English/Reading/Journalism Assessment

Assessment Report - Fall '07 & Spring '08

The English Department began its assessment program in January 1989.  While its forms and activities have changed over time, its purpose remains the same.  Because we have so many different faculty members teaching our courses, especially our core courses of ENG071, ENG101, and ENG102 (and their ESL counterparts), our assessment activities help us ensure that we all agree on what we mean by college-level writing and what we understand to be acceptable performance in these courses. 

This agreement contributes significantly to student success because it ensures that a student completing one course is prepared for the next course in the sequence.  In addition, assessment activities help us ensure that students completing courses in our department are prepared to write competently in other courses at GCC.  Finally, these activities help us document that students transferring to other colleges and universities have the skills and writing experiences they will need to succeed in their educational careers.   

At the heart of assessment are the course competencies which define the scope and activities of each course.  In our assessment program, we further define these competencies by participating in common instructional activities (during the course of the semester) and applying shared standards to the evaluation of student writing (during the Assessment Day activities). 

GCC and the English Department mandate all faculty participate in assessment activities each semester for each course they teach. The Assessment Committee (or lead faculty for each course) provides common assessment activities for our core courses each semester, and all faculty (no matter which courses they teach) participate in the analysis and evaluation of a selection of these essays or paragraphs.   Faculty who teach courses other than the core courses, or faculty who prefer to develop other assessment activities, report these activities (including their results) in the department’s Online Assessment Notebook.  This resource, organized by instructor, course, division, and semester, provides a rich picture of writing instruction in all our courses.

A report of department-wide participation in assessment activities for the academic year 2007-2008 follows.

For Fall 2007, the Assessment Committee offered a common final assignment option (a documented argument on the topic of Driving While Texting [DWT]) for ENG101 and a common summary option for ENG 102. 

Details about these common assignments can be found online at the following web address:

http://web.gccaz.edu/English/Assessment/Fall07/index.htm

A small group of ENG071/ESL077 also developed a group assessment activity.

The Assessment Committee members collected common final submissions from various ENG 101 and 102 sections at the end of the fall semester.  Samples were ear-marked for common grading activities during the Spring Assessment Day held at the beginning of the week of accountability in January. The common grading activity sparked off a resounding debate and discussion about establishing common rubrics and department-wide grading guidelines.

Instructors who were unwilling or unable to participate in the group/common ENG 101 and 102 assignments chose to submit individual assessment reports. Forms for individual submissions were made available online at the following web address:

http://www.gc.maricopa.edu/notebook/EnglishAssessment/

The process for the common ENG 101 final and the ENG 102 summary assignment was repeated during the Spring 2008 semester. A synopsis of the participation record collated and compiled by the Assessment Committee members at the end of the Spring 2008 semester follows:

 

	Total # of faculty	Faculty filing individual reports [ENG, RDG, CRE, ESL and ENH classes]	Faculty participating in group option [ENG 101 and ENG 102]	Total participating
Full-Time Faculty	39	12	8 [2 = ENG 101 and 6 = ENG 102]	20 (51 %)
Part-Time Faculty	74	7	5 [3 = ENG 101 and 2 = ENG 102]	12 (16%)
Total	113	19	13	32 (28%)

Details about the individual assessment activities have been filed under the online Notebook section on our web-page at the following web address: http://www.gc.maricopa.edu/notebook/EnglishAssessment/

Note: The numbers above represent the submissions the committee members received as of the first week of July ’08. We had a dozen or so multiple submissions.  Some faculty did both an independent and a group assessment option, depending upon the courses they were teaching.  Some provided the assessment activity as an option.  As we examine participation across the department, we can identify many areas for improvement.

Observations

Assessment Activities - Common Assignments and Individual Assessment Activities

The level of participation remains well below department-wide.  It is of paramount importance for the Assessment Committee to address this. Possible reasons for lack of participation include: 1) poor timing, 2) procedural difficulties, 3) lack of accountability, and 4) limited buy-in.

I. Poor Timing and Procedural Difficulties

• Because assessment activities are most effective if completed toward the end of the semester, we ask that faculty submit independent assessment reports and participate in common assessment activities during a hectic time (Finals Week).  This ultimately leads to prioritizing.  Fulfilling assessment requirements often becomes secondary to wrapping up the semester and getting final grades posted. Solutions: The best way to address this concern is to clarify deadlines, simplify submission processes, and reiterate the importance of the activity.
• The Assessment Notebook [http://www.gc.maricopa.edu/notebook/EnglishAssessment/] provides resources for developing independent assessment activities, and the reports submitted serve as models for faculty to consult.  Still, many faculty members are unclear about where to access these examples and how to submit directly.  They are e-mailing them to Assessment Committee members.  This confusion, too, might be contributing to the limited participation. Solutions: Time on Assessment Day has been allotted to providing a tour of the Assessment page and the process involved in submitting individual reports.  Handouts will also be provided.
• In order to assess writing effectively and efficiently, we require that students (or faculty) submit essays and paragraphs electronically. Essays in electronic format can protect student and faculty identity.  In addition, the random collection of student writing can be used for additional kinds of analyses.  Though this process is imperative, it led to a few problems.
• Many faculty members, especially the adjuncts, do not teach in computer classrooms or were uncomfortable with using technology.  In the future, we should emphasize that there are several options for those teaching in a traditional classroom.  Papers produced outside of the confines of a classroom can be sent electronically under the instruction provided by the faculty member.  Solutions: By scheduling a class session to meet in a computer classroom or in the PIT and asking students to e-mail their essay to themselves or save it on disk or USB, the submissions can occur while an instructor is available to offer guidance.
• In the past, some students and faculty have had difficulty dropping essays into the electronic drop boxes. In general, this problem has been remedied (though some essays and paragraphs are still being submitted via email), but faculty members are still facing difficulty when filing individual reports. Solutions: We will continue to revise the instructions for this activity; also, it might be prudent to devote part of Assessment Day to cover the procedures.  
• Access to common assignments, while a mainstay of our early assessment program, may be a new opportunity for some faculty.  This, too, might have contributed to the low participation.  New faculty may not know how to use the resources (agreed upon general guidelines and process) nor fully understand the larger purpose and goals of the practice. Also, they might be hesitant because they are unsure of how the essays will be used and if their teaching and grading practices will be challenged.  Solutions: Efforts will be made to increase knowledge about this important endeavor and decrease concerns about professional vulnerability. On Assessment Day, committee members will summarize the practices of collecting the sample essays and steps taken to ensure anonymity.
• Now that our department has experience with common assignments for both English 101 and English 102, it will be imperative that faculty receive the assignment/packets early enough to adequately incorporate the assignment into their syllabi.  In the past, the time of availability of the packets has been an issue. 

