English 102: 2019-2020 – JSCC Monitoring Report SACSCOC

ENGLISH 102 2019-2020

Intended Outcomes	Means of Assessment	Criteria for Success	Summary & Analysis of Assessment Evidence	Use of Results
SLO 1: Students will communicate a stance on a subject by writing a unified specific thesis for a literary based analysis composition.	Evaluation 1: Essay with a thesis that carefully directs the ideas of the paper and accurately predicts the structure of the paper. The assessment was administered at both the beginning and end of the semester.	Eval 1: 70% of students’ essays meet a satisfactory level on the rubric, and there is at least a 5% positive student achievement change from beginning to end paper assessed.	Fall 2019-Summer 2020: 82% of students wrote a satisfactory level or above thesis for the beginning paper. 90% of students wrote a satisfactory level or above thesis for the ending paper. Number of Students Assessed : 410 students assessed for a beginning paper and 369 students assessed for an ending paper / 17 sections Annual Summary Shelby: 163/197 (82%) beginning paper 163/181 (90%) ending paper Jefferson: 32/34 (94%) beginning paper 18/24 (75%) ending paper Clanton: 57/71 (80%) beginning paper 53/56 (95%) ending paper Pell City: 32/42 (76%) beginning paper 36/42 (86%) ending paper DE Off Campus: 53/66 (80%) beginning paper 63/66 (95%) ending paper	Observations/Changes based on previous cycle (18-19): This SLO was changed slightly beginning this new three-year assessment cycle to focus on communication and clarifying the type of writing in ENG 101 separate from that done in ENG 102. In this year, there was an 8% improvement illustrating an upward movement in student success. Students in ENG 102 practice writing skills that are literary in focus. To aid students in more rigorous literary analytical writing, instructors added some of the following brainstorming activities: Character Analysis brainstorming exercises, Theme Analysis brainstorming exercises, or Theory Analysis brainstorming exercises. Overall, each campus experienced at least a 5% growth in success on the final assessment, save one campus; instructors in that area noted students struggled with the second assessment because it analyzed two plays and was more rigorous than the first assessment – this struggle with comparative literary writing will be addressed for the future. Observations/Changes based on current cycle (19-20): The department recognizes that at this next level composition class that leads to the literature classes, students should be performing this SLO consistently at a higher success rate and will look to raise success rates. For next year, the department will look at raising the criteria for success to 80% and at least a 5% positive student achievement change from beginning to ending paper. To aid students struggling with comparative literary writing, instructors will add one of the following new activities: specific thesis peer review workshops, freewriting or journaling for thesis foundations, formal outline development, or teacher revision workshops.
SLO 2: Students will communicate details of a subject by writing an essay with a unified and clear organization for a literary based analysis composition.	Evaluation 2: Essay includes an introductory paragraph that contains a thesis sentence, body paragraphs that show coherence of ideas and a concluding paragraph that reaffirms main points and ties the paper together. The assessment was administered at both the beginning and end of the semester.	Eval 2: 70% of students’ essays meet a satisfactory level on the rubric, and there is at least a 5% positive student achievement change from beginning to end paper assessed	Fall 2019-Summer 2020: 80% of students wrote a satisfactory level or above unified and clearly organized body in the beginning essay. 88% of students wrote a satisfactory level or above unified and clearly organized body in the ending essay. Number of Students Assessed : 410 students assessed for a beginning paper and 369 students assessed for an ending paper / 17 sections Annual Summary Shelby: 151/197 (77%) beginning paper 161/181 (89%) ending paper Jefferson: 24/34 (71%) beginning paper 16/24 (67%) ending paper Clanton: 64/71 (90%) beginning paper 49/56 (88%) ending paper Pell City: 31/42 (74%) beginning paper 36/42 (86%) ending paper DE Off Campus: 56/66 (85%) beginning paper 63/66 (95%) ending paper	Observations/Changes based on previous cycle (18-19): This SLO was changed slightly beginning this new three-year assessment cycle to focus on communication and clarifying the type of writing in ENG 101 separate from that done in ENG 102. In this year, there was an 8% improvement illustrating an upward movement in student success. Two different examples of revision process work instructors used this year helped students understand how to develop more than just grammatical changes – they helped students revise their organization and content. Three campuses experienced at least 5% growth in student success from the beginning paper to the ending paper assessed. Two campuses that experienced a 2%-4% decrease in success identified comparative analysis (a more difficult skill than single work analysis) as the skill where students struggled. Observations/Changes based on current cycle (19-20): The department recognizes that at this next level composition class that leads to the literature classes, students should be performing this SLO consistently at a higher success rate and will look to raise success rates. For next year, the department will look at raising the criteria for success to 80% and at least a 5% positive student achievement change from beginning to ending paper. To aid students in more rigorous literary comparative and analytical writing, instructors will add one of the following changes/activities to the semester drafting process: using more rigorous or comparative assignments throughout the semester instead of just the final one, using example essays focusing on literary analysis development, formal and full outline development, or instructor workshops.
SLO 3: Students will locate, critically assess, and correctly integrate primary and secondary sources into a literary based analysis composition.	Evaluation 3: Essay with an ability to analyze a work or idea that involves research and the incorporation of both primary and acceptable secondary sources, properly documented according to MLA standards.	Eval 3: 70% of students’ essays meet a satisfactory level on the rubric for at least one composition using primary and secondary sources.	Fall 2019-Summer 2020: 86% of students achieved a satisfactory level or above in locating, assessing, and integrating primary and secondary sources in one composition essay. Number of Students Assessed : 369 students assessed for one paper with primary and secondary sources / 17 sections Annual Summary Shelby: 155/181 (86%) Jefferson: 20/24 (83%) Clanton: 45/56 (80%) Pell City: 36/42 (86%) DE Off Campus: 61/66 (92%)	Observations/Changes based on previous cycle (18-19): This SLO was changed slightly beginning this new three-year assessment cycle to focus on critical thinking and clarifying the type of writing in ENG 101 separate from that done in ENG 102. In this year, there was a 1% improvement from the previous year illustrating an upward movement in student success. All campuses met the 70% success rate, but it is clear that the department was not consistent in utilizing practice with multiple rigorous assignments (meaning use of both primary and secondary sources in several assignments). An example of added independent research skills practice is seen in multiple library workdays on the provided syllabus. This helped students have guided interactions throughout the semester to become more independent researchers. Observations/Changes based on current cycle (19-20): The department recognizes that at this next level composition class that leads to the literature classes, students should be performing this SLO consistently at a higher success rate and will look to raise success rates. For next year, the department will raise the criteria for success to 80% and at least a 5% positive student achievement change from beginning to ending paper. The department will also look at more consistently assessing two assignments that require both primary and secondary sources. Instructors will add one additional activity or scaffolding assignment exemplified below to aid in finding, assessing, integrating and citing primary and secondary sources for literary analysis: using the JSCC Library tutorials for literary critical articles, using an annotated bibliography as a scaffolding assignment, using a new method of evaluating sources, using integration worksheets/exercises or examples for practice, in-class journaling, or discussion postings or in-class talks presenting primary/secondary source connections.