· Web viewAligning and Assessing our Efforts to Improve Student Writing in Composition and...

Aligning and Assessing our Efforts toImprove Student Writing in Composition and Collegiate Seminar

Introduction and Background The Composition/Seminar Alignment Project attempted to assess how assignments and activities in the English 4: Composition and Collegiate Seminar 1: Critical Strategies and Great Questions parallel and support one another.

The Composition Program at Saint Mary’s College is designed to introduce students to the practices and protocols of college writing and to help them develop the thinking, reading, and writing skills necessary to analyze texts, to construct sound written arguments, and to conduct basic research and information evaluation. As a result of their taking English 4 (the first course of a two-course Composition sequence that is required of all Saint Mary’s students), students will have 1) Examined their own and others’ assumptions; 2) Engaged in intellectual discovery through the writing process; 3) Engaged in a systematic analysis of a topic; 4) Investigated a topic through writing and research; and 5) Analyzed a text through close reading. Each of these learning outcomes for English 4 are supported by engagement with primary and/or secondary texts; a series of skill-building activities and writing assignments; and a carefully scaffolded writing process that gradually leads to a completed essay.

The Collegiate Seminar Program seeks to engage Saint Mary's students in a critical and collaborative encounter with the world of ideas as expressed in great texts of the Western tradition in dialogue with and exposure to its encounter with other traditions. The Program seeks to help students develop as curious, thoughtful members of an intellectual community. Designed to serve the College’s goals of a liberal education, the Program strives to put students in possession of their powers to think clearly, critically and collaboratively, and articulate their ideas effectively—powers that will serve them for the rest of their lives. Students enroll in the first course of the sequence, Critical Strategies and Great Questions (Seminar 1) during the Spring of the freshmen year, after having completed English 4. The curriculum is designed to build upon the writing skills developed in English 4 in various ways. Both courses share the Habits of Mind learning outcomes associated with Written and Oral communication.

This project grew out of the ongoing efforts to align the teaching of writing across the Composition Program and Collegiate Seminar. With the start of the new Core Curriculum in Fall 2012, freshmen began moving from English 4 in the fall to Seminar 1 in the spring. Students’ progress in meeting the Habits of Mind Learning Goals, in particular, Written and Oral Communication, is to be developmental. Hence the writing done in the programs should be aligned, by which we mean a two-way street: Writing instruction in English 4 should benefit students in Seminar 1 and be, in part, directed toward the writing done in Seminar 1. Conversely, the writing and writing instruction in Seminar 1 should grow out of that in English 4. This need for alignment prompted a more formal connection between Composition and Seminar, and this work grows out of that connection.

The project responded, thus, first, to the problem of alignment. In the past, instruction and student learning expectations varied not only between Composition and Seminar but also within these programs. While some alignment work had taken place within Composition and Seminar, this work needed to be reexamined in light of the new Core. It is in this new context that the need for the two programs to complement one another was explored.

Seminar-Composition Alignment Assessment 11/20/20141

Secondly, this project responded to the need for student learning assessment. Similar to the case of alignment, both Composition and Seminar have employed assessment strategies in the past. What was new was conducting assessment that related Composition to Seminar in a way that measures how well the two programs are complementing one another—again, in the context of the new Core.

The goals of this project were: Align instruction and student learning expectations within Composition and Seminar in the interest

of effectiveness. Align instruction and student learning expectations across Composition and Seminar in the interest

of effectiveness. Assess student learning within and across these two programs and plan for improvement.

The project’s overarching assessment questions thus centered on effectiveness and improvement: To what extent are the Composition and Seminar programs effectively aligned in attaining the Core’s learning outcomes for writing? How can this alignment be more effective? How can student learning improve as a result of better alignment?

Conclusions(Please see the final section for the complete conclusions.)The assessment results indicate there is successful teaching and learning of writing in English 4 and Seminar 1, with many and diverse writing activities occurring in these courses. The new Common syllabus in English 4, and Seminar Formation process are likely responsible for some of this.

