Assessment: Course Four Column - El Camino College · Assessment: Course Four Column ECC: ... Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16 (Fall ... "PEMDAS," even though "PEMDAS"

El Camino: Course SLOs (HSA) - Educational Development

FALL 2015Assessment: Course Four Column

ECC: EDEV 11:Writing and Reading for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students

Course SLOs Assessment MethodDescription Results Actions

SLO #1 WH Questions - Student willlocate answers to WH-Questions(who/what, do-what, where, when,why, & how).

Course SLO Assessment Cycle: 2015-16 (Fall 2015)

Course SLO Status: Active

Input Date: 11/08/2013

Standard and Target for Success:Students will pass the test at least atthe 70% accuracy level.

Action: Looking at the results of theassessments, it has been determinedthat the answer choices following thereading material may not have beenclear enough for this group ofstudents. So, next time this type ofassessment will occur, a differentreading material and answerquestions will be provided.(05/01/2014)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14 (Fall2013)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetTwo short stories were given. They were to answer WH-questions at the end of each story. The pre-test consisted 8multiple-choice questions while the post-test consisted 10(MC) questions.

First test (pre-test) – 6 students present, one absent.Question # # of wrong answers in each Q1 22 33 24 35 16 17 38 2

Out of 6 students, 3 passed with 70% accuracy. For those 3students that did not pass with 70%, it was anticipated thattwo would not to pass due to their minimal language skills(which falls most likely at the 1st or 2nd grade reading level)while the other student was quite a surprise because thisstudent had excellent communication skills and he shouldhave been able to, at least, comprehend this short reading

Exam/Test/Quiz - There were twotests given. One was a pre-test andthe other was a post-test. Both testswere in the multiple choice format.

06/30/2016 Generated by TracDat® a product of Nuventive


passage. He was inquired as to why he didn’t do well on thepre-test and he admitted that he really did not want to beat school but would rather be working full-time instead. Theinstructor encouraged him to put in a little bit more effortin the class because the possibility with this student tomove on to upper English classes after completing this classwas evident.

Second test (post-test) –6 students present, the one thatwas absent at the first test was dropped from class.Question # # of wrong answers in each Q1 22 53 34 15 46 27 38 19 410 2

The result is actually the same with the pre-test result (outof 6 students, 3 passed with 70% accuracy.) However, thethree that passed, two of them got higher scores than thepre-test while one remained the same with the number ofwrong/correct answers with both tests.

Comparison between the two tests: The first test wasrelatively easier to read and easier to locate the answersfrom the passage. The second test was slightly longer intext and a bit more challenging to find the answers,requiring some inference thinking. However, the instructor’s expectation for students passing both tests were 70% andout of the 12 students (3+3 total for both tests), only 6 (3+3total of getting below 70%) equates to 50%. This did notmeet the expectation of the teacher. This was half of theclass that did not pass both tests. However, with those thatdid pass, it was evident that progress was made with thesestudents by the time they took the post-test.



Faculty Assessment Leader: Jaymie Collette

Out of the 8 questions for the pre-test, it was noted that thenumber of wrong answer was widely dispersed and equally.So, this indicated that the students all had similarunderstanding of the questions. As the instructor, looking atthe questions, the fourth question was probably the mostdifficult to answer because the question itself was not reallyclear and the answer choices were very vague. Out of the10 questions for the post-test, it was noted that question #2had the highest number of errors. The question was rathereasy to answer and the answer was evident in the passage,however, it required the students to think about the orderthe event happened. Perhaps, the students were expectedto see more of “chronological order” from beginning to theend. The passage was actually in sequential order, but notin the order of the first, second, and so on. The answer to#2 was actually in the middle of the passage where otherevents that had happened first was at the end of thesemester. This writing style of the author probably threwthe students off. (02/07/2014)


Action: Looking at the results of theassessments, it has been determinedthat the answer choices following thereading material may not have beenclear enough for this group ofstudents. So, next time this type ofassessment will occur, a differentreading material and answerquestions will be provided.(09/30/2014)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2013-14 (Fall2013)Standard Met? : Standard Metsee report (01/28/2014)

Action: Change the test format. Usedifferent stories that is moreappropriate with their frame ofreference. Maybe eliminate theinference questions and teach more

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16 (Fall2015)Standard Met? : Standard MetAll five students passed the pre-test with 70% accuracy.Three students got 90% while the other two got 80%. For

Exam/Test/Quiz - Two short storieswere given to the students ofEducational Development Readingclass as a pre-test and a post-test toassess their reading comprehension.



