacked competency in those areas, it also came to our attention that, despite collecting
essays written late in the semester, many of the assignments did not appear to ask students to
demonstrate one or both of those skills.
There seemed to be little correlation between final grades and competency of these core
SLO’s. Of our sample, 94% of students passed the class (a high percentage with A’s and B’s),
but our results indicated that a majority of those students failed to demonstrate competency in
the core learning outcomes.
In an effort to improve instruction and student learning, we are in the process of implementing
the following:
 Course-focused mentoring program—each of the composition courses will have a
course lead who will work closely with other instructors teaching that particular
course for the semester.
 Brief handbooks for the composition course sequence—the guides will include
FAQ’s about course expectations, sample syllabi, sample assignments and rubrics,
teaching suggestions, etc…
 Workshops to clarify course expectations— the workshops will give us an
opportunity to define “critical thinking” and “information competency,” discuss types
of assignments given, share best practices, etc...
22
Please use the following link to access the complete English 1A Assessment Report:
Report on English 1A Assessment for General Education Outcomes
Upcoming Assessment Projects
Spring 2012 the discipline will assess 1A again to see if students have improved in the core
SLO’s. (Lead Instructors: Sheryl Tschetter and Arend Flick)
We will also be assessing English 60A this spring. (Lead Instructor: Nicole Capps):
All spring 60A instructors will participate in the 60A Assessment Project. The 60A assessment
will include two parts: Part one is a set of multiple-choice questions, and Part two is a paragraph
prompt. Both parts are to be incorporated into each instructor's own 60A final and both will
count toward students' final grades. The questions and the prompt map to specific Student
Learning Outcomes on the COR for English 60A. Once all grades have been turned in, the data
will be gathered, a paragraph reading will take place, and the discipline will then assess the
assessment. (see attachment)
23
F. Collaboration with Other Units Including Instructional, Student Services
or Administrative Units (Internal)
Placement/Accuplacer/AB743 and EAP
There have been some significant issues with placement in the district. Currently, the district
uses the common placement instrument Accuplacer for English placement.
According to the Norco College Fact Book, the Accuplacer placement statistics for the college
and district are as follows:
-Norco College Fact Book On September 6, 2001, Assembly Bill 743 was passed by the
California State Legislature. Assembly Bill 743 adds Section 78219 to the Education Code,
relating to community colleges. It reads:
This bill would require the board to establish a common assessment system with specified
objectives, including selection of an existing commercially available and centrally delivered
system of student assessment, to be used as one of multiple measures, consistent with specified
law, for the purposes of community college placement and advisement.
The bill would require the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to
work in collaboration with the State Department of Education and the California State University
when developing a common college-readiness standard that will be reflected in the creation of
assessment instruments.
The bill would require the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community
24
Colleges to submit a report to the Legislature and the Governor on the progress of
implementation of the common assessment system by December 31, 2012, and would require the
above provisions to become operative upon the receipt of state, federal, or philanthropic funds to
cover the costs of the common assessment system.” Assembly Bill 743
With district funding for Accuplacer becoming the responsibility of the colleges in September
2012, the Norco English faculty have undertaken efforts to review potential alternatives. These
efforts are in collaboration with the other two campuses and are ongoing. It is estimated there are
enough test units to place students for the Fall 2012.
There are options that Norco College and the English discipline need to consider:
1. We can pay for a test developed by a company such as ACCUPLACER. Each college
will have to identify a funding source. According to Dan Martinez, for all three colleges
that cost is between $75,000 and $100,000 per year.
2. The district discipline can develop our own placement test. The RCCD ESL discipline
has been using a “home-grown” test for several years. This has added requirements
development, testing and validation.
3.
The district discipline can use a directed self-placement. A student is exposed to the level
of rigor for each class so that they can make an informed decision. The introduction of
English 80 will have some impact on this as it adds a layer to the decision-making
process: a student will be choosing a route as well as the types of classes he/she will
complete.
4. We can utilize the Early Assessment Program (EAP) for College Readiness EAP and a
combination of one of the other options.
The EAP provides an opportunity for high school juniors to get feedback on their readiness for
college. The test is a combination of items from the traditional end of the year CST test,
additional multiple-choice items and an essay (taken at a different time).
The CSUs are using this as a precursor to their placement exam. If a student places ready, he/she
can submit the EAP results to the institution, not take the traditional placement test, and begin
working in college level English or math. If the student places conditionally ready, he/she has an
option to take one of the recommended courses. If he/she passes with a C or higher, that result
can be submitted and used as qualification for placement in college English.
The course that is recommended for high schools is the Expositor Reading and Writing Course
(ERWC). This is the description of the ERWC according to the
website. http://www.calstate.edu/eap/englishcourse/overview.shtml
"Course assignments, organized into 14 modules and based mainly on non-fiction texts,
emphasize the in-depth study of expository, analytical, and argumentative reading and
25
writing. The University of California has approved the ERWC for area "b" credit (from
the "a-g" requirements), and the Course meets college preparatory requirements for both
the UC and CSU." California State University Chancellor’s Office website
This course had a great deal of similarities to the newly proposed English 80 course in pedagogy
and foci.
