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%