2. ISLO Assessment: Institutional &
Departmental
Incomes Outcomes
revision of pedagogy
and redesigned
curricula
embed student success
behaviors and writing
skills
interdisciplinary Writing
Coach initiative
vertical teaming
partnership
Accelerated Learning
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
4. ISLO Assessment: Written
Communication
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. Results: Written Communication 2007
4 3 2 1
Ideas 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
Organizatio
n is clear,
logical and
suitable for
the
assignment 13 22 20 16
49% adequate or
above
Standard
grammar
6. Intervention: Writing Coaches
presented
division meetings
department meetings
consulted
individual faculty and staff
professional development workshops
7. 1
2
3
4
5
Ideas/Content Organization Voice Word Choice Sentence
Fluency
Conventions Overall Score
Writing
Proficiency
Levels
A Snapshot of
Our Students' Development as Writers at MCC
2010
ENTERING FRESHMEN COMP II COMPLETERS GRADUATING SOPHOMORES
Proficient Sophomore
Writer
Readiness for professional
writing in the field and/or
upper-level Baccalaureate
writing
Competent Freshman
Writer
Competency with
Freshman
Comp I & II skills
College-Ready Writer
Readiness for
Freshman Comp I
Developing Writer
Partial readiness
for Freshman Comp I
Beginning Writer
9. Vertical Teaming
bring together English faculty
MCC
UMass Lowell,
Billerica High School
Lowell High School
Greater Lowell Tech
10. Procedures
map
national writing standards to MA curriculum frameworks and
SLO’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. 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
13. Overview of ALP
ALP student
ENG 101 Composition I
ENG 099 Writing Skills Seminar
The ENG 099
CPT above 68
14. The MCC Model
12 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
16. Empower Students
develop
problem solving
balancing work
personal
academic commitments
personal responsibility
time management
self-assessment skills
sample lessons
17. Scaffold Assignments
breakdown required tasks for each ENG 101 major
assignment
Q & A at beginning of each ENG 099 class
sample lessons
walk students through writing process
help students develop specific approaches
18. Time on Task: Computer Time
complete ENG 101 assignments
skill-building activities
My Foundations Lab
individualize attention
19. The Data: Course Completion ENG
099
students taking ENG 099 are more likely to complete
the course (81%) than students taking ENG 071
(67%) during the same semester
Source: Q:AccessBannerInstitutional ResearchJL Internal
RequestsJLDatabaseqryALPfollowSXX
ENG 099 ENG 071
Completed Course 57 81% 694 67%
Did Not Complete Course 13 19% 347 33%
70 1041
20. The Data: Course Completion ENG
101
student success was evaluated by ENG 101 course
completion
74% of ALP students completed ENG 101 compared
to 61% of Non-ALP students
Students Success (ALP versus Non-ALP) Based on English 101 Course Completion
Fall 2011
ALP Non-ALP
Total 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%
21. The Data: Grade in ENG 101
ALP 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 students
Students Success (ALP versus Non-ALP) Based on Grade of C- or Better in English 101
Fall 2011
ALP Non-ALP
Total 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%
22. The Data: Persistence Spring
2012
ALP students were more likely to enroll in the spring
semester than Non-ALP students
83% 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-ALP
Total 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%