Standard and Target for Success:Students will pass both tests with atleast 70% accuracy.


on that specific skill. (10/17/2016)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

the second test, two students passed at the 70% percentile.One student passed at the 80% and the other two at the90%. Result is all five students passed with at least 70%accuracy.

Comparison between the two tests: the first test wasrelatively easier to read and easier to locate the answers inthe passage. There was a couple inference questions. Thisposed a bit of a challenge since these students wereaccustomed to finding concrete answers in the passage.The second test was slightly longer in text and a bit morechallenging to locate answers. There were a coupleinference questions as well. With this test, the students didbetter on the inference questions than with the pre-test.(12/08/2015)

They were to answer WH-questionsat the end of each story. Both testsconsisted 10 fill-in-the-blankquestions.


ECC: EDEV 31:Increased Learning Performance


SLO #3 Math Operations - Studentswill utilize the appropriate order ofoperations for the given mathproblem.



Input Date: 11/08/2013

Standard and Target for Success:Since both sections of E.D. 31 MathSupport were comprised of studentsfrom a broad spectrum of Math classlevels (Math12 Arithmetic throughMath 150 Statistics!), the instructorsof sec. 4243 and 4245, felt that "70%of the students achieving 70%accuracy" would be a reasonableand appropriate target. Thechallenge was to design a validassessment, given the wide disparityof our students.

Faculty Assessment Leader: Julie LandFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Tiffanie Lau

Action: Consider using a multiplechoice test which would be easier toadminister in that we could readeach item aloud, know when therespondents are done, and go on tothe next item. Many of our students,when they take a real test in Math,are entitled to the accommodation ofa reader and/or a transcriber. Theseaccommodations could be carriedout more efficiently and would likelylead to a more accurate reflection ofstudent skill. Alternately, given thewide disparity, Order of Operationsshould perhaps be dropped as anSLO. What might be more valid is toassess for understanding ofmathematical language, such asgoing from verbal to symbolic, or theopposite, going from symbols to theverbal interpretation of what thosesymbols mean. Note: ED 31 Math willbe renamed ED 38 as of F'16; theSLOs will be reviewed and a timelinewill be established. (04/01/2016)Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment ProcessAction: Offer this class in a computerlab because the main purpose of thecourse is to support student successin concurrent ECC Math classes, mostof which require online homework,NOT pencil and paper homework.(01/19/2016)Action Category: Program/CollegeSupport

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16 (Fall2015)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetIn sec. 4243, with sixteen students, 10 or 63% scored 70% orhigher. Sec. 4243 has only one Arithmetic level student withthe remaining fifteen being at higher levels. Thirteen ofthose 16, or 81%, scored at 60% or higher on theassessment. In sec. 4245, which has seven students inArithmetic and far fewer students in higher level Math, theresult was that 10 out of 17 students (59%) scored 70% orhigher, and 13 of 17 students (76%) scored 60% or higher.(12/08/2015)

Exam/Test/Quiz - This was a tenpoint, six item "test" in whichstudents had to demonstratechoosing the correct order ofoperations. This assessment wasmore extensive than the usual"PEMDAS," even though "PEMDAS"was included as the first question.The students were given a variety ofproblems in which they had toidentify the appropriate next step,such as multiplying by the reciprocal,using the DRT formula, setting up aratio, converting a percent to afraction and to a decimal, andchoosing, when given a longmathematical expression, where tostart, i.e., what operation to do first.


ECC: EDEV 35:Reading Skills for Students with Learning Differences


SLO #2 Main Idea - Students willdescribe various techniques todetermine the author’s main idea.



Input Date: 11/08/2013Standard and Target for Success: Inthe written assignment submitted80% of the students will accuratelyreflect 80% of the techniquespresented in the text and lecture.

Faculty Assessment Leader: Bill Hoanzl

Action: A supplemental instructionlab that includes computer practiceand targets main ideas will benefitmany students. (02/27/2017)Action Category: Program/CollegeSupport

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16 (Fall2015)Standard Met? : Standard Met31 students submitted the assignment. 26 (85%) of thestudents achieved the required 80% of the techniques.Pretty good outcome for a majority of the studentsconsidering the learning challenges. (02/04/2016)

Essay/Written Assignment - In awritten assignment the students willcompare and contrast twotechniques for identifying theauthors main idea.


Documents

Assessment: Course Four Column - El Camino College · Assessment: Course Four Column ECC: ... Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16 (Fall ... "PEMDAS," even though "PEMDAS"