Joanna Fulbright Jeremy Nicholson Chris Lorch Ozarka College, Melbourne, Arkansas Based on a process created by the Des Moines Area Community College System

Session Description -create opportunity among +students, +full-time English faculty, +adjunct English faculty and +other department faculty for the critical conversations where deep assessment takes place. This session will describe how two simple, straightforward yearly writing assessments at one community college with sites at multiple locations can -capture data at multiple levels, -address most General Education Outcomes and

The Portfolio: A Circle of Assessment

Clever Introduction

The Portfolio: A Circle of Assessment

Semester Begins: Students Write Teach outcomes Students typically write five essays. Essay six is the portfolio assignment. The portfolio must be completed to pass the course.

The Portfolio: A Circle of Assessment

Compile Portfolio: Random Selection Students assemble coursework for portfolio. Portfolio essays quote coursework to prove outcome accomplishment. Faculty randomly selects 15-20% of all portfolios for assessment.

The Portfolio: A Circle of Assessment

Faculty Meets: Score Portfolios Calibrate scoring with one essay. Every essay is scored twice. Third score if the scores differ by a letter grade. Closest two scores are kept.

The Portfolio: A Circle of Assessment

What We Know about Data and Assessment  We should assess what we value.  We will value what we assess.  Assessment should influence change.  Change should improve student learning.  Will that improved learning be reflected in the data?

Example of Low Performance and Modification to Improve Student Learning  Fall 2010: 54% of students achieved the outcome “Address diversity issues.” Modified the outcome to read “Address diverse audiences.”  Fall 2011: 73% of students achieved this outcome.

Challenges to Overcome 2008  Received only 13 scorable portfolios.  No variation of grades in sampling.  Unfamiliarity with rubric.  Discussion affecting scoring.

Challenges to Overcome 2009  Rubric - 5 point scale, Grades - 10 point scale.  Rubric did not match objectives.  Some objectives not measurable.  Too much focus on letter.  APA or MLA? Both?  Portfolio overlap in Comp. II.

Challenges to Overcome 2010  Students did not understand diversity objective.  Completion rates low.  Correlation between portfolio and course grades.  Acceptable number of grammar errors?  Letter format was awkward.

Challenges to Overcome 2011  Low scores on the critical reading outcome.  Need to further streamline the rubric.

Rubrics: Issues  Have experimented with multiple rubrics: descriptive, non- descriptive, rating scale, etc.  Effective calibration takes more time than the committee feels comfortable requesting from participants.  The right rubric might address this issue.

More Challenges  Serving needs of ALL other departments or just Arts and Sciences?  Serving needs of ALL adjuncts? (impossible to schedule a “perfect” time)  Serving needs of concurrent courses? (none have participated yet)

Improvements /Changes to the Courses  Moved from objectives to outcomes  Unified outcomes  Unified portfolio directions  Instructors more focused more on explaining/teaching the outcomes

Improvements /Changes to the Courses  Changed textbooks  Began teaching APA in Comp II  Revised rubrics  Changed the diversity outcome  Moved to a capstone essay in Comp II  Reworded critical reading outcome

Addressing Administration’s Needs  Provides some assurance that different sections of the same course meet course outcomes and rigor requirements.  When assessment is faculty-owned, it continues no matter what changes come in administration.  What has this meant at Ozarka College?

HLC Acknowledgement  English Assessment was highlighted as a good assessment for the following accreditation needs: The 2008 Self-Study (no follow-up, no focus report) The 2012 Distance Education accreditation visit The 2012 Additional Site accreditation visit

Developed Learning Outcomes: -Involves students in metacognitive activities focusing on achievement of course outcomes. -Involves faculty in deep conversations about outcomes vs. objectives; no groupthink occurs. -Involves faculty and administrators in checking various program outcomes as well as General Education Outcomes.

Developed Learning Outcomes: -Involves multiple departments and administration in conversations about writing assessment. -Involves meeting the writing needs of both the workforce as well as transfer institutions.

Questions? Contact Us: Joanna Fulbright: Jeremy Nicholson: Chris Lorch: