Academic Audit Self Study

English Department

Pellissippi State Community College

2013

1

1. Introduction

The English Department at Pellissippi State Community College (PSCC) offers a wide variety of courses to freshman and sophomore-level students at five campus locations as well as at several area high schools.

Over the three-year period from fall 2010 to spring 2013, the department offered an average of 354 sections populated by 7,776 students per academic year.

In 2013-2014, the department is home to 30 full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty members and two full-time instructors on one-year contracts. In fall 2013, 28 adjunct faculty members also teach in the department. The department dean and a program coordinator for composition handle the administrative duties, and the department is assisted by one support staff member.

The English Department offers the following courses:

COMM 1010 Introduction to Mass Communication COMM 1020 Media Writing ENGL 1010 Composition I ENGL 1020 Composition II ENGL 1030 Writing Workshop ENGL 1060 Pronunciation ENGL 2060 Introduction to Shakespeare ENGL 2331 African-American Literature ENGL 2110 Early American Literature ENGL 2120 Modern American Literature ENGL 2210 British Literature: 650-1794 ENGL 2220 British Literature: 1785-Present ENGL 2310 World Literature: 2500 BCE-1650 ENGL 2320 World Literature: 1650-Present ENGL 2510 Introduction to Poetry ENGL 2520 Introduction to Drama ENGL 2530 Introduction to Fiction ENGL 2620 Introduction to Poetry Writing ENGL 2640 Introduction to Fiction Writing ENGL 2660 Introduction to Playwriting ENGL 2670 Introduction to Screenwriting ENGL 2950 Business and Technical Writing A description of each course may be viewed in the College’s online catalog at http://catalog.pstcc.edu/ and current master syllabi may be found at http://www.pstcc.edu/curriculum/master-syllabi/1314/engl/index.php. Additional information about the department and its members is available on our webpage at http://www.pstcc.edu/english/index.php.

Until five years ago, the department also offered learning support, or developmental, writing courses, but in fall 2008, the College created a Transitional Studies Department, which currently houses all learning support writing, reading, math, and introduction to college courses.

Of the courses offered by the department, ENGL 1010, which is required for all degree-seeking students, is the most populous. In fall 2013, 107 sections of ENGL 1010 are being offered in a wide variety of formats: traditional day and evening classes, traditional classroom and computer lab classes, online, dual enrollment, cohort, 10-week, ENGL 0820-1010 combination, ENGL 1010-1030 combination, FLAG, and ESL. Multiple sections are offered at every site campus as well as at several area high schools.

The department plays a significant role in the College’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), “Strong to the Core,” which aims to increase student learning outcomes in the core academic areas of math, speaking, and writing through the use of active learning strategies. To that end, faculty members in the department have researched and employed a wide variety of classroom techniques to engage students and improve their writing.

2

In addition to supporting the mission of the College within the walls of the classroom, the department also contributes to a wide range of extra-curricular and co-curricular initiatives that benefit both PSCC students and members of the community. English faculty were instrumental in the development of the College’s Common Academic Experience (CAE), for instance, and continue to take a leadership role in the planning and execution of the program, which is in its eighth year. Three members of the department are also responsible for the inception, promotion, and success of the Faculty Senate’s popular Faculty Lecture Series, which attracts members of the community as well as students, faculty, and staff. Two departmental members began the PSCC Service-Learning program, and one of them serves as the current coordinator. Imaginary Gardens, a student literary magazine, is published twice yearly with an English professor serving as its advisor.

Dedicated to upholding high academic standards and committed to helping our students become better writers and critical thinkers, the members of the English Department welcomed the opportunity to engage in Academic Audit. Having previously completed program reviews, we undertook this initial audit with the goal of building on our strengths and identifying areas in need of more work.

2. Overall Performance

The Academic Audit reveals the strengths of the English Department to be in the constant attention of faculty to meet the needs of the students so that they may achieve success and in the ongoing assessments and evaluations of these efforts by several measures. In addition, the audit shows the challenges facing the department and recommends some ways to achieve greater effectiveness.

Each member of the department participated in the audit by serving on one of the committees delegated to each of the focal areas (See Appendix A). Information was assembled from a variety of sources: the College’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Assessment and Planning, the College website, various administrative documents, and English Department files. Committee members collaborated to write the results of their research.

The constant attention to the needs of students in writing and literature courses is seen in activities established to ascertain these needs and then in subsequent actions taken to fulfill them. The English faculty discuss the shortcomings and strengths of student performance in departmental meetings and retreats. Areas requiring attention are noted; methods of improving student outcomes are suggested.

Smaller committees and lead instructors focus more specifically on student needs in the individual courses. They revise and update master syllabi as needed, review student learning outcomes, consider textbooks, devise the end-of-semester assessments, and cover other matters, all of which are presented to the department as a whole via e-mail or in meetings.

Adjunct instructors share this attentiveness to student needs and are informed about departmental initiatives at in-service, from faculty mentors, and through professional development activities provided throughout the semester.

3

As well as these departmental activities, English faculty participate in college-wide and external professional activities that help to meet student needs. These activities include tutoring in the Writing Center, serving on college-wide committees such as the Curriculum Development Committee (CDC) and the Common Academic Experience Committee, incorporating Service-Learning opportunities, serving as Student Success Coordinators, and developing and implementing the Quality Enhancement Plan with its focus on student engagement. English faculty are also active in professional organizations; attending conferences and workshops or presenting at them allows faculty to learn about best practices across the state and region as well as across the nation and to share concerns with faculty at similar institutions.

In addition to attentiveness to student needs for achieving success, the Academic Audit reveals the strength of the department in its ongoing assessment of effectiveness at several levels: student learning, faculty effectiveness, and departmental quality. The faculty apply the findings of these assessments to review their own teaching, to adjust the master syllabi and course content, and to analyze departmental goals as required.

At the student level, several evaluations exist. Instructors evaluate student work in the individual courses. In the freshman composition sequence, a departmental assessment at the end of the semester provides information on overall strengths and weaknesses of the writing program.

Faculty members likewise participate in ongoing evaluations. Each prepares a yearly self-evaluation document that is reviewed with the dean and subsequently by the Vice President of Academic Affairs. Part of this self-evaluation includes a classroom observation by the dean or an English colleague. Student Perception Survey results are included in this document. At the end of the self-evaluation, each instructor assesses his or her progress on the goals set for the academic year and establishes appropriate new goals for the upcoming academic year. This yearly process encourages continual reflection on what has been helpful for students and what may need to be altered.

The department itself also has various methods of quality assessment, which are used to give a broader overview. As the audit reveals, the department examines its work on a regular basis through self-studies for SACS, Program Review, and this Academic Audit. Individual courses are reviewed in ongoing committees. End-of-semester writings are evaluated in grading sessions by the whole department (ENGL 1010) or by committees (ENGL 1020 and sophomore literature), and the results are examined in departmental meetings, during in-service, or at retreats so that all instructors are aware of successes as well as areas needing further attention. Each semester, the dean shares information gathered by the College’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Assessment and Planning about success rates and grade distributions for every course and each individual section. In addition to these internal evaluations, CBASE exam results and the Community College Survey of Student Engagement provide external measures of success.

All these measures demonstrate that the department is devoted to supporting student success by continuous improvement through diverse means. More importantly, the ongoing effort to meet student needs and to assess progress in a variety of areas and by a variety of methods allows the department to monitor consistency, and yet, consistency is a constant challenge.

4

The Academic Audit confirms this challenge facing the English Department. With rapid enrollment growth, a large number of courses, approximately 60 faculty members, five different sites, and multiple methods of course delivery, consistency is difficult to achieve and maintain. Supportive of academic freedom, the department seeks consistency not in prescriptive content and assignments, but in academic expectations, standards, and rigor. As an example, the course that exemplifies the greatest challenge in its diversity is ENGL 1010, the course that all students are required to take. Therefore, as the central course of the department, ENGL 1010 is subject to constant scrutiny to ensure its consistency across the department despite the variables.