Recommendations(Please see the final section for complete recommendations.)1) The Seminar Formation process should continue, and should be complemented by a “Composition Formation” process. 2) The programs should work to create a consistent vocabulary around writing and the writing process.3) The programs should unify the variety of informal writing techniques (e.g., exploratory, free-writing) under an umbrella, such as “Writing as learning”.

TimelineSummer of AY 2011-12:

Project initiation, conception, and planning by leadership team. This team consisted of Lisa Manter (Director, English Composition), Jose Feito (Director, Collegiate Seminar), Tereza Kramer (Director, Center for Writing Across the Curriculum), Chris Procello (Director of Educational Effectiveness), and Jim Sauerberg (Chair, Core Curriculum Committee) and took a collaborative and participatory approach to the project.

Fall of AY 2012-13: Members of the leadership team shared and discussed project plan with key stakeholders,

including English Department, Composition faculty, and the Seminar Governing Board and Seminar faculty.

Directors of Composition and Seminar met regularly to discuss alignment issues.Spring of AY 2012-13:

Directors of Composition and Seminar continued to discuss alignment, making progress on action items.

Updates on alignment and the assessment project were provided to Composition and Seminar faculty, and a short survey on their understanding of the project was given.


Members of the leadership team met to discuss details of the assessment plan, in connection to campus visit by Bill Macauley, Associate Professor of English and Director of University Writing Center, University of Nevada, Reno.

Fall and Spring of AY 2013-14: Three-part assessment survey was administered. Faculty directors of Composition and Seminar programs were interviewed about the process of

alignment.Fall of AY 2014-15:

Report finalized and shared with constituencies: Seminar, Composition and Core Curriculum

This report was first drafted by Chris Procello and shared with the members of the Habits of Mind Working Group (Feito, Kramer, Procello, Sauerberg, Sue Fallis, Kathryn Koo, Aeleah Soine, Sharon Walters). It was then edited and revised by Jim Sauerberg, shared with Feito and Koo, before being again reviewed and endorsed by the Habits of Mind Working Group.

Alignment of Composition and SeminarThe current, learning goal-based Core Curriculum, adopted in Spring 2009, functionally calls for the alignment between the Seminar and Composition programs. The Core’s Habits of Mind learning area includes a goal for written and oral communication, along with four related learning outcomes (see Appendix A). This goal and these outcomes became the framework for development of shared learning expectations for the two programs; by Fall 2011, both programs had aligned their learning outcomes with the Core (see Appendix B & C for program learning outcomes). During academic year 2011-12, the conversation on alignment between these programs moved beyond learning outcomes to specific texts, assignments, and tools for assessment. John Trimble’s Writing with Style, for example, had been selected as a common text for the two programs and a common syllabus and rubric were under discussion.

During Summer 2012, Lisa Manter (Director, Composition), Jose Fieto (Director, Collegiate Seminar), Jim Sauerberg (Chair, Core Curriculum Committee), Chris Procello (Director of Educational Effectiveness), and other members of the Core Curriculum Committee met to formalize this alignment. An initial plan was developed for a two-stage project. With overarching questions centering on educational effectiveness and improvement, the project was to begin with completing the foundational elements of aligning English 4 and Seminar 1 so that, ultimately, the two programs better complemented one another. (While the term “complemented” was left undefined, it was understood to mean that some of the skills and habits of English 4 would be used and developed in Seminar 1, as well as that some of the skills and habits needed in Seminar 1 would be introduced in English 4.) The second stage was to involve assessing student learning across these two programs and planning for improvement.