EAP results are available from the California State University Chancellor’s Office. Norco
College’s most common feeder high schools:
Corona-655 students tested-22% college ready
Centiennial-628 students tested-26% college ready
Eleanor Roosevelt -751 students tested-21% college ready
JFK-270 students tested-34% college ready
Norco -464 students tested-23% college ready
Santiago-422 students tested-27% college ready
That's an average of 25% college ready of the high school juniors tested. In comparison, Fall
2010 20.6% of students tested into 1A (Norco College) and in Fall of 2009 19.5% who took the
Accuplacer exam.
Norco College English discipline would have a 5% increase in 1A students if we consider using
EAP for placement. We would need to work with the district discipline to create policy regarding
conditionally ready students and students who did not demonstrate college readiness on the EAP
exam. Further research would be required to determine how students determine if they should
take our ENG 80 or our 60A/B, 50 progression?
It is unlikely and many sources report that the Common Assessment will be available by
September 2012. One possible drawback to EAP results is that placement aspect of EAP is only
for college-level courses and the scores are only valid for one year after a student graduates from
high school. We serve many students for whom this will not work.
Certainly this is an issue that will be addressed in the upcoming months for the future. This will
be a district-wide decision.
G. Outreach Activities
(None at this time)
26
H. Long Term Major Resource Planning
(None at this time)
I. Summary
The Norco College English discipline has defined itself in the past few years. As the college
attained its autonomy within the district system, the English discipline also moved into a new
phase. This is our first Comprehensive Program Review as an independent discipline.
Some possible goals for the next four years include revisiting the idea of an English major; a more
thorough examination of basic skills instruction in terms of pedagogy, instructional practices and
course offerings; distance education best practices and modes of delivery; working with the
institution to see the need for dedicated Communication Department/English rooms that facilitate
the appropriate pedagogical delivery modes and fully facilitate the co-construction of knowledge
with students.
Norco has continued to work with our colleagues at the other two colleges as a district discipline,
but we have also needed to define ourselves. We have a strong cadre of experienced faculty who
built a strong student-centered curriculum with the faculty of Riverside City College and Moreno
Valley College. While we could, Norco has added newer faculty who are excited to meet the
unique challenges Norco has as a discipline. The English discipline is part of the backbone of the
faculty leadership at Norco College. At times, we have been burdened by this participation. We
have supplied faculty to district functions that took them away from the classroom at Norco
College, but we applaud and encourage our faculty to apply their talents, as they are passionate
about growing Norco College and RCCD.
In the final Comprehensive Program Review that was a combined effort across the district, the
summary said, “The concept of ‘disciplines’ still remains an unclear task at times.” We were
concerned with maintaining a district-wide common curriculum, assessing and updating the courseoutlines-of record and the roll of discipline facilitators. These concerns remain, but we are
committed to working these questions out together.
We have at times felt disconnected from our colleagues at Moreno Valley or Riverside and perhaps
have not always participated as fully as we could have. We have allowed our colleagues to take up
the burden of tasks usually handled by the greater number of faculty at Riverside because it was the
easiest route to take. We recognize this as a practice that cannot be continued. As we continue to
define ourselves, our common ground becomes more and more evident. We all want students to
succeed. We all want to provide quality education. We all want to have a college where students
are first in our decision-making processes. As we have become more separate we have found more
common ground that brings us together.
27
We began this document with the Norco College mission statement because the Norco College
English discipline doesn’t have one. Perhaps we should. We could start with some of those
common ideals.
J. Recommendations to the Program Review Committee
N/A
28
Appendix
Dear English 60A Instructors,
In this attachment, you will find the twenty multiple choice questions and paragraph
prompt that are to be used for the spring 60A assessment project. Please read the rationale
and instructions below, and if you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at
Nicole.capps@norcocollege.edu or 951-739-7849.
The Multiple Choice Questions
As a discipline, we decided that one of the most important things a 60A student should
leave class with is the ability to talk about their writing. For that reason, many of the questions are
geared toward the language of writing. Other questions are about parts of speech recognition and
some of the major comma rules. Several questions are about sentence structure. All of the
questions map to the Composition SLOs on the COR, either explicitly or implicitly. These
questions will not reflect everything a student has learned in a 60A class, of course, but are
definitely concepts that a student should know upon entering an English 60B.
Please incorporate these questions into your own 60A final. If you use other multiple choice
questions on your own final as well, all we ask is that you place the assessment questions either at
the beginning or the end of your final so that they are easy to separate. You may choose to provide
an answer sheet for your students, have them write directly on the test, or ask them to purchase
scantrons. You may change the appearance of the document, but please do not alter the questions in
any way.