As the previous discussion has noted, the department is aware of these challenges. In its efforts to meet the needs of the students, the department’s many methods of assessment and evaluation provide the opportunity for recurring deliberation about consistency as well as continual attention to revisions as needed. More specific discussion in the Focal Areas traces the efforts of the department to meet these challenges.

The Academic Audit has also shown areas where some initiatives may lead to improvement. They are as follows:

1) Place greater emphasis on sharing clearly written course learning outcomes with students.

2) Based on potential changes at the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) level, work on revitalizing the freshman composition courses, ENGL 1010 and 1020.

3) Help shape the expansion of the College’s QEP by emphasizing the vital role student responsibility plays in the learning process. That is, student engagement may begin with active learning strategies employed in the classroom, as “Strong to the Core” suggests, but it also relies heavily on the student’s willingness to learn, participation in the process, and completion of course assignments.

3. Performance by Focal Area

Focal Area 1: Learning Objectives

The master syllabus for each course at PSCC, including those in the English Department, divides learning objectives into two categories: Course Goals, which are broadly stated, and Expected Student Learning Outcomes, which are more specific and measurable. English Department courses include composition classes required for certificate or degree completion or transfer to another institution, as well as literature survey courses, a business and technical writing course, and several creative writing courses.

The learning objectives currently listed on each English course’s master syllabus are the product of multiple periodic revisions, which have occurred through various collaborative efforts since Pellissippi’s inception. Historically, the English Department revises its master syllabi every three to four years, often in anticipation of goals such as applying for reaccreditation. Approximately four years ago, while preparing for Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) reaccreditation, a smaller group of English and other faculty (as well as administrators) reworded the expected student learning outcomes for the purpose of making each one measurable.

5

We consult sources beyond our own faculty when defining course goals and outcomes. Our professional associations are an important source of feedback in this process. The department consults with individual English faculty of other institutions, both formally and informally, and through regular participation in associations such as the Two-Year College English Association of Tennessee (TYCAT). In consulting the English programs of our sister colleges in the TBR system, we strive to develop our learning goals and outcomes in accordance with TBR guidelines. Although we do have contact with a number of external stakeholders, such as the University of Tennessee and Service-Learning partners, we have not observed the need to consult employers as direct sources, as the objectives of the English program are not frequently affected by changes in employer demand. The English Department recognizes that it is our responsibility to offer courses that help students learn to think critically and to write clearly and effectively, skills sought almost universally by employers. Careful consideration and communication of each course’s learning objectives are critical steps in helping students achieve those skills.

Master syllabi for twenty-two English Department courses were reviewed and revised in the 2010-2011 academic year and are updated on an as-needed basis yearly. Currently, students and other stakeholders in the institution and community—including local and state leaders, regional employers, community groups, potential students, media, and taxpayers—can download electronic copies of all master syllabi from the “A-Z index” on the homepage of the PSCC web site: http://www.pstcc.edu/az_index.php .

Faculty members develop customized syllabi for individual courses directly from master syllabi, building their individual curricula on the foundation of the course’s agreed-upon learning objectives. Discussions are under way about whether the inclusion of student learning outcomes from the master syllabi should be required of all faculty in their customized course syllabi. A perusal of the English faculty’s fall 2013 syllabi revealed that although nearly all included the broadly stated course goals, only approximately half included the expected student learning outcomes. Interestingly, the divide broke largely along generational lines, with more senior faculty listing only the goals, which was the departmental requirement for many years.

With or without the outcomes listed, the syllabus and its importance are emphasized from the first day of class. Although individual instructors use the College’s Desire2Learn (D2L) platform to varying degrees, the English Department Dean specifies that, at a bare minimum, faculty post their syllabi in the online course platform. During the first class meeting, our students are guided through the course syllabi and course expectations and are also instructed as to the document’s location in D2L, accessible at any time.

For many students, calling attention to learning outcomes throughout the semester and making the connection in students’ minds between lessons and those outcomes could be a valuable yardstick against which they could measure their progress toward their goal and remain motivated to move through the course. Perhaps having the outcomes in mind would help eliminate any sense of “busywork” or randomness, which are sometimes present in students who have difficulty seeing the “big picture.”

Recently, during the fall 2013 English Department annual retreat, our dean divided the faculty into groups to examine, discuss, and make suggestions for revising ENGL 1010, ENGL 1020, and various sophomore literature courses. The result of this collaborative effort included combining and condensing some of the learning outcomes as well as adjusting some of the language for greater clarity. After reviewing each group’s recommendations, the dean made the changes suggested by the faculty, beginning with ENGL

6

1010 and 1020. Modifications to two sophomore literature courses are also likely in the future. The dean corresponded with the College’s Curriculum Coordinator regarding whether the adjustments, which are not substantive, required the approval of the Curriculum Development Committee and then went before the committee in December to explain the reason for the changes, which the group voted to approve. This most recent process exemplifies one of the ways the department collaborates internally as well as externally, across the various departments and administrative levels, in its continual review of program learning outcomes.

Course curricula are designed with student learning outcomes in mind. Each instructor considers them when planning courses, choosing classroom teaching methods, creating assignments, and engaging students.

The department is involved in a number of programs outside the classroom setting that encourage active engagement with classroom topics, provide creative outlets for students, and extend connections to many of the department’s learning objectives. For example, the Common Academic Experience offers several lectures and educational tie-ins for the selected common book, which builds an academic community for all students at Pellissippi. In addition, Imaginary Gardens, a journal of student art and writing, is an outlet for creative expression and an opportunity to exercise student knowledge about literary and artistic forms. A number of co-curricular programs through the English Department, such as the “This I Believe” reading reception, Service-Learning activities, and the Gnosis club student lectures, help students achieve the learning objectives of the English program.

In an ongoing attempt to measure student attainment of learning outcomes, the department administers a wide variety of both formative and summative assessments. Individual faculty members create and administer quizzes, tests, and essays throughout the semester. In addition, in the case of ENGL1010 and ENGL1020, there is a summative assessment, an end of semester composition designed by a committee and the department dean and evaluated by full-time faculty members. The department is also currently working towards final assessments for certain sophomore literature courses.

Focal Area 2: Curriculum and Co-Curriculum Courses in the English Department are created by faculty and approved by the Dean of the English Department and the College’s Curriculum Development Committee; after gaining the approval of this faculty-wide committee, the courses must be reviewed and approved by the Vice President of Academic Affairs, and ultimately by the Tennessee Board of Regents. All syllabi are updated regularly to reflect changing course materials and the course competencies specified by the Tennessee Board of Regents.

When creating or updating courses, faculty members work together to review and discuss new and old course goals and student learning outcomes in order to gauge their efficacy and applicability. Course goals directly reflect general education goals specified by the Tennessee Board of Regents as well as the current data and research pertaining to the overall discipline and the individual courses. There are also Master Courses, or Instructor Cafes, in the D2L web space that act as repositories for materials that instructors share with one another, including sample syllabi, writing assignments, exams, instructional handouts, worksheets, and even some publisher material. All faculty members who are teaching these courses have access to these resources.

7

All of the English Department’s courses have a program coordinator or a lead teacher assigned to them; this individual facilitates the faculty in its appraisal of these courses’ overall structure and efficacy on a regular basis. A course like ENGL 1010 receives constant attention from the English faculty, for in addition to the fact that its enrollment is half of the total of all English courses, its course goals and student learning outcomes are fundamental to student scholastic success; an ENGL 1010 committee, led by the program coordinator for composition, reviews and revises the course according to student needs, departmental input, and TBR guidelines.