It should be pointed out that this alignment is not limited to only instruction and student learning expectations across Composition and Seminar but, in the interest of effectiveness, alignment within these programs as well. This internal alignment, i.e., the attempt to provide for a more consistent learning experience across different sections of Seminar and across different sections of Composition, has primarily taken the form of faculty training and development. Since Spring 2012, Composition has organized trainings for their instructors on the new common syllabus and shared Trimble text and more general trainings for all English 4 instructors on how the program is evolving. Composition’s goal was to have all of its instructors aware of and in compliance with these changes by the end of academic year 2013-14. Seminar’s Governing Board began discussion of programmatic changes to foster internal alignment in Spring 2012—kicking off a “culture shift” within the program—and, more recently,


organized trainings for Seminar faculty on how changes within Composition (e.g., the common syllabus and rubric, writing instruction in English 4) impact changes within Seminar. During the 2013-14 academic year, Seminar focused especially on a single assignment: the self-reflective essay. The assignment is now mandatory across all Seminar courses. In addition to trainings on this assignment, Seminar instructors have participated in an assessment of this assignment, which has led to a deepening of their understanding of it.

This alignment project has been led by Jose Fieto, Ellen Rigsby and Lisa Manter, and has benefited from their comfortable working relationships. Their meetings have been mainly “organic”, an outgrowth of near-daily communication as opposed to being based on regularly-scheduled meetings. And their meetings have been inclusive: Hilda Ma (Associate Professor, English) and Katherine Field (Adjunct Professor, Composition) from English and Composition have played important roles, including designing and leading the 2013-14 workshops for Composition faculty. Sandra Grayson (Professor, English), Rashaan Meneses (Adjunct Professor, Justice and Community Leadership and Collegiate Seminar), Jennifer Heung (Associate Professor, Anthropology), and Michael Lisanti (Lecturer, Collegiate Seminar) have been key to implementing changes within Seminar.

Beyond the alignment of program learning outcomes and expectations, the collective effort of these faculty over the last several years has had multiple impacts: A shared rubric (see Appendix D). While Seminar adopted in the early 2000s the writing rubric

Composition had developed, the two programs revised this rubric in the context of the new Core. Recent revisions have focused on broadening its use by eliminating disciplinary-specific jargon.

A common syllabus (see Appendix E). Creation of this syllabus has led to further development of assignments—and the decision that these assignments will be skill based. For example, skills, such as self-reflection, are developed in assignments given in English 4 and built upon in Seminar 1.

The alignment project made clear that shared inquiry, a Core Curriculum leaning goal and one of the defining features of Seminar, should be sequentially developed. Now, shared inquiry will be introduced in English 4 (as opposed to being introduced in Seminar) so that students can immediately engage in this type of inquiry and discussion.

An empirical, systematic investigation of shared inquiry. In 2014, Ellen Rigsby released a report demonstrating the value of this learning outcome within Seminar, the first of its kind.

An emphasis on the transferability of knowledge and skills. While this learning expectation is not currently a Core learning goal, it has emerged as central to the alignment project. Specifically, the aim of writing skills taught in English 4 being “valued and rewarded” in Seminar 1 has become a centerpiece of this project.


Survey Background and DesignThe assessment of student learning based in this alignment took the form of a survey. Of the Core’s learning outcomes for oral and written communication, the survey focused on the fourth outcome: “ Use the process of writing to enhance intellectual discovery and unravel complexities of thought.” And instead of focusing on the entire outcome statement, it concentrated on just a portion of it: “Use the process of writing.” (See Appendix A for the statements of Core learning goals.)

During Summer 2013, a preliminary survey instrument was developed for students in both Composition and Seminar that operationalized “the process of writing” at SMC; for example, how students approach the writing process, the role of research in the writing process, and how evidence is considered during the writing process. This preliminary instrument was then developed into three surveys: a pre-survey to be administered at the beginning of Composition courses, a post-survey to be administered at the end of these Composition courses, and a second post-survey to be administered at the end of the following term’s Seminar courses. These surveys were primarily developed by the SMC Writing Coordinator, with input from the Composition and Seminar program directors and the Director of Educational Effectiveness. Survey questions were divided into two main sections: skill-building writing activities and a composite section dealing with the process of writing and (a) critical thinking, (b) written communication, (c) information evaluation and research practice, and (d) the Collegiate Seminar program. (See Appendix G for the surveys.)

