Program: Writing Center
Date: Thu Dec 13, 2012 - 2:11:50 pm
1) Below are your program's student outcomes (SOs). Please add or update as needed.
- Students will become more confident writers.
- Students willl learn techniques and methods to become better writers.
- Students will learn how to utilize resources, when appropriate.
- Students will feel more comfortable with their writing process.
- Students will think more critically about their writing.
- Students will learn how to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.
2) Your program's SOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Program's Website. URL: http://www.english.hawaii.edu/writingcenter/
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure. URL, if available online: UHM Catalog. Page Number: Other: Other: 3) Provide the program's activity map or other graphic that illustrates how program activities/services align with program student outcomes. Please upload it as a PDF.
- File (10/08/2012)
4) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning activities to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys, etc.)
Yes
No (skip to question 14)5) For the period June 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the student outcomes that were targeted, if applicable.
Along with the general question of to what degree did the WC achieve its SLOs, the focus this past spring was on student confidence (SLO#1).
6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #5.
Overall, students rated exit survey statements which were aligned with SLOs 2-6.
In targeting the achievement of SLO #1: Students will become more confident writers, a pre-post rating was utilized. Clients indicated their confidence before any tutoring occured on a scale of 1-10. Then, after each session, clients rated their confidence. A paired t-test and a multivariate regression analysis were used to determine statistical significance.
7) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
689 clients responded to entrance and exit surveys. Overall survey reponse rate was about 80%.
8) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? Check all that apply.
Program faculty/staff member(s) Faculty/staff committee Ad hoc faculty/staff group Director or department chairperson Persons or organization outside the university Students (graduate or undergraduate) Dean or Associate Dean Advisory Board Other: CRDG faculty9) How did he/she/they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? Check all that apply.
Compiled survey results Used quantitative methods on student data (e.g., grades, participation rates) or other numeric data Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, or other open-ended response data Scored exams/tests/quizzes Used a rubric or scoring guide Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used) External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., Social Science Research Institute) Other: 10) For the assessment questions/goals stated in Question #5, summarize the actual results.
For SLOs #2-6, agreement (somewhat agree + strongly agree) ranged from 79% to 90%. For SLO #1, the paired t-test revealed that student confidence showed a gain of 1.04 (t(209) = 10.89) which is statistically significant at p<.0001 as a result of tutoring.
11) What was learned from the results?
WC tutors continued to do a great job of working with and helping clients. In terms of targeting specific SLOs, different methods (i.e., focus groups) may be required to get more in-depth information.
SLO achievement percentages may need to be lowered to 85% from the current 90%.
SLOs with the lowest agreement percentage should be targeted in tutor training.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
Ask the new Director
13) Reflect on the assessment process. Is there anything related to assessment procedures your program would do differently next time? What went well?
Targetting a specific SLO required a different approach. As a result, using a pre-post design and a quantitative analysis for SLO #1 was very informative. Getting assistance on the quantitative analysis was very helpful!