Courses in the English Department target students’ awareness and fluency as critical readers, writers, and thinkers. This layered approach is the foundation of student scholastic success in all disciplines, and assignments in English courses are designed to improve students’ abilities in all of these areas. All courses have an extensive writing component with special emphasis on source-driven argumentative and expository writing assignments that engage students in a wide variety of social and cultural issues. Both assignments and courses are recursive in that the skills highlighted for an assignment at the beginning of ENGL 1010 remain relevant all the way through a sophomore literature course: for example, the first assignment in ENGL 1010 is a summary-response essay. This assignment encourages students to consider an issue (often one that they encounter in an assigned article), identify the fundamental characteristics of that issue, and then reflect on those characteristics in comparison to their own experience. They then, of course, have to write what they have discovered. Students engage in this same basic process when they consider the causes of long-term homelessness for an ENGL 1010 course with a Service-Learning component, when they compose a cover letter to a potential employer in a Business and Technical Writing course, and when they explicate a sonnet by Claude McKay in a Modern American Literature course. Discussions and activities in classes are designed to serve the development of all three of these crucial life skills. One particular segment of the department’s curriculum generates considerable student interest and loyalty: the creative writing courses. Introduction to Fiction Writing, Introduction to Screenwriting, Introduction to Playwriting, and Introduction to Poetry are often taught by the College’s Writer-in-Residence, who has published two novels and seven books of poetry. In recent semesters, a faculty member with years of experience as a television producer and familiarity with Hollywood has also taught the screenwriting course. We find that often a student who takes one of these creative writing courses then signs up for another—or even all of the others. In setting up the creative writing courses nearly 15 years ago, the department worked closely with English faculty at the University of Tennessee regarding curriculum and transferability. As a result of that preparatory work, all of the courses transfer directly to the University of Tennessee. The Common Academic Experience is the most visible and consistent co-curricular activity that the English Department helps to plan. The function of the Common Academic Experience is to help students enhance their research, writing, and critical thinking skills by using a text that is shared across the College. Since the inception of the program in 2006, an English Department faculty member has served as the chair of the Common Academic Experience Committee, which includes at least one faculty member from each department at the College. Currently three English faculty members and the departmental assistant serve on the committee that selects and plans the activities for this college-wide co-curricular program, and the Common Book is directly connected to our ENGL 1010 course. Some members of the

8

English Department faculty build their ENGL 1010 courses around the Common Book along with the issues that it raises. Students in these sections complete all required writing assignments while exploring topics connected to the Common Book.

From 2009-2013, the Southern Appalachian International Film Festival (SOAPIFF) has featured films on topics related to the Common Academic Experience. English faculty often require their ENGL 1010 students to attend screenings of films that are a part of the SOAPIFF and then write responses to those films. Lectures, panel discussions, displays, and other films related to the Common Academic Experience are offered every year, and faculty members encourage attendance at these events and sometimes offer extra credit for a written summary or other response to the program.

The English faculty also lead groups in activities that supplement the Common Academic Experience. Department members facilitate a Common Book discussion group for students and staff, and students in English courses are asked to write about their experiences in the group. In the fall of 2013, English faculty members accompanied ENGL 1010 students on a hike that followed the Appalachian Trail (from Newfound Gap to Icewater Springs) so that they could gain experiential knowledge of life on the Appalachian Trail (white blazes, bear cables, an AT shelter, etc.).

However, the Common Academic Experience is not the English Department’s only co-curricular activity. A member of the English faculty is the advisor for Imaginary Gardens, Pellissippi State’s student arts magazine, which features short fiction, poetry, drawing, and photography submitted by students and selected by a student editorial staff. Formerly an annual publication, the magazine was published in both fall and spring semesters during the 2012-13 academic year. In addition to Imaginary Gardens, students interested in creative writing of all sorts can join the Creative Writing Club, which has a presence at the Hardin Valley, Magnolia Avenue, and Strawberry Plains campuses. In fall semester 2013, the students at Hardin Valley and Magnolia participated in Open Mic programs while the students at Strawberry Plains enjoyed a host of activities on The National Day of Writing.

Two members of the English Department also sponsored the student organization Gnosis, a student-led club that invited speakers on a variety of subjects from across the college and the community. English faculty members were among these speakers, and many faculty members made attendance at these events a part of their courses. Gnosis won the award for “Outstanding Student Organization” three years in a row and, in 2012, raised enough funds through a series of events to award three $2,500 scholarships to deserving students.

Three members of the English Department are also the force behind Pellissippi State’s “Faculty Lecture Series,” an award-winning series of presentations that has featured many members of the English Department on stage lecturing on subjects that excite them: this year’s lectures alone will include two English faculty members presenting talks on fairy tales and the poetry of Paul Laurence Dunbar, respectively.

Faculty members in the department also push the curriculum beyond the walls of the classroom to enrich their students' education. The most visible example of this effort is participation in the Tennessee Consortium for International Studies (TnCIS), which takes the curriculum to places all across the globe. Six English Department faculty members have traveled with students to England, Scotland, Ireland,

9

France, South Africa, China, Greece, and Peru. Even on campus, however, faculty members encourage students to realize that what they learn in class is useful in the wider world. In both her combined ENGL 0820-1010 and her stand-alone ENGL 1010 courses, one faculty member has held “This I Believe” reading receptions. This assignment, modeled on the popular National Public Radio series of the past, asks students to write on a selected topic and then read their essays at the reception. The students invite friends and family, and members of the College community attend as well. Another faculty member invited a panel of experts, including the county sheriff and a prosecutor, to serve as an audience for her Business and Technical Writing team projects on prison reform. At the Blount County campus, student posters based on ENGL 1010 research topics were displayed in the campus lobby and judged by the College President and the English Department Dean. In a myriad of ways, the faculty in the English Department creates opportunities to help students realize writing is an act of communication, not simply an exercise limited to the classroom.

The English Department has also led faculty to integrate a Service-Learning component into several courses from various departments across the College. The English Department itself now features Service-Learning in selected sections of ENGL 1010, an addition that thoroughly engages students in the issues and activities of their community. Through Service-Learning curricula, students have learned about poverty, hunger, and homelessness in the Knoxville area, as well as about ecological and sustainability efforts, among other topics. After their participation with Habitat for Humanity, Ijams Nature Center, or a host of other community agencies, students engage in research on the issues, reflect on their experiences, and then incorporate both into essays.

In order to review the efficacy of the curriculum of its courses, the College conducts Student Perception Surveys every year that elicit feedback on both individual instructors and the courses that they teach. These responses allow faculty members to learn more about what has worked in their classrooms so that they can adjust their instruction accordingly. Likewise, the English Department can review the results in order to make modifications to curriculum when necessary.

Every year, both students and faculty are surveyed about the Common Academic Experience in order to collect feedback that might be useful in the choice of future books and related programming; the English Department is involved in the creation, review, and application of these survey instruments. The data are shared not only with faculty in the department but also with administrators through a report at Dean’s Council.

In addition, on the departmental level, the faculty in the English Department routinely reviews elements of all of its courses through discussions of course goals and student learning outcomes. During meetings at the beginning of the school year, faculty members who teach particular courses—ENGL 1020 or British Literature, for instance—get together to assess the degree to which the course reflects our collective understanding of the courses’ core competencies.

