Annual Report Example

Foundations Written Communication (FW)
General Education

1. Below are the program student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please add/delete/modify as needed.

At the end of the Foundations Written Communication (FW) course, students can:

1. Compose a text to achieve a specific purpose and respond adeptly to an identifiable audience.
2. Provide evidence of effective strategies for generating, revising, editing, and proofreading a text in order to produce finished prose.
3. Compose a text that makes use of source material that is relevant and reliable and that is integrated in accordance with an appropriate style guide.
4. Compose writing that expresses the writer's viewpoint and is supplemented by outside sources.

2. As of last year, your program's SLOs were published as follows. Please update as needed.

[ ] Department Web site
[ ] Student Handbook
[ ] Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure
[ ] UHM Catalog
[ ] Course Syllabi
[X] Other:
[ ] Other

3. Curriculum map.

Because FW is a one-course requirement, there is no curriculum map.

[Note: Examples of curriculum maps can be found on the Assessment Office web site >How-to>Create a Curriculum Map]

4. As of last year, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a web site, or other publicly available document was as follows. Please update as needed.

[ ] 100%
[X] 81-99%
[ ] 51-80%
[ ] 1-50%
[ ] 0%

5. Did your program engage in any program assessment activities?

[X] Yes
[ ] No

6. State the assessment question(s) and/or goals of the assessment activity. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.

SLO #3: Students will be able to compose a text that makes use of source material that is relevant and credible and that is integrated in accordance with an appropriate style guide.

How well are students achieving SLO #3? To what extent do students
a) supply an outside source when needed;
b) select germane source material;
c) select source materials from authoritative and/or appropriate sources - e.g. experts, reviewed by experts, appropriate popular material, etc.; and

d) follow rules for citing source material within the text and for creating a bibliography/works cited/reference list.

7. State the Type(s) of Evidence Gathered

Instructors teaching FW sections submitted copies of their students' research essays/reports to the English Department or English Language Institute.

8. State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

--Essays from 80 students were evaluated
--Random stratified sampling (stratified by section) was used to select the 80 essays.

9. Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected?

Check all that apply:

[ ] Course instructor(s)
[ ] Faculty committee
[X] Ad hoc faculty group
[ ] Department chairperson
[ ] Persons or organization outside the university
[ ] Faculty advisor
[ ] Advisors (student support services)
[X] Students (graduate or undergraduate)
[ ] Dean/Director
[ ] OTHER:

10. How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence?

Check all that apply:

[X] Used a rubric or scoring guide
[ ] Scored exams/tests/quizzes
[ ] Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
[ ] Compiled survey results
[ ] Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
[ ] External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)
[ ] OTHER:

11. Summarize the actual results

% of Students

Level of preparation for future writing tasks involving outside sources


Well prepared




Partially prepared


Not prepared


12. State how the program used or plans to use the results.

a. The English Department Chairperson will email faculty teaching FW and encourage them to take advantage of Hamilton Library's information literacy workshops and to emphasize information literacy skills during the semester.

b. The English Department, English Language Institute, and the Assessment Office will assess information literacy again in Spring 2010.

13. Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries?

Overall, the faculty team who scored the texts were disappointed in the quality of the student work in regards to information literacy. With only 6% of the students scoring in the “well prepared” category, there is room for improvement, especially considering that 26% were only partially prepared and 21% were evaluated as “not prepared.”

Collection and scoring went well. However, collecting all students' research essays/reports and then selecting a sample was burdensome and a waste of paper.

Upon reviewing the SLOs, the English Department Assessment Committee and English Language Institute agreed to combine SLO #3 and #4 because they overlap. Because of this change and the disappointing 2009 results, a combined SLO 3 & 4 on information literacy will be assessed in 2010.

14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.

Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.

Faculty and graduate students were on the ad hoc committee that evaluated the essays using a rubric. The rubric was created by the Assessment Committee and later modified through collaboration with the Assessment Office.


updated 08/09/2012