The Composition pre-survey was administered during the second and third week of Fall 2013 classes in all English 3, 4, and 5 courses, courses primarily composed of incoming freshmen. The survey was paper-based and administered during class time. The paper-based Composition post-survey was administered to students in the same English 3, 4, and 5 courses in class during the thirteenth and fourteenth week of the Fall 2013 term. The Seminar post-survey was administered to the students in all Seminar 1 and 120 courses at the end of the Spring 2014 semester, during the fourteenth and fifteenth weeks. In contrast to the Composition surveys, the Seminar survey was online and based on the Qualtrics program. Students completed this survey both in and out of class.

Data from the paper surveys was manually entered into Excel then imported into SPSS. Data from the online survey was imported into SPPS. A repeated measures design was used to discern significant changes across the three surveys. The primary limitation of this approach, as applied to this project, stems from the unequal numbers of respondents across the surveys. Roughly half the students responded to the Seminar post-survey compared to the Composition pre- and post-surveys. The repeated measures design requires an equal number of respondents across its time points, thus it used the relatively smaller number of respondents from the Seminar post-survey to determine the number of respondents from the Composition surveys. For the repeated measures results then, roughly half the data from the Composition surveys are not accounted for. Nonetheless, these results are worth consideration as a first, initial step in exploring learning and alignment across the two programs.

Survey ResultsThe survey questionnaire was divided into two sections, the first asking about skill-building writing activities and the second being a composite of questions dealing with the process of writing. For the both sections, the rating scale was the same: “Never”, “Rarely”, “Sometimes”, “Most of the Time”, and “Always”. During the analysis, “Never” was converted to “1”, “Rarely” to “2”, “Sometimes” to “3”, “Most of the Time” to “4”, and “Always” to “5”. The higher the score, the greater the frequency of the activity being practiced. The charts below give the “mean student response”, i.e., the average of numbers corresponding to the student responses.


Section One: Skill Building Writing ActivitiesThe questions in the first section asked how frequently Composition or Seminar courses: required free-writing, required drafting, required revision(s), provided grammar instruction, used peer review, required informal writing, used close reading, used pre-writing, and required in-class writing. A repeated measures design was used to test for significant changes across the three applications of the surveys. For the 316 students for whom we had data across all three surveys, only the change from the Composition pre-survey to the Composition post-survey was significant (p = .002).

Next, each of the skill-building writing activities was examined. For the 316 students for whom we had data across all three surveys, means across the three surveys are presented with repeated measures results. The repeated measures results show the relationships and levels of significance. A line graph based on the averages follows. (Again, see Appendix G for the surveys.)

Table 1. Averages and significant changes across time for skill-building activitiesActivity Composition pre-

survey (N=316)Compositionpost-survey (N=316)

Seminarpost-survey (N=316)

Require free-writing 2.97

2.99 3.43 (p = .000)Require drafting 3.97

4.26 (p = .000) 3.86Require revision(s) 3.99

4.06 3.7 (p = .001)Provide grammar instruction

3.47

3.53 2.79 (p = .000)Use peer review 3.46

4.04 (p = .000) 3.05 (p = .000)Require informal writing 2.76

3.13 (p = .000) 3.72 (p = .000)Use close reading 3.39

3.81 (p = .000) 4.51 (p = .000)Use pre-writing 3

3.42 (p = .000) 3.4 (p = .000)Require in-class writing 3.62

2.87 (p = .000) 3 (p = .000)

Commentary on Results: The educational goals of Composition and Seminar are related but are not identical, and the numerical results should be evaluated with this in mind. For example, both English 4 and Seminar 1 involve the close reading of texts, with this being a larger part of Seminar. The numerical averages reflect this, and so can be viewed as ‘expected.’ Conversely, activities that students might view


as “grammar instruction” are much more common in English 4, and, again, the student response numbers reflect this. Hence, we cannot simply interpret ‘increase in value’ with ‘good,’ but must evaluate the results based upon our understanding of the goals and purposes of these programs. Arrows in the chart appear with the results are statistically significant.

Interpretation of Results: The numerical averages generally reflect the Habits of Mind Working Group’s understanding of the emphases English 4 and Seminar 1 put on the various skill-building activities. Drafting, revisions, peer review and close reading should occur frequently in English 4, and the results suggest students believe this is the case. We (the member of the Habits of Mind Working Group) interpret this as evidence that many of the writing activities we expect to occur in English 4 are occurring. Similarly we interpret the results for close reading, and for drafting, revisions and informal writing in the Seminar column as indications that Seminar students are engaging in the appropriate skill-building activities. In evaluative terms, we view the results as ‘good.’

We would have expected the numbers for the various specific non-formal writing numbers ( free-writing, pre-writing, in-class) to be more similar. We believe this shows a lack of aligned language, internally within both Seminar and Composition, and across the Composition-Seminar sequence. Meaning, we suspect that many instructors are having their students engage in similar activities (e.g. a brief informal writing session before the class conversation begins) but calling these activities by different names. We also suspect that ‘writing as learning’ is not happening universally in Composition. In a similar language concern, it was noted that the phrase peer review refers both to professional-level journal articles (discussed in English 5) and to the activity in which students read each others papers (occurring in English 4 and the Center for Writing Across the Curriculum (CWAC)), and that this could have caused student confusion. We recommend that Composition and Seminar instructors be brought together on a regular basis to discuss the use of writing as a means to intellectual discovery.

Section Two: Other Writing ActivitiesThe questionnaire’s second section was a composite. It combined questions dealing with (a) critical thinking, (b) written communication, (c) information evaluation and research practice, and (d) the Collegiate Seminar program. Before moving into these subsections, the below table shows combined averages for this section as a whole to begin exploration of learning gains across the surveys:

The second section shows an increase in the numerical averages across all questions. These gains were confirmed by the repeated measures analysis: For the 316 students for whom we had data across all three surveys, two significant changes were found, from the Composition pre-survey to the post-survey (p = .000) and from the Composition pre-survey to the Seminar post-survey (p = .000).

Critical Thinking-related Writing ActivitiesThe following table examines critical thinking, again with means, relationships and levels of significance.

Table 2: Averages and significant changes across time for critical thinking activitiesActivity Composition

pre-survey (N=316)

Composition post-survey (N=316)

Seminar post-survey (N=316)

Examine assumptions (examples: an evaluation or critique; compare/contrast essay)

3.36

3.77 (p = .000) 3.8 (p = .000)


Engage in intellectual discovery through the writing process (eg: exploratory essay; free-writing exercises)

3.45

3.64 (p = .02) 4.02 (p = .000)Engage in systematic analysis (examples: cause/effect essay; evaluation or critique; compare/contrast essay)

3.35

3.78 (p = .000) 3.86 (p = .000)Investigate a topic (example: investigative essay) 3.22

3.47 (p = .003) 3.59 (p = .000)Analyze a text through close reading (eg: literary essay) 3.96

3.94 4.36 (p = .000)Build upon the skills used in early essays 3.64

4.08 (p = .000) 3.8Show an awareness of multiple, competing viewpoints 3.8

3.94 4.43 (p = .000)Reflect on the assumptions of others and one's own assumptions on a topic

3.31

3.78 (p = .000) 4.26 (p = .000)Seek and identify confirming and opposing evidence relevant to one’s own hypothesis

3.53

3.74 (p = .007) 4.24 (p = .000)

Interpretation of Results:Again, the numbers generally reflect our understanding of what should be occurring in these courses, and again we view the results as ‘good.’ In particular, the several numbers above 4 in the Seminar column suggest our desired strong emphasis on those skills is occurring.

While the numbers in the Composition post-survey column indicate these activities are ‘mostly’ occurring (the values tend to be near 4), we believe that some activities ( investigate a topic, show awareness of multiple viewpoints, reflect on assumptions, seek evidence) should be occurring more frequently. We are interested in better understanding this. Similarly, while students mostly build upon the skills used in writing Seminar essays, we would like to consider ways of strengthening this part of the developmental nature of this course.

Communication Related Writing Activities:

Table 3: Averages and significant changes across time for written communication activitiesActivity Composition

pre-survey(N=316)

Composition post-survey(N=316)

Seminar post-survey (N=316)

Engage in intellectual discovery through the writing process (eg: exploratory essay; free-writing exercises)

3. 45


3.35

3.78 (p = .000) 3.86 (p = .000)


Investigate a topic (example: investigative essay) 3.22

3.47 (p = .003) 3.59 (p = .000)Build upon the skills used in early essays 3.64

4.08 (p = .000) 3.8Use the resulting thesis to structure a well-reasoned and well-supported essay, characterized by clear and careful organization, coherent paragraphs and well-constructed sentences that employ the conventions of Standard Written English and appropriate diction

4.34

4.28 4.16 (p = .003)

Interpretation of Results:Most of these questions were discussed above. We were struck by small decline across time for the final question, and posit that students interpreted this question as referencing the heavy emphasis on the formulaic (“five paragraph essay”) that occurs in high school, and the comparative lack of such a demand at Saint Marys’.

Information Evaluation and Research Practices related Writing Activities:Table 4. Averages and significant changes across time for information evaluation and research practice activities

Composition pre-survey

(N=316)

Composition post-survey

(N=316)

Seminar post-survey

(N=316)Provide preliminary introduction to information evaluation with a library session and a brief introduction to proper citation of outside sources

3.23

3.04 (p = .048) 2.93 (p = .003)Include support from reference librarians

2.47 2.47 2.46Offer guidance during the drafting process for seeking or gathering additional evidence and support materials

3.49

3.76 (p = .002) 3.89 (p = .000)

Interpretation of Results:This was the first area in which the results were substantially different than our expectation. All English 4 sections now have a library session, and support of the librarians is explicitly available. We are interested in exploring the cause of what we take to be surprisingly low response numbers for provide preliminary and include support.

We note that additional evidence and support material means very different things in English 4 and Seminar 1. In effect this is two different questions, one for each of English 4 and Seminar 1.


Collegiate Seminar Writing Activities:

Table 5. Averages and significant changes across time for Collegiate Seminar activitiesComposition pre-survey (N=316)

Composition post-survey (N=316)

Seminarpost-survey (N=316)

Examine assumptions (examples: an evaluation or critique; compare/contrast essay)

3.36

3.77 (p = .000) 3.8 (p = .000)Engage in intellectual discovery through the writing process (examples: exploratory essay; free-writing exercises)

3.45


3.35

3.78 (p = .000) 3.86 (p = .000)Build upon the skills used in early essays 3.64

4.08 (p = .000) 3.8Show an awareness that there are multiple, competing viewpoints

3.8

3.94 4.43 (p = .000)Reflect on the assumptions of others and one's own assumptions on a topic

3.31

3.78 (p = .000) 4.26 (p = .000)Seek and identify confirming and opposing evidence relevant to one’s own hypothesis

3.53

3.74 (p = .007) 4.24 (p = .000)Use the resulting thesis to structure a well-reasoned and well-supported essay, characterized by clear and careful organization, coherent paragraphs and well-constructed sentences that employ the conventions of Standard Written English and appropriate diction

4.34

4.28 4.16 (p = .003)Introduce and prepare students for shared inquiry by encouraging group discussion and analysis of texts

3.74

4.17 (p = .000) 4.48 (p = .000)Include an essay requiring textual analysis through close reading

3.89

3.98 4.37 (p = .000)

Interpretation of Results:The numerical results in the Seminar post-survey are all quite strong, and show an increase over time (with the exception of build upon skill in early essays, discussed above). Students are clearly doing group discussion and analysis of texts, seeking confirming and opposing evidence, and thinking about differing viewpoints and underlying assumption. Such activities are at the core of the seminar process. We view


this as strong evidence that the new structure of Seminar 1 is successfully impacting our student’s education, and that the Seminar Formation process is working.

All English 4 sections do indeed require an essay of textual analysis, and so we expected a response mean of close to 5 (“always) rather than 3.98 (“most of the time”). We note that the textual analysis essay is the final one of the semester, so as to best lead into Collegiate Seminar, and think it likely that the bulk of student work occurred after the survey. So we are not overly bothered by this unexpected response.

Analysis of Variance:ANOVA (analysis of variance) was used to analyze differences between group averages, in this case averages for students in English 3, English 4 or English 5 for the Composition pre- and post-surveys and for students in Seminar 1 or Seminar 102 who had been in either English 4 or English 5 for the Seminar post-survey. Below are tables organized by the three surveys showing the number of students by the given courses and averages by course by separated by survey section. (Question 1 is the content of Table 1 given earlier, and consists of the skill building activities. Question 1 is the content of Tables 2-5, and consists of the Habits of Mind learning outcomes (HoM LO’s) related questions. See Appendix G for the full survey. ) A description of the ANOVA results follows each table.

Table 6. Number of students and combined section average for Composition pre-surveySurvey part Course N Average

Question 1: SkillsEnglish 3 41 3.41English 4 479 3.4English 5 170 3.57

Question 2: HoM LO’sEnglish 3 41 3.43English 4 479 3.53English 5 170 3.68

For both Sections 1 and 2 of the Composition pre-survey, generally, there is an increase of average scores across courses. However, the ANOVA showed that only the differences between English 4 and 5 for Section 1 (p = .005) and Section 2 (p = .006) were strongly significant. The difference between English 3 and English 5 for Section 2 was also significant (p = .029), but not as strongly as the difference between English 4 and 5. This reflects the different levels of proficiency among the incoming freshmen in English 4 and 5 in particular for both questionnaire sections.

Table 7. Number of students and combined section average for Composition post-surveySurvey part Course N Average

Question 1: SkillsEnglish 3 32 3.85English 4 375 3.6English 5 155 3.73

Question 2: HoM LO’sEnglish 3 32 3.66English 4 375 3.76English 5 155 4.15

For the Composition post-survey, only in Section 2 is there an increase of average scores across courses. The ANOVA confirms this, showing strongly significant differences in Section 2 between English 3 and 5


(p = .001) and between English 4 and 5 (p = .000). This confirms, but only for section two of the questionnaire, that different levels of proficiency were maintained through the Composition courses.

Table 8. Number of students and combined section average for Seminar post-survey (Seminar course)Survey part Course N Average

Question 1: Skills Seminar 1 303 3.49Seminar 102 13 3.71

Question 2: HoM LO’s Seminar 1 303 3.9Seminar 102 13 4.11

For the Seminar post-survey, divided by Seminar course type, we ought to be suspicious of these results as the number of students in Seminar 102 does not allow for a normal distribution. The ANOVA did not find any significant differences.Table 9. Number of students and combined section average for Seminar post-survey (Composition course)

Survey part Course N Average

Question 1: Skills English 4 210 3.46English 5 91 3.55

Question 2: HoM LO’s English 4 210 3.86English 5 91 4.02

For the Seminar post-survey, divided by Composition course type, while there is an increase of average scores across courses, the ANOVA did not find any significant differences. In other words, the expectation that students in English 5 would have had higher scores than students in English 4 by the end of Spring 2014 was not met.

Conclusions and Recommendations (keeping in mind our central questions: To what extent are the Composition and Seminar programs effectively aligned in attaining the Core’s learning outcomes for writing? How can this alignment be more effective? How can student learning improve as a result of better alignment?)

Conclusions:- The student survey results are consonant with successful teaching and learning of writing in

English 4 and Seminar 1. - The student survey results provide indication of many and diverse writing activities occurring in

these courses, as was intended by the Seminar Formation process and the reworking of Composition.

- The new Common syllabus in English 4 likely responsible for some of the strength of the numerical responses to questions on Composition.

- The Seminar activities numbers very positive. This is strong support for new Seminar 1 structure and for the Seminar Formation.

- The support of student and faculty provided by CWAC is likely a factor. - There is a need for a more consistent use of naming of the various writing activities, both within

these programs, and between them. - The relatively inconsistent and overall ‘weaker’ Composition responses suggests the need for a

“Composition Formation” process

Recommendations for Seminar:


- Continue the Formation process, and consider involving both new and veteran Seminar 1 instructors.

- Further pursue ways writing can contribute to the conversation

Recommendations for Composition:- Foster consistent use of Common syllabus. - Consider using a “Formation.” - For essay writing, concentrate on writing as a process, rather than the product.

Recommendations for Seminar and Composition: - Unify the variety of informal writing techniques (e.g., exploratory, free-writing) under an

umbrella, such as “Writing as learning”. - Continue alignment conversations and efforts. Possibilities include: Bringing faculty from these

programs together to discuss Writing as Learning; Continuing work on the shared rubric(s) and assignments; Finding ways Composition can support the self-reflection essay assigned in Seminar should continue; Enhance the shift toward teaching shared inquiry in Composition.

- Take advantage of the expertise provided by the Center for Writing Across the Curriculum and the new hire in rhetoric in working to find ways to enhance the transfer of writing skills and knowledge across these courses.

- Because we view it as crucial, we repeat the recommendation that leaders and faculty from Collegiate Seminar and Composition would benefit from a shared, annual meeting focusing on alignment, to both capture what has been done and to develop plans. This meeting, which should include the Seminar and Composition directors, the Chair of the Core Curriculum Committee and the Habits of Mind Working Group, and the Director of Educational Effectiveness, is necessary to maintain the reforms under development.

Next Steps: Writing as Learning: As a result of the Composition/Seminar Alignment Project, we have noted that the two programs need to decide on ways to implement “writing as learning” so that it is consistently understood, used, and taught in both programs. In other words, the two programs need to formalize “writing as learning” as a significant component of both Composition and Seminar classes.

The Writing As Learning Workshop: Bringing Composition and Seminar into Alignment What do we mean by “writing as learning”? We define it as an approach to writing that consciously uses the act of writing as a form and means of intellectual discovery. While writing as learning can be in the service of formal essay writing, it does not necessarily have to serve in that capacity. Indeed, writing as learning can help students in a variety of ways. It can enable students to address and pursue meaningful questions, unpack the complexities and nuances of a topic, and trace the evolution of their own thinking, beliefs, and attitudes. Writing as learning can come in many forms: reflective writing, free-writing, exploratory writing. The joint Composition and Seminar Workshop that we propose would focus on writing as learning as an important teaching and learning strategy that would be adopted by all instructors across the two programs. The following are a list of objectives that we have highlighted for the joint workshop.

Defining different kinds of writing (Formal vs. Informal, etc.) Reviewing different kinds of informal writing and their objectives Teaching writing as a form of learning Incorporating writing as learning into the Composition and Seminar classroom Bringing informal writing into the formal writing process


Writing as a habit for life-long learning

The intention is to develop such a workshop for spring 2015.

Appendices- A: Core’s written and oral communication learning goals statements- B: Composition Program’s Learning Goals and Outcomes- C: Collegiate Seminar’s Learning Goals and Outcomes- D: Composition and Seminar Shared Grading Rubrics (lower and upper division)?- E: Composition Program Common syllabus- F: Composition program Grading Standards- G: Composition pre- and post-survey and Seminar post-survey


· Web viewAligning and Assessing our Efforts to Improve Student Writing in Composition and...

Documents

Transcript of · Web viewAligning and Assessing our Efforts to Improve Student Writing in Composition and...