9/25/2009 1

a presentation to

composition faculty

september 25, 2009

composition

@ calstatela

jim garrett

9/25/2009 2

Why Review the Program?

�Ongoing Review Is Good Practice

�Potential Problems with Placement and/or Curricula

�Need for “Baseline” Data in Time of Change

�Need to Justify Our Practices/Existence

9/25/2009 3

Why Review the Program?

� Potential Problems with Placement and/or Curricula� 90% pass rate since Winter 2007 for ENGL 095

� 89% pass rate since Winter 2007 for ENGL 096

� EPT “Problems”� Total score a composite score measuring reading, composing, and writing

� Developmental courses not specifically geared towards reading

� Reading scores so low (for entire CSU) they disproportionately effect placement

9/25/2009 4

Why Review the Program?

�Need for “Baseline” Data in Time of Change

� Learning Communities

� Need to shift away from “remediation” model

� Questions about EPT accuracy

9/25/2009 5

Why Review the Program?

�Need to Justify Our Practices/Existence� How do we know our current program works?

� Do ENGL 095 and ENGL 096 prepare students for ENGL 101?

� What effect does ENGL 100 have on student performance in ENGL 101?

� How do we know whether students are placed effectively by the EPT?

9/25/2009 6

Why Review the Program?

�Need to Justify Our Practices/Existence� Even if our program works, can we justify its cost?

� “Do these students belong at the university?”

� Are there small and pedagogically sound changes we can make to lower costs without sacrificing quality?

9/25/2009 7

Placement in English

�English Placement Test� Required of all CSU students except those exempt by sufficiently high scores on SAT, ACT (and others) or EAP

� Scaled score calculated by averaging scores in three areas: Reading, Composing, Essay (on demand writing)

� CSU uses 151 as “cut score”

9/25/2009 8

Placement in English

�English Placement Test� CSU uses 151 as “cut score”. At CSULA

� Students who