Writing+redesign+101+ +assessment+in+action++amcoa+2-9-12

151 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
151
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • c
  • Writing+redesign+101+ +assessment+in+action++amcoa+2-9-12

    1. 1. Kelsey HellwigStan HitronDona CadyMiddlesex Community CollegeWriting Redesign101: Assessment inAction
    2. 2. ISLO Assessment: Institutional &DepartmentalIncomes Outcomes revision of pedagogyand redesignedcurricula embed student successbehaviors and writingskills interdisciplinary WritingCoach initiative vertical teamingpartnership Accelerated Learning consider how to adaptguidelines the Collegehas developed to revisepedagogy and redesigncurricula review studentassignments thatassess critical thinking learn how new practiceshave enhancedstudents’ personalresponsibility, affectivebehavior, and writing
    3. 3. Interdisciplinary Writing Coaches
    4. 4. ISLO Assessment: WrittenCommunication across disciplines artifacts collected from courses rubric developed and reviewed by faculty artifact sets for assessment selected at random norming and assessment of study set
    5. 5. Results: Written Communication 20074 3 2 1Ideas arewellformulatedandclarified 8 33 25 459% adequate oraboveAppropriatelanguage isemployed 11 33 23 363% adequate oraboveOrganization is clear,logical andsuitable fortheassignment 13 22 20 1649% adequate oraboveStandardgrammar
    6. 6. Intervention: Writing Coaches presented division meetings department meetings consulted individual faculty and staff professional development workshops
    7. 7. 12345Ideas/Content Organization Voice Word Choice SentenceFluencyConventions Overall ScoreWritingProficiencyLevelsA Snapshot ofOur Students Development as Writers at MCC2010ENTERING FRESHMEN COMP II COMPLETERS GRADUATING SOPHOMORESProficient SophomoreWriterReadiness for professionalwriting in the field and/orupper-level BaccalaureatewritingCompetent FreshmanWriterCompetency withFreshmanComp I & II skillsCollege-Ready WriterReadiness forFreshman Comp IDeveloping WriterPartial readinessfor Freshman Comp IBeginning Writer
    8. 8. Vertical Teaming
    9. 9. Vertical Teaming bring together English faculty MCC UMass Lowell, Billerica High School Lowell High School Greater Lowell Tech
    10. 10. Procedures map national writing standards to MA curriculum frameworks andSLO’s Composition I and II develop assessment instrument and rubric measure readiness for college writing developmental students and high school seniors administer and assess results
    11. 11. Results open dialogue high school and college English faculty increase awareness of challenges begin discussion define college ready college level writing high school faculty use results to align curriculum to college expectations
    12. 12. Accelerated Learning ProgramALP
    13. 13. Overview of ALP ALP student ENG 101 Composition I ENG 099 Writing Skills Seminar The ENG 099 CPT above 68
    14. 14. The MCC Model 12 ALP students enrolled in ENG 099 (~ENG071) split into 2 groups of 6 each group integrated into 1 section of ENG 101 same instructor for ENG 099 and ENG 101
    15. 15. Three Guiding Principles empower students scaffold assignments time on task
    16. 16. Empower Students develop problem solving balancing work personal academic commitments personal responsibility time management self-assessment skills sample lessons
    17. 17. Scaffold Assignments breakdown required tasks for each ENG 101 majorassignment Q & A at beginning of each ENG 099 class sample lessons walk students through writing process help students develop specific approaches
    18. 18. Time on Task: Computer Time complete ENG 101 assignments skill-building activities My Foundations Lab individualize attention
    19. 19. The Data: Course Completion ENG099 students taking ENG 099 are more likely to completethe course (81%) than students taking ENG 071(67%) during the same semesterSource: Q:AccessBannerInstitutional ResearchJL InternalRequestsJLDatabaseqryALPfollowSXXENG 099 ENG 071Completed Course 57 81% 694 67%Did Not Complete Course 13 19% 347 33%70 1041
    20. 20. The Data: Course Completion ENG101 student success was evaluated by ENG 101 coursecompletion 74% of ALP students completed ENG 101 comparedto 61% of Non-ALP studentsStudents Success (ALP versus Non-ALP) Based on English 101 Course CompletionFall 2011ALP Non-ALPTotal N N N % N N %Enrolled Eng101CompletedEng 101% CompletedEng 101Enrolled Eng101CompletedEng 101% CompletedEng 101Group 1 47 12 11 92% 35 25 71%Group 2 45 12 8 67% 33 13 39%Group 3 41 10 5 50% 31 18 58%Group 4 44 12 12 100% 32 23 72%Group 5 41 12 7 58% 29 12 41%Group 6 44 12 9 75% 32 27 84%Total 262 70 52 74% 192 118 61%
    21. 21. The Data: Grade in ENG 101 ALP students were more successful in ENG 101 thanNon-ALP students, based on earning a grade of C- orbetter in ENG 101 71% of ALP students received a C- or better in ENG101 compared to 58% of Non-ALP studentsStudents Success (ALP versus Non-ALP) Based on Grade of C- or Better in English 101Fall 2011ALP Non-ALPTotal N N N % N N %Enrolled Eng101C- or BetterEng 101% C- or BetterEng 101Enrolled Eng101C- or BetterEng 101% C- or BetterEng 101Group 1 47 12 11 92% 35 25 71%Group 2 45 12 8 67% 33 11 33%Group 3 41 10 5 50% 31 16 52%Group 4 44 12 12 100% 32 23 72%Group 5 41 12 6 50% 29 10 34%Group 6 44 12 8 67% 32 26 81%Total 262 70 50 71% 192 111 58%
    22. 22. The Data: Persistence Spring2012 ALP students were more likely to enroll in the springsemester than Non-ALP students 83% of ALP students enrolled in spring 2012compared to 76% of Non-ALP studentsStudents Success (ALP versus Non-ALP)Based on Fall 2011 to Spring 2012 PersistenceALP Non-ALPTotal N N N N % N N N %EnrolledENG 101Fall 2011ReturnedSpring 2012Did NotReturnSpring 2012%ReturningEnrolledENG 101Fall 2011ReturnedSpring 2012Did NotReturnSpring 2012%ReturningGroup 1 47 12 8 4 67% 35 25 10 71%Group 2 45 12 9 3 75% 33 24 9 73%Group 3 41 10 9 1 90% 31 26 5 84%Group 4 44 12 11 1 92% 32 22 10 69%Group 5 41 12 9 3 75% 29 24 5 83%Group 6 44 12 12 0 100% 32 25 7 78%Total 262 70 58 12 83% 192 146 46 76%

    ×