The Paragraph Prompt
We have chosen a prompt that requires students to consider opposing alternatives and select
the best course of action for themselves and/or others. Understand that we are not assessing a
student’s ability to write a formal argument. What we are assessing is the student’s ability to write
a developed, unified, coherent, grammatically competent paragraph, which is part of the
Composition SLO of the 60A COR. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THIS PROMPT BE GIVEN AS
AN IN-CLASS PARAGRAPH. Students should not have the opportunity to use a computer or get
help with this paragraph in any way. Please note that they will need to use a separate sheet of lined
paper for their final draft.
Both the questions and the prompt should be part of your students’ final grades in the class.
I will be collecting everything after spring grades are recorded. I am not positive as to how the
actual collection of paragraphs and test answers will be done, but I will let you know towards the
end of the semester. A paragraph reading session will then be scheduled. Thank you for your
participation in this important project!
29
Directions: Choose the correct answer.
1. What must every complete sentence include?
a. A subject, a verb, and a complete thought
b. A subject and a verb
c. A dependent clause
2. What is another term for “complete sentence”?
a. Dependent clause
b. Independent clause
c. Subordinating clause
3. If a sentence is missing one of its parts and is incomplete, what is it called?
a. A run-on
b. A fused sentence
c. A fragment
4. What is a run-on sentence?
a. One long sentence that rambles on and on
b. Two or more complete sentences joined without proper punctuation
c. An incomplete sentence
5. What are the two types of run-on sentences?
a. Independent and dependent
b. Fused and comma-spliced
c. Fragments and comma-splices
6. What is one way to make a compound sentence?
a. Place a comma between the independent clauses
b. Place a dash between the independent clauses
c. Place a semi-colon between the independent clauses
7. What is another way to make a compound sentence?
a. Place a comma and a conjunction between the independent clauses
b. Place a subordinating conjunction between the independent clauses
c. Place a modifier between the independent clauses
8. What is the complex sentence comma rule?
a. There are never commas in complex sentences
b. If the independent clause comes first, a comma should follow it
c. If the dependent clause comes first, a comma should follow it
9. What is the comma rule regarding “items in a series”?
a. Separate two or more items in a series with commas
b. Separate three or more items in a series with commas
c. Separate four or more items in a series with commas
10. Which of the following are subordinating conjunctions?
a. however, nevertheless, for example
b. for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so
30
c. ever since, because, even though
11. In what kind of sentence would you find a subordinating conjunction?
a. simple
b. compound
c. complex
12. Which of the following are coordinating conjunctions?
a. however, nevertheless, for example
b. for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so
c. ever since, because, even though
13. In what kind of sentence would you find a coordinating conjunction?
a. simple
b. compound
c. complex
14. Which of the following are pronouns?
a. myself, everyone, their
b. am, is, are, was, were
c. student, college, book
15. Which of the following can be helping verbs?
a. dance, write, talk
b. am, is, are, was, were
c. myself, everyone, their
16. Which of the following are adjectives?
a. careful, good, lucky
b. carefully, well, luckily
c. feel, seem, become
17. Which of the following are adverbs?
a. careful, good, lucky
b. carefully, well, luckily
c. feel, seem, become
18. Which of the following are prepositions?
a. he, she, it
b. smelling, tasting, touching
c. over, with, through
19. Which of the following are abstract nouns?
a. knowledge, information, progress
b. jump, dance, swim
c. girl, boy, book
20. Which of the following are action verbs?
a. knowledge, information, progress
b. jump, dance, swim
c. girl, boy, book
31
Multiple Choice Answer Key
1. A
2. B
3. C
4. B
5. B
C. C
7. A
8. C
9. B
10. C
11. C
12. B
13. B
14. A
15. B
16. A
17. B
18. C
19. A
20. B
32
English 60A Final Paragraph
In a well-structured paragraph, answer the following question and support
your position.
Is it best to begin college right after high school or should students
take some time off first?
*******************************************************************You may use the
space below for prewriting. Your final draft should be on a separate sheet of
lined paper.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_________________________________________
33
Extra data is available at
http://www.rccd.edu/administration/educationalservices/ieffectiveness/Pages/ProgramReview.aspx
(see .Comprehensive Program Review Data.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Demographic information (ethnicity, gender, age group, enrollment status)
Course Enrollments by time of day offered for each term
Counts of sections offered by term
Student Retention by course by term.
Student Success rates (two measures) by term
FTES generated by course and term
Weekly Student Contact Hours by course and term
Full-Time Equivalent Faculty by course and term
Percentages of student enrollments taught by Full-Time and Part-Time faculty for course and term
Class enrollment by course and term
Grade point averages and grade distributions by course and term
Student success rates (two measures) by Demographics by term
Degrees and certificates awarded, if applicable
Additional information and assistance with data analysis is available upon request. Please fill out a request form from
http://academic.rccd.edu/ir/request_form.html APPENDIX A
34