  II. Lack of Accountability and Limited Buy-In

• Many faculty members do not realize that participation in assessment is required.  This is particularly true of adjuncts.  Beyond departmental commitment to ensuring English faculty agree on what is college-level writing and what is acceptable performance in these courses, assessment activities have been mandated by the college and HLC.
• It will become essential to contact faculty not participating in order to determine why they have not submitted reports of assessment activities or implemented the common assignment as part of their course requirements.  Presently, blanket e-mails are sent out reminding faculty of their responsibility, but no procedure to contact individuals (via in person, e-mail, or phone) concerning participation is in place.
• Also, because each instructor approaches the common ENG 101 assignment differently (for example, some emphasize MLA documentation skills more than others; some require the essay be written in class rather out of class; some devote weeks to the draft process; and some treat the assignment in a more cursory manner), many faculty do not feel they should be assessed using the same rubric.
• The English 102 common assignment is less comprehensive than the English 101.  This will be an issue to discuss since the building block skills needed in order to successfully write an argumentation with outside sources are being assessed on Assessment Day as an English 102 activity.  Perhaps this incongruity also has contributed to decreased/limited buy-in.
• Some faculty members have expressed that they do not participate in the common assignment for ENG 101 because they do not want to read full sections of argumentations on the same subject.  The other reason offered has been the philosophy that students are more likely to invest in subjects they select.  More candid discussion about why there is limited participation should be a priority.
• ESL, Reading, Developmental Education instructors are in the process of developing common final activities.   In the past, lead instructors have indicated they want more time on Assessment Day devoted to assessment discussions and strategies for these courses.  More time will be allotted to this important endeavor, but it will be important to have full group activities in addition since courses feed into and from ENG 101 and ENG 102.
  

Assessment Day

In addition to limited participation in the assessment activities, there has been a significant drop in Assessment Day attendance.  During the spring semester of 2008, thirty-nine full-time and seventy-four part-time faculty were on the department payroll.  However, only forty-five faculty members participated in the Spring 2008 Assessment Day, approximately 40%. Though some individuals were either obligated to participate in other college activities or did not receive a contract prior to the event, low numbers prompt a re-evaluation of our approach. 

After reading and considering the evaluations collected on that day, many successes were reported.  Still, the concerns stated were consistent and substantial.  Venue and the large group grading sessions were identified as problematic.

As stated above, there were many successes. 

1. The majority of the participants reported that the break-out sessions were successful.  Comments emphasized the importance of having discipline and course-specific sessions.  Faculty found the opportunity to talk to colleagues about best practices, challenges, and assessment and outcome goals invaluable.  In the future, we will expand this component of Assessment Day.
2. Several faculty stated that the overview of assessment goals, process, and challenges was informative and essential.  We will build on this and devote additional time to clarifying the importance of assessment practices and Assessment Day participation.
3. Workshops were also touted as being interesting and inspiring.  Faculty noted that skills and practices covered will be integrated into their teaching in the future.

Concerns and Suggestions included:

• Large grading sessions were viewed as problematic for the following stated reasons:
• not enough time was allotted to the grading process;
• sub-groups read different sets, thus discussions were compartmentalized;
• large group discussion of how sub-groups arrived at rating was too brief;
• discussion was not comprehensive or useful;
• the rubric was confusing and/or inconsistent; and
• an understanding of department standards was not achieved.

Solutions: 

1. All participants will be reading the same set of five essays. Thus, the discussion will encourage full-group participation. This also will allow more time for assessing and presenting ratings. 
2. Guidelines (criteria) and context (assumed process) will be provided so that faculty members will be evaluating the essays based on shared assumptions. 
3. No rubric will be provided.  By focusing on a P/F premise, groups will have the opportunity to have a more directed conversation about the traits that demonstrate competency at that particular level (ENG 101 versus ENG 102, for example).
4. A new component of the activity will include individual grading of a sixth essay.  Faculty members will be asked to comment on the paper as if it were going to be returned to a student in their class under their instruction for revision or for reference when generating future papers for that course. The committee hopes to be able to assess and present the similarities and differences in grading practices.  Again, efforts will be made to reduce variables.  The guidelines and context will be provided
5. Blackboard and other technology related difficulties proved frustrating.  Some faculty remarked that it would have been more effective to separate discussions on technology and assessment
6. Though Assessment Day will rely on technological support, by changing the venue to the Student Union, technology will be de-emphasized during the grading sessions.  Blackboard and other technology related training sessions will be offered in the afternoon.

	Last updated by Rashmi Menon on August 18, 2008.  Legal Notice. http://web.gccaz.edu/English/Assessment/Spring08/Assessment Spring 2008.html Glendale Community College, Glendale, AZ