Focal Area 3: Teaching and Learning

Over the last five years, teaching and learning continue to be the focus of Pellissippi State’s English Department. Following our 2008-2009 Program Review, the department developed various methods to

10

address and stress the variety of ways to teach and learn—from both faculty and student perspectives. Because faculty in the department teach on five campuses in two counties, the communities we serve demand a variety of learning environments. In addition to the traditional, on-site courses, our faculty teach online courses, hybrid courses, fast-track courses (in both five and ten-week structures), and dual-enrollment courses in local high schools. A mix of conventional and online courses is taught not only during the regular semesters but also during our summer sessions. In preparation for SACS reaccreditation and to maintain a sense of consistency in our teaching practices, we revised the master syllabi for all of our composition and literature courses in 2010. This revision allowed us to focus on the expected student learning outcomes. At our most recent department retreat at the beginning of fall 2013, we again engaged in a course-by-course evaluation of the existing student learning outcomes. The goal of this discussion was to reassess the viability of the outcomes as well as to evaluate our consistency of teaching to meet these goals. In this discussion, we identified and considered the variety of delivery methods used by our faculty. As a result of the master syllabi revision, the department also addressed questions of whether or not our current textbooks coincided with our student learning outcomes. Our ENGL 1010 and 1020 committees undertook a textbook evaluation process. Currently, the standard rhetoric and reader for first-semester composition classes is The Bedford Guide for College Writers, 9th edition, and all sections of the course also use The Little, Brown Essential Handbook, 7th edition. ENGL 1020 classes use the Norton Introduction to Literature, 11th edition. Standard texts in our composition classrooms help provide a unified learning environment. The sophomore literature survey classes also use a standard text, typically the most recent Norton anthology for each course. To further improve communication among faculty members and to maintain standards, our program coordinator maintains online Instructor Cafes (in D2L) for use by both full- and part-time faculty. The lead teacher for one of the sophomore literature sequences has also created Instructor Cafes. These sites provide access to master syllabi and course goals as well as samples of successful assignments, resources, teaching tips, and exercises designed to engage students in learning key skills, ranging from essay structure and thesis development to effective incorporation of source material and accurate documentation. While the cafes are especially useful to adjunct instructors, who must sometimes begin teaching within days of being hired, they also provide all faculty with a ready vehicle for exchanging ideas and profiting from the teaching inspiration and expertise of their colleagues, regardless of their campus location. One result of our continued awareness about the teaching and learning objectives is our revised ENGL 1030 course. Originally, ENGL 1030, Writing Workshop, was conceived as a course in which three students would register to work with one faculty member in his/her office for one to two hours each week. Although this model worked for a few students, the number of students needing extra writing support has increased in recent years (and may increase even more dramatically in the years to come). Our ENGL 1030 redesign, launched in the fall 2013 semester, was designed to encourage an at-risk population (those who are repeating the course, who scored 18 on the ACT, or who earned C in learning support ENGL) to enroll in a 1030 section linked to their ENGL 1010 course and taught by the same instructor—a form of

11

embedded remediation. This small cohort—six to eight students— has an extra hour of instruction per week. So far, the new design has met with encouraging but qualified success. While faculty report greater student engagement with writing and good response to the one-on-one support offered by the instructors, identifying students who could benefit from the course was not always a high priority for advisors, and enrollment in the sections suffered as a result. Better communication with advisors and an improved process for enrolling targeted students will be needed in the future, especially as we expect to expand on this model if the TBR moves forward with plans for placing some learning support students directly into college-level classes. To ensure regular opportunities for discussing the aforementioned ENGL 1030 results as well as teaching practices, course goals, new policies, and other departmental business, the department schedules numerous events and activities. All full-time faculty participate in an annual Faculty Retreat to discuss a wide range of topics and attend regular department meetings, grading workshops, and assessment scoring sessions as well. Adjunct faculty in the English Department participate every semester in adjunct in-service, which is designed to communicate course goals and learning outcomes and offer best practices as identified by the department. Both full-time and adjunct faculty also meet and interact in grading workshops, held at multiple campuses, so as to foster collegiality and maintain a consistent, department-wide focus on course goals and on effective means of assessing students’ writing and overall progress. Faculty meet periodically in departmental committees to discuss curriculum and assessment of individual courses. The English Department makes a concerted effort to include and support its adjunct faculty in other ways as well, as their work is essential to maintaining its standard of excellence in teaching and learning. The department offers multiple professional development opportunities for adjunct instructors throughout the academic year, enabling those who attend four such activities to earn an additional $300 per semester. Furthermore, every adjunct instructor is paired each semester with a full-time faculty mentor. Just as full-time faculty are observed and evaluated annually by peers and supervisor, these mentors observe and assess the teaching of their adjunct partners. The mentors also offer practical assistance with questions about instruction, assignments, classroom management, and workspace, equipment/materials, and other resources at the various campuses. English Department faculty also participate in several college-wide projects aimed at improving students’ success with writing, reading, and academic persistence. Many full-time and adjunct instructors serve as writing tutors in the Academic Support Centers located at each campus. There, they may assist students with writing assignments for any college-level subject, not just English courses. In addition, English department faculty have been instrumental in promoting the eight-year-old Common Academic Experience project—the annual selection of a common text for study by all first-year freshmen, to whom the book is provided at no cost. Originally proposed in 2006 as one of several Foundations of Excellence (FOE) measures for improving retention of these students, the CAE owes its continuing implementation in large part to the efforts and enthusiasm of the English faculty. These instructors not only incorporate each year’s Common Book into their own courses but also lead and participate in fall in-service

12

discussion sessions to help explore possible assignments and methods for effectively including the book in many other academic disciplines as well. Several full-time and adjunct English instructors participate in summer discussion sessions on the Common Book to help with early planning for fall activities and course approaches. Finally, the English Department lends its full support to one other project created by the same 2006 FOE initiative that introduced the CAE: the Student Success program. This ongoing program calls for a full-time faculty member from each academic department and each site campus to serve as a Student Success Coordinator—a liaison between faculty and students. Aided by student mentors, these coordinators work with fellow faculty to identify, contact, and assist students in overcoming personal obstacles, skill deficiencies, poor study habits, and other issues that put them at risk academically. These coordinators familiarize themselves with college/campus resources so as to refer students to the appropriate office or individual for any assistance they themselves cannot provide directly. Currently, three English department faculty members have volunteered and serve as Student Success Coordinators, one directly within the English department at the Hardin Valley campus, and two others, at the Blount County and Magnolia campuses, where they serve both English and all other faculty and students. To ensure greater student success throughout the college, regular exploration and consideration of current teaching practices and pedagogical theory continue to be an important aspect of our department. Faculty members are encouraged to attend academic conferences such as TYCAT, TYCA-Southeast, South Atlantic Modern Language Association (SAMLA), National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), and Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) in order to participate in the ongoing discussion regarding best practices for our field. These conferences provide opportunities to contemplate the approaches and techniques used by our colleagues from other TBR colleges and from around the country. In addition, English faculty members share their own strategies and ideas by presenting at these conferences. We are members of various professional organizations which promote engaging pedagogy and enhance specialized knowledge. One specific area of pedagogical engagement is the collaboration of the English faculty with local organizations and institutions in order to better align our teaching practices with the concerns of the community. Over the years, the faculty who teach Business and Technical Writing have communicated with the College of Business at the University of Tennessee as well as with professionals in Knoxville to structure the coursework to reflect what a student will encounter at the upper-division educational level and/or in the business environment upon graduation. Similarly, several of our freshman composition courses have offered a Service-Learning component over the last two years, which promotes the connection between a student’s academic work and the community in which he or she lives. The professors who teach these courses view the learning outcomes and goals of particular assignments in light of the needs and requests of the community partners, mostly non-profit organizations, with whom they work. Many of these professors have attended Service-Learning forums and training sessions presented by faculty from other schools, such as Cleveland State Community College, who are successfully integrating Service-Learning into their curriculum. Finally, the professors who teach our dual-enrollment Composition classes, both in the high school environment and on our campuses, must consider all the shareholders involved in the program. The College has partnered with Knox and Blount

