Kelsey HellwigStan HitronDona Cady
Middlesex Community College
Writing Redesign101: Assessment in Action
ISLO Assessment: Institutional & Departmental
Incomes Outcomesrevision of pedagogy
and redesigned curricula embed student success
behaviors and writing skills
interdisciplinary Writing Coach initiative
vertical teaming partnership
Accelerated Learning Program (ALP) pilot
consider how to adapt guidelines the College has developed to revise pedagogy and redesign curricula
review student assignments that assess critical thinking
learn how new practices have enhanced students’ personal responsibility, affective behavior, and writing skills
Interdisciplinary Writing Coaches
ISLO Assessment: Written Communication
across disciplines
artifacts collected from courses rubric developed and reviewed by faculty artifact sets for assessment selected at randomnorming and assessment of study set
Results: Written Communication 2007
4 3 2 1Ideas are well formulated and clarified 8 33 25 4
59% adequate or above
Appropriate language is employed 11 33 23 3
63% adequate or above
Organization is clear, logical and suitable for the assignment 13 22 20 16
49% adequate or above
Standard grammar and punctuation are utilized 7 17 24 22
34% adequate or above
Intervention: Writing Coaches
presented division meetingsdepartment meetings
consulted individual faculty and staff
professional development workshops
Ideas/Content Organization Voice Word Choice Sentence Fluency
Conventions Overall Score1
2
3
4
5A Snapshot of
Our Students' Development as Writers at MCC2010
ENTERING FRESHMEN COMP II COMPLETERS GRADUATING SOPHOMORES
Writing Proficiency
Levels
Proficient SophomoreWriter Readiness for professional writing in the field and/or upper-level Baccalaureatewriting
Competent Freshman Writer Competency with FreshmanComp I & II skills
College-Ready WriterReadiness for Freshman Comp I
Developing WriterPartial readinessfor Freshman Comp I
Beginning Writer
Vertical Teaming
Vertical Teaming bring together English faculty
MCCUMass Lowell, Billerica High SchoolLowell High SchoolGreater Lowell Tech
Proceduresmap
national writing standards to MA curriculum frameworks and SLO’s
Composition I and IIdevelop
assessment instrument and rubricmeasure readiness for college writing developmental students and high school seniors
administer and assess results
Resultsopen dialogue
high school and college English facultyincrease awareness of challengesbegin discussion
define college ready college level writing
high school faculty use results to align curriculum to college
expectations
Accelerated Learning Program
ALP
Overview of ALP
ALP student ENG 101 Composition IENG 099 Writing Skills Seminar
The ENG 099 CPT above 68
The MCC Model12 ALP students enrolled in ENG 099 (~ENG
071)split into 2 groups of 6 each group integrated into 1 section of ENG
101 same instructor for ENG 099 and ENG 101
Three Guiding Principles
empower studentsscaffold assignmentstime on task
Empower Studentsdevelop
problem solvingbalancing workpersonalacademic commitments
personal responsibility time management
self-assessment skillssample lessons
Scaffold Assignmentsbreakdown required tasks for each ENG 101
major assignmentQ & A at beginning of each ENG 099 class sample lessons
walk students through writing processhelp students develop specific approaches
Time on Task: Computer Timecomplete ENG 101 assignmentsskill-building activities
My Foundations Labindividualize attention
The Data: Course Completion ENG 099students taking ENG 099 are more likely to
complete the course (81%) than students taking ENG 071 (67%) during the same semester
Source: Q:\AccessBanner\Institutional Research\JL Internal Requests\JLDatabase\qryALPfollowSXX
ENG 099 ENG 071Completed Course 57 81% 694 67%Did Not Complete Course 13 19% 347 33%
70 1041
The Data: Course Completion ENG 101student success was evaluated by ENG 101
course completion74% of ALP students completed ENG 101
compared to 61% of Non-ALP studentsStudents Success (ALP versus Non-ALP) Based on English 101 Course Completion
Fall 2011
ALP Non-ALPTotal N N N % N N %
Enrolled Eng 101
Completed Eng 101
% Completed Eng 101
Enrolled Eng 101
Completed Eng 101
% Completed Eng 101
Group 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%
The Data: Grade in ENG 101ALP students were more successful in ENG 101
than Non-ALP students, based on earning a grade of C- or better in ENG 101
71% of ALP students received a C- or better in ENG 101 compared to 58% of Non-ALP studentsStudents Success (ALP versus Non-ALP) Based on Grade of C- or Better in English 101
Fall 2011
ALP Non-ALPTotal N N N % N N %
Enrolled Eng 101
C- or Better Eng 101
% C- or Better Eng 101
Enrolled Eng 101
C- or Better Eng 101
% C- or Better Eng 101
Group 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%
The Data: Persistence Spring 2012ALP students were more likely to enroll in the
spring semester than Non-ALP students83% of ALP students enrolled in spring 2012
compared to 76% of Non-ALP students
Students Success (ALP versus Non-ALP) Based on Fall 2011 to Spring 2012 Persistence
ALP Non-ALPTotal N N N N % N N N %
Enrolled ENG 101 Fall 2011
Returned Spring 2012
Did Not Return
Spring 2012%
Returning
Enrolled ENG 101 Fall 2011
Returned Spring 2012
Did Not Return
Spring 2012%
Returning
Group 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%