13

County high schools to ensure cooperation and mutually-achievable learning outcomes for these courses, and our English faculty often consult with the high school teacher, guidance counselor, and principal in order to maintain an open channel of communication about the course and the unique needs of the dual-enrollment students. Over the past five years, we have seen a steady increase in the participation in the dual enrollment courses in both the ENGL 1010 and 1020 offerings, particularly with regard to the number of high school students who choose to enroll in a class at one of the PSCC campuses. Our current Quality Enhancement Plan, “Strong to the Core,” emphasizes our continuation and further use of active learning strategies in our composition courses. As part of the English Department’s involvement in the college-wide QEP program to encourage active learning strategies in the classroom, faculty members have participated in college-wide QEP discussions with faculty members in other departments, outside consultants, and college administrators in order to identify and implement effective active learning strategies in ENGL 1010 classes. In addition to these broader discussions, during our 2013 departmental retreat, the faculty discussed discipline-specific implementation of active learning strategies. Within the department, we have a QEP committee that examines and promotes additional resources regarding pedagogical strategies and theories. In the past year, the QEP committee participants have discussed texts and ideologies from Angelo and Cross; Baxter Magolda; Duffy and Jones; Kolb, Syinicki, and Dixon; McKeachie; Seligman; and numerous other developmental, pedagogical, and behavioral theorists. Subsequently, the members have systematically included many of these approaches into their own courses in order to create positive learning environments and effective classroom communities and have advocated for the inclusion of similar strategies in colleagues’ courses as well. During the last five years, the English Department has continued its assessments of ENGL 1010 and ENGL 1020. These assessments are administered at the end of each course and are designed to discern how effectively students achieve key learning outcomes and course goals. Every semester, the department scores the assessments and uses the results as the starting point for departmental discussions of effective teaching strategies in ENGL 1010 and 1020. Where the department identifies key areas for improvement, for the next semester, we offer specific instruction in those areas in the form of workshops and handouts for faculty and adjuncts.

Student input on Student Perception Surveys also plays a role in the development of the department’s teaching and learning strategies. These evaluations ask students to evaluate and comment on strengths and weaknesses of each instructor and the course. The feedback gleaned from these assessments, while considering potential student cynicism, can be a valuable tool for pedagogical awareness and revision of course assignments. Enlightened by the feedback from the Student Perceptions, all faculty members in the English Department complete standardized yearly self-evaluations in which each faculty member reflects upon how he or she developed and applied current instructional techniques, used diverse teaching methodologies, and stayed current in his or her field or specialization. Furthermore, in these self-evaluations, faculty are responsible for examining and responding to student perceptions in order to increase efficacy in the classroom and understand and address student needs.

14

At the core of the English Department lies the commitment to both teaching and learning. We are teachers, and we are learners. We learn from each other and teach each other through direct and indirect means. From the books we read to the conferences we attend, to the classes we teach and the research we conduct, our shared commitment to these two actions enables us both to impart knowledge and to learn from those we teach and those who teach and learn with us.

Focal Area 4: Student Learning Assessment

Since 1999, the English Department has conducted ongoing and dynamic assessments of ENGL 1010 and ENGL 1020. The process by which assessment has been undertaken has been adapted in various ways in order to (1) assess specific student learning outcomes, (2) yield more valid results, and (3) focus on specific areas where appropriate classroom intervention can take place. The current version of the ENGL 1010 assessment is in compliance with the TBR-mandated assessment of general education courses, which began in 2008. Standardized prompts and rubrics were developed and are employed during each semester’s assessment activities and subsequent scoring sessions.

The English 1010 Assessment

Each semester, during the final exam period, all ENGL 1010 students write an essay that allows the department to assess their ability to craft an effective argument in which they will make a claim and sufficiently argue their position. Each instructor submits 25 percent of his or her class essays to the department’s program coordinator, who then selects 10 percent to be scored at the beginning of the following semester. Prior to scoring, a range-finding session is conducted. Since fall 2012, all members of the department participate in a scoring session using the established ENGL 1010 final essay rubric, which employs the following learning outcomes stipulated by TBR: Unity, Development, Organization, Style and Mechanics, and Documentation. In spring 2013, specific wording was added to the rubric in two categories—Style and Mechanics and Development—in order to accommodate the College's SACS Quality Enhancement Plan. Improvement in communication (sentence variety) and critical thinking (development) are a part of the QEP. All essays receive two scores, and disagreement in any category triggers a third reading. Rating designations of either satisfactory or unsatisfactory are awarded to each learning outcome. The resulting data are analyzed by the program coordinator for composition, and a report is submitted to the department dean and to the English faculty. (See Appendices B and C for assignment and results.)

The ENGL 1020 Assessment

The ENGL 1020 final requires all students to perform a “cold” reading of a summary and brief excerpt from a short story. In response to a specific prompt, students are instructed to produce a well-developed analytical body paragraph that indicates the author and title in the topic sentence. This paragraph must contain at least one quote from the excerpt and give a parenthetical citation in MLA format. For assessment, each instructor randomly selects 25 percent of the final exams from his or her course and submits them to the program coordinator for composition, who then selects 50 percent for scoring. At the beginning of the following semester, the six-member ENGL 1020 committee conducts a scoring session. Before beginning the scoring session, the committee chair typically conducts a range-finding activity. Each paper receives scores by two faculty members, and

15

if there is disagreement in any category, a third reader is employed. Papers are rated as Adequate or Inadequate in each of three competencies: Writing about a Character, Quoting/Paraphrasing, and Punctuating a Title. The resulting data are analyzed by the ENGL 1020 Committee, and a report is submitted to the department dean and to the English faculty. (See Appendices D and E for assignment and results.)

The Sophomore Literature Assessment

During the 2011-2012 academic year, the English Department developed a sophomore literature assessment tool to be piloted in the fall 2012 semester. The committee of full-time English faculty members devised five critical response essay prompts and an accompanying rubric for the following courses: American Literature I and II, British Literature I and II, World Literature I and II, and African-American Literature. All PSCC students enrolled in these sophomore literature courses took part in the pilot of this assessment. Literature professors randomly selected 25 percent of their student responses for the committee to score. Difficulties with the administration of this tool produced low participation and statistically unreliable results. The committee has since been reorganized, and a new assessment tool is being created and will be piloted in the future.

Results of these formal assessments are reported to the entire full-time faculty in department meetings at the beginning of each semester and to adjunct faculty at adjunct in-service at the beginning of each semester. The program coordinator for composition and the dean of the department present and interpret assessment results and direct the department toward areas requiring attention. Thus, results of assessment are implemented into individual courses. The committees, dean, and coordinator pay particular attention the following semester to areas chosen for focus. This recursive analysis, or closing of the assessment loop, informs both the content of the curriculum in these courses as well as approaches individual teachers take in the classroom. The results of the ENGL 1010 assessment are also reported annually to TBR and are used to fulfill QEP requirements for SACS review.

In addition to the formal assessment measures undertaken during each semester, English faculty members employ a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods to assess and track student learning and program effectiveness. Examples of these are as follows:

• Each instructor conducts various classroom assessments, which include but are not limited to initial diagnostic writing samples, objective tests, quizzes, and written responses covering skills and content.

• In fall 2013, a pilot linking ENGL 1030, Writing Workshop, with ENGL 1010 to provide additional

instruction for at-risk students was launched.

• The college administers the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), a research-based tool to assess institutional practices and student behaviors that might affect student learning and retention. The results of this survey have been used to inform our construction of our QEP.

• The QEP coordinator for the English Department provides QEP faculty development workshops for

both full-time and adjunct faculty in order to institutionalize the use of Student Engagement Techniques (SETs) and Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) in classroom instruction.

16

Focal Area 5: Quality Assurance

While the PSCC English Department maintains many formal ways of assuring the quality, consistency, and currency of its course offerings, the main way it guarantees quality is through the informal interaction of faculty members, who participate in constant assessment through conversation in halls, in offices, and via email and other forms of electronic communication. Oftentimes, it is through these casual conversations that active learning strategies are engaged and implemented. Daily, English faculty discuss with one another the real frustrations and genuine accomplishments of the teaching experience; they freely share lessons, assignments, and classroom strategies, which are in turn modified and shared with others. Measuring this most prevalent form of quality assurance is difficult, but it is most easily seen on the departmental D2L Instructor Cafes for ENGL 1010 and 1020. The accumulation of assignments there reflects decades of a collaborative striving for quality.

The department assures the quality of its program through several more formal means as well, of course. Regarding the curriculum, the department establishes the content of a given course through the creation and maintenance of master syllabi, which are regularly reviewed at the departmental level by lead teachers and course-specific committees and, when mandated, at the College level by the Curriculum Development Committee, which works directly with administrators in the Academic Division. Syllabi are written to correlate with TBR general education goals and are reviewed periodically to make certain that course objectives and expected student learning outcomes encourage fulfillment of those goals. The department meets as a whole at the beginning of each semester to reflect upon current practice, discuss the effectiveness of teaching methods and materials, and review suggested changes made to course requirements by lead teachers and course committees.

The PSCC English Department also maintains active committees to consider curricular matters, to discuss ways of increasing student engagement, and to assess the success of its courses. Periodically in department meetings, the dean divides the department into committees according to areas of expertise and interest, thus ensuring that those familiar with the most recent scholarship in applicable areas will help steer the implementation of best practices in the teaching of particular courses. At the August meeting, the dean and program coordinator recruit members for two crucial committees, those that review master syllabi, consider textbooks changes, and write assessments for ENGL 1010 and 1020. Through spring 2012, these committees also scored the assessments. Beginning in fall 2012, the entire full-time faculty met to participate in scoring ENGL 1010 assessments. This has proven to be a valuable change and underscores the department’s commitment to evaluating both its curriculum and methods of assessment.

Information gathering also provides a means of assuring quality. Following each semester, the English Department Dean receives a report from the College's Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Assessment and Planning providing success rates and grade distributions for every course and each individual section, which she can analyze and share with departmental faculty. The faculty members in the English Department tend to be quite cognizant of their individual success rates. The dean also has the opportunity to review grading practices of faculty through the use of student folders in the composition courses. The ENGL 1010 and 1020 classes require students to keep a folder containing all major essays. These folders are collected at the conclusion of each semester and periodically reviewed by the dean.

17

At the administrative level, the department submits annual goals and previous-year results to the College’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Assessment and Planning. The goals, which are both academic and administrative in nature, are articulated by the dean after consulting with faculty and considering their individual goals. In recent years, the academic goals have often been based on areas of weaknesses pinpointed by the course-level assessments. For example, the ENGL 1010 assessments reveal that our students often struggle with the ability “to employ correct diction, syntax, usage, grammar, and mechanics,” a category on the TBR rubric. In 2011-2012 and again in 2012-2013, improving students’ “style and mechanics” in ENGL 1010 has been a departmental goal. (See Appendix F.) With “Satisfactory” ratings consistently in the 50s on the assessment, we have not met our goal. Therefore, we will continue to work on ways to improve students’ understanding and use of the language.

Internal professional development sessions are another avenue for assuring quality. Recently, the department began meeting as a unit to train in new advising and graduation practices. The previous requirement was that individual faculty members attend one of a number of advising workshops offered at the college level. This change ensures that the department will work from a common set of assumptions and directives in advising students. The department also offers workshops on a variety of discipline-specific topics each year, with grading standards always on the agenda at one session. Plagiarism is another frequently addressed issue. In these workshops, full-time and adjunct faculty members collaborate to promote a consistent grading standard across the department and a consistent level of quality when addressing one of the most nettlesome problems in the profession: teaching the correct use of sources in the electronic age. Additionally, the college-wide faculty development committee offers weekly brown-bag workshops that address a wide range of faculty concerns. These are well attended by both full-time and adjunct faculty as part of their required professional development.

Full-time faculty performance is formally monitored in four important ways: classroom observations, student perceptions, annual self-evaluations, and the promotion-tenure process.

Non-tenured full-time faculty members and full-time promotional candidates are observed in the classroom each academic year by the dean. Tenured faculty members undergo annual observations as well, either by a peer or by the dean. For their first six semesters, adjunct faculty members are observed each semester by a full-time faculty member. After three years, the observations can be reduced to once a year, based on the dean’s recommendation. Classroom observations are divided into three categories: classroom presentation, interaction with students, and overall assessment. These observations attempt to ensure effective instruction and adherence to English Department grading standards.

Student input on the instructor and the course is sought every semester for non-tenured and for adjunct faculty members. For the last several years, the Student Perception Survey was conducted in the sections of tenured faculty members’ courses on a set departmental rotation every two years. With the advent of new online student perception software that will be in place in spring 2014, the survey will be available for every section each semester.

Faculty members participate in a yearly self-evaluation that is reviewed by both the English Department Dean and the Vice President of Academic Affairs. This evaluation, written in concert by the Faculty Senate and the Academic Division, is divided into four categories as follows (the percentage of time a faculty member is expected to give to each category is included in parentheses):

18

A. Teaching (65%) B. Service/Outreach (20%)

1) Student Interaction 2) College and Community Service

C. Scholarship/Creative Activities/Research (15%) D. Goals for the coming year and a review of those goals listed in the previous year’s evaluation.

The self-evaluation document can be found at http://www.pstcc.edu/ppm/pdf/06-02-04.pdf. These self-evaluations are submitted in February of each year and returned to faculty members within a month in conference with the departmental dean. Additionally, these categories are explained to each candidate during the hiring process, thus making certain that new faculty members arrive with a correct notion of what is expected of them.

Also explained to new hires and familiar to all full-time faculty is the College’s formal process for applying for promotion through the ranks and for tenure. Our processes, which can be found at http://www.pstcc.edu/ppm/pdf/06-03-00.pdf for promotion and http://www.pstcc.edu/ppm/pdf/06-02-00.pdf for tenure, are based on the TBR policies. Faculty members applying for promotion and tenure complete a portfolio containing a narrative of their teaching, service, and professional development; classroom observations; student perception surveys; and annual evaluations for the required number of years. After the candidates’ colleagues read the portfolio, the candidates meet with the peer group to answer questions. With the candidate not present, the peer group engages in a discussion of his or her professional attributes and then votes. All members of the English Department at PSCC recognize that the promotion/tenure process plays a critical quality assurance role in the academy and approach it with serious consideration of each candidate.

4. Potential Recommendations and Associated Initiatives

In the Overall Performance of this audit report, we identified consistency as one of our department’s greatest challenges. With five campuses, 22 courses, a wide range of delivery methods, approximately 4,000 students per semester, and roughly 60 faculty members, variety is easier to find than consistency. But there are concrete steps we can take to be sure our students fulfill the same set of learning outcomes regardless of campus or instructor. Thus our initiatives seek to improve consistency, increase transparency, and encourage our students to recognize that they must be the authors of their own success. To achieve those goals, the following initiatives are proposed for the upcoming Academic Audit cycle.

Initiative 1

Place greater emphasis on sharing clearly written course learning outcomes with students.

• With department faculty, explore the best ways of achieving this initiative

• Engage students in periodic discussions about their progress toward outcomes

19

Initiative 2

Based on potential changes at the TBR level, work on revitalizing the freshman composition courses, ENGL 1010 and 1020.

• Explore the expansion of the embedded remediation technique begun with ENGL 1030

• Consider developing more consistency in the types of essays assigned in both courses

• Develop a checklist of competencies for student use

Initiative 3

Help shape the expansion of the College’s QEP by emphasizing the vital role student responsibility plays in the learning process. That is, student engagement may begin with active learning strategies employed in the classroom, as “Strong to the Core” suggests, but it also relies heavily on the student’s willingness to learn, participation in the process, and completion of course assignments.

• In our revitalized ENGL 1010 and 1020 courses, include class activities aimed at promoting developing successful academic habits: time management; perseverance; attendance, punctuality, and preparation; and a willingness to seek help

• Place particular emphasis on a timely submission of the first written assignment in composition courses

• Develop professional development sessions aimed at exploring ways to increase student understanding of their role in their own education

20

5. Matrix of Improvement Initiatives

Initiative Objective Who Performance Indicator

When

1. Place greater emphasis on

sharing clearly written course

learning outcomes with

students

To provide students clear guidance on

skills & knowledge they will gain in the course, thereby,

creating increased

motivation for success

Full-time and adjunct

faculty

Awareness of increased attention to learning

outcomes on parts of both faculty and students.

Increased consistency across course sections

Ongoing

2. Based on potential changes at the TBR level,

work on revitalizing the

freshman composition

courses, ENGL 1010 and 1020

To include embedded

remediation for at-risk students.

Full-time and adjunct

faculty

ENGL 1010 and 1020 assessment results; student

success rates

In place for fall 2015

3. Help shape the expansion of the college’s QEP by emphasizing the vital role student

responsibility plays in the

learning process.

To increase student

persistence and success

Full-time and adjunct

faculty

Assessment results; student success rates

Ongoing

21

Appendix A

Academic Audit team leaders and members

Introduction and Potential Recommendations and Improvement Initiatives—Kathy Byrd

Overall Performance—Carol Luther

Focal Area 1: Learning Objectives Annie Gray, leader Teresa Lopez Rob Lloyd Harold Rowland

Focal Area 2: Curriculum and Co-Curriculum Alex Fitzner, leader Robert Boyd Ed Francisco Casey Lambert Elaine Oswald

Focal Area 3: Teaching and Learning Robert Baird and Nicholas Morgan, leaders Lawana Day Tara Lynn Mary Nietling Kelly Rivers Focal Area 4: Student Learning Assessment Sue Yamin, leader Trent Eades Judy Eddy Maggie Jenkins Marty Teffeteller Focal Area 5: Quality Assurance Keith Norris, leader H. L. Ford Patty Ireland John Reaves Heather Schroeder

22

Appendix B

English 1010 Final Assessment Prompt—Fall 12

Medical science has made astounding progress in the last seven decades in the use of donor organs and tissues. The first human kidney transplant took place in 1954, followed by lung and heart transplants in 1963 and 1967, respectively. Cancerous cells taken from Henrietta Lacks in 1951 led to life-saving advances such as the polio vaccine and cancer treatments; donated tissue is now used in skin grafts, joint repair, heart surgery, and other life-enhancing procedures.

With these remarkable successes in surgery and research comes an interesting legal, ethical, and financial question: should donors be able to sell their organs? Thus far in the United States, federal courts have ruled that it is legal for patients to buy bone-marrow cells if the payments benefit scholarships or charitable groups. Might the next step be to permit recipients to purchase organs and donors to sell organs for transplant surgery?

PROMPT: Argue one side of the following question: Should U.S. laws be changed so that organs could be purchased and sold for transplant surgery?

Elements to include:

• Use two or three secondary sources to help you explain this issue and/or to support your argument. (Two sources are attached.)

• Employ a number of audience appeals—logical, emotional, and ethical. • Give your own claims and provide sufficient supporting evidence. • Consider different viewpoints and refute opposition points. • Cite your sources in MLA style and provide a Works Cited page.

Organization:

Introduction: Catch the reader’s attention to this topic in an interesting way; include an argumentative thesis.

Body of Paper (three or four paragraphs): State your claims, give supporting evidence—facts, statistics, authoritative opinions, examples—and disprove the opposing side.

You may prefer to refute the opposition in each body paragraph or to include a refutation in a separate section before your conclusion.

You may decide to begin by addressing the opposition’s arguments and then to follow with a presentation and defense of your position.

Conclusion: Write more than a simple summary of what you have already written. You might save a substantial insight for this final paragraph or project the future outcome of your suggestions.

23

Appendix C

English 1010 Final Assessment Results

Fall Comparisons

% Satisfactory

Appendix D

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Unity Dev Org S and Mech Doc

Fall 10

Fall 11

Fall 12

24

English 1020 Assessment Prompt 2012-2013

Read the following short story and respond to the prompt that follows:

Eleven by Sandra Cisneros.

Page 1

What they don't understand about birthdays and what they never tell you is that when you're eleven, you're also ten, and nine, and eight, and seven, and six, and five, and four, and three, and two, and one. And when you wake up on your eleventh birthday you expect to feel eleven, but you don't. You open your eyes and everything's just like yesterday, only it's today. And you don't feel eleven at all. You feel like you're still ten. And you are—underneath the year that makes you eleven.

Like some days you might say something stupid, and that's the part of you that's still ten. Or maybe some days you might need to sit on your mama's lap because you're scared, and that's the part of you that's five. And maybe one day when you're all grown up maybe you will need to cry like if you're three, and that's okay. That's what I tell Mama when she's sad and needs to cry. Maybe she's feeling three.

Because the way you grow old is kind of like an onion or like the rings inside a tree trunk or like my little wooden dolls that fit one inside the other, each year inside the next one. That's how being eleven years old is. You don't feel eleven. Not right away. It takes a few days, weeks even, sometimes even months before you say eleven when they ask you. And you don't feel smart eleven, not until you're almost twelve. That's the way it is.

Only today I wish I didn't have only eleven years rattling inside me like pennies in a tin Band-Aid box. Today I wish I was one hundred and two instead of eleven because if I was one hundred and two I'd have known what to say when Mrs. Price put the red sweater on my desk. I would've known how to tell her it wasn't mine instead of just sitting there with that look on my face and nothing coming out of my mouth.

"Whose is this?" Mrs. Price says, and she holds the red sweater up in the air for all the class to see. "Whose? It's been sitting in the coatroom for a month."

"Not mine," says everybody, "Not me."

"It has to belong to somebody," Mrs. Price keeps saying, but nobody can remember. It's an ugly sweater with red plastic buttons and a collar and sleeves all stretched out like you could use it for a jump rope. It's maybe a thousand years old, and even if it belonged to me, I wouldn't say so.

Maybe because I'm skinny, maybe because she doesn't like me, that stupid Sylvia Saldivar says, "I think it belongs to Rachel." An ugly sweater like that all raggedy and old, but Mrs. Price believes her. Mrs Price takes the sweater and puts it right on my desk, but when I open my mouth nothing comes out.

"That's not, I don't, you're not . . . Not mine." I finally say in a little voice that was maybe me when I was four.

"Of course it's yours," Mrs. Price says. "I remember you wearing it once." Because she's older and the teacher, she's right and I'm not.

Not mine, not mine, not mine, but Mrs. Price is already turning to page thirty-two, and math problem number four. I don't know why but all of a sudden I'm feeling sick inside, like the part of me that's three wants to come out of my eyes, only I squeeze them shut tight and bite down on my teeth real hard and try to remember today I am eleven, eleven. Mama is making a cake for me for tonight, and when Papa comes home everybody will sing happy birthday, happy birthday to you.

But when the sick feeling goes away, and I open my eyes, the red sweater's still sitting there like a big red mountain. I move the red sweater to the corner of my desk with my ruler. I move my pencil and books and eraser as far from it as possible. I even move my chair a little to the right. Not mine, not mine, not mine. In my head I'm thinking how long till lunchtime, how long till I can take the red sweater and throw it over the schoolyard fence, or

25

leave it hanging on a parking meter, or bunch it up into a little ball and toss it in the alley. Except when math period ends Mrs. Price says loud and in front of everybody, "Now, Rachel, that's enough," because she sees I've shoved the red sweater to the tippy-tip corner of my desk and it's hanging all over the edge like a waterfall, but I don't care.

"Rachel," Mrs. Price says. She says it like she's getting mad. "You put that sweater on right now and no more nonsense."

Page 2

"But it's not—"

"Now!" Mrs. Price says.

This is when I wish I wasn't eleven because all the years inside of me—ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, and one—are pushing at the back of my eyes when I put one arm through one sleeve of the sweater that smells like cottage cheese, and then the other arm through the other and stand there with my arms apart like if the sweater hurts me and it does, all itchy and full of germs that aren't even mine.

That's when everything I've been holding in since this morning, since when Mrs. Price put the sweater on my desk, finally lets go, and all of a sudden I'm crying in front of everybody. I wish I was invisible but I'm not. I'm eleven and it's my birthday today and I'm crying like I'm three in front of everybody. I put my head down on the desk and bury my face in my stupid clown-sweater arms. My face all hot and spit coming out of my mouth because I can't stop the little animal noises from coming out of me until there aren't any more tears left in my eyes, and it's just my body shaking like when you have the hiccups, and my whole head hurts like when you drink milk too fast.

But the worst part is right before the bell rings for lunch. That stupid Phyllis Lopez, who is even dumber than Sylvia Saldivar, says she remembers the red sweater is hers! I take it off right away and give it to her, only Mrs. Price pretends like everything's okay.

Today I'm eleven. There's a cake Mama's making for tonight and when Papa comes home from work we'll eat it. There'll be candles and presents and everybody will sing happy birthday, happy birthday to you, Rachel, only it's too late.

I'm eleven today. I'm eleven, ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, and one, but I wish I was one hundred and two. I wish I was anything but eleven, because I want today to be far away already, far away like a runaway balloon, like a tiny o in the sky, so tiny- tiny you have to close your eyes to see it.

Writing Prompt Question

Consider the metaphor Rachael uses in paragraph 3 to describe her epiphany: “Because the way you grow old is kind of like an onion or like the rings inside a tree trunk or like my little wooden dolls that fit one inside the other, each year inside the next one.”

Briefly discuss the nature of her epiphany and how it has changed her.

--------------------------------------------

General Instructions and Reminders

Treat this response like a body paragraph with a topic sentence. You do not need a separate introduction to the paragraph but do indicate the author and title in your topic sentence.

26

Develop your paragraph with details and analysis. You must quote at least once from the short story and give a parenthetical citation in MLA format. You may quote other words and phrases from the excerpt, but most of the words in this analytical paragraph must be your own.

A well-developed body paragraph should contain about ten to twelve substantial sentences or around 250 words.

27

Appendix E

Report on 1020 Final Exam Scoring, Fall 2013

(Papers submitted in Spring 2013)

September 16, 2013

6 Scorers: Baird, Day, Luther, Pharr, Reaves, Yamin

Time: 3:00 – 5:45 (About 2 hours 45 minutes)

Field: Instructors were asked to randomly select 25 percent of final exams given. Two hundred seventeen papers were submitted for scoring. These were sorted to include papers from all instructors who submitted papers; then 80 papers were selected for scoring.

Method: Because all scorers were experienced, no range finders were discussed. There was

some discussion as questions came up. Efficiency: When two scorers disagreed in any category, a third reader was required. Of the

80 papers scored, 35 (44 percent) required a third reader. Twenty-five of these had disagreement s in one category; ten had disagreements in two. In other words, the scorers agreed 195 times (81 percent) and disagreed 45 times (19 percent).

Results: Papers were rated as Adequate or Inadequate in each of three categories:

Writing about a Character, Quoting/Paraphrasing, and Punctuating a Title. Fifty-five papers (69 percent) were rated Adequate in Writing about a Character; 25 (31 percent) were rated Inadequate. Forty-six papers (58 percent) were rated Adequate in Quoting/Paraphrasing; 34 (42 percent) were rated Inadequate. Seventy-seven papers (96 percent) were rated Adequate in Punctuating a Title; three (4 percent) were rated Inadequate. (See table on page 2.)

Results of 1020 Final Exam Scoring, Fall 2013

28

Adequate Percent

Adequate

Inadequate Percent Inadequate

Understand and write about a character in a literary work

55

69

25

31

Quote/Paraphrase from assigned readings when writing analyses

46

58

34

42

Punctuate title of short story correctly in written work

77

96

3

4

80 papers were scored.

29

Appendix F

Planning Goal Outcomes and Uses 2011 – 2012

Name of Person Completing Form: Kathryn A. Byrd

E-mail: kbyrd@pstcc.edu

Phone #: 865.539.7327

Reviewed by:

Name of Department or Program: English Department

Mission or Philosophy: The mission of the English Department is to enable students to appreciate the beauty and power of language and to use it effectively.

Departmental Budget (please use your 2010 – 2011 budget as a basis for 2011 – 2012 annual planning):

2011 – 2012 Action Plan Goal 1:

Goal: To improve ENGL 1010 students’ ability to develop essays adequately, i.e., to provide sufficient evidence for their claims

Objective (Quantify): In the “development” category of the TBR-approved scoring rubric, ENGL 1010 assessment results for fall 11 and spring 12 will reach a 70% or higher satisfactory rating.

Action Plan:

• In fall 11 and spring 12, English 1010 faculty will administer the Tennessee Board of Regents approved assessment as the final writing assignment for the course.

• Using the TBR rubric, which identifies “development” as one of the categories, a departmental committee will rate the essays.

• Results will be tabulated and reported to English Department faculty for discussion about possible improvement strategies.

Outcomes Achieved with Evidence (Quantify): In fall 11, 70.3% of randomly selected student assessment essays were rated satisfactory in the “developmental” category of the TBR rubric. Thus, the objective for this learning outcome was achieved.

Source of Assessment (Analysis of Outcomes-What did you use to determine the outcomes): The ENGL 1010 assessment essays and the TBR rubric

Use of Outcomes (What are your future plans as result of these outcomes): The results will be communicated to ENGL Department faculty members and discussed in ENGL 1010 planning meetings. Since the target of 70% competence was reached, emphasis of instruction will shift to other writing skills listed on the TBR assessment rubric.

Evidence (Actual document/source/example): The report of the ENGL 1010 assessment committee

30

Improvement (Describe improvement as a result of this goal): Satisfactory rating for “development” improved 28% from spring 11 assessment results.

2011 – 2012 Action Plan Goal 2:

Goal: To improve English 1010 students’ understanding and use of correct grammar, punctuation, and mechanics

Objective: In 2011-12, 70% of English 1010 assessment essays will receive a minimum rating of satisfactory in the “style/mechanics” category.

Action Plan:

• In fall 11 and spring 12, English 1010 faculty will administer the Tennessee Board of Regents approved assessment as the final writing assignment for the course.

• Using the TBR rubric, which identifies “style/mechanics” as one of the categories, a departmental committee will rate the essays.

• Results will be tabulated and reported to English Department faculty for discussion about possible improvement strategies.

Outcomes Achieved with Evidence (Quantify): Assessment results from fall 11 revealed that 58.3% of student essays received a satisfactory rating in the “style/mechanics” category, which is 11.7% below the stated objective.

Source of Assessment (Analysis of Outcomes-What did you use to determine the outcomes): ENGL 1010 assessment essays and the TBR rubric

Use of Outcomes (What are your future plans as result of these outcomes): The results will be discussed in department meetings in an effort to enhance instruction regarding style and mechanics.

Evidence (Actual document/source/example): The report of the ENGL 1010 assessment committee

Improvement (Describe improvement as a result of this goal): Although the target goal of 70% satisfactory ratings was not reached in fall 11, the 58.3% satisfactory for that semester represents a dramatic improvement over the spring 11 assessment results, which revealed only a 32% satisfactory rating in the “style/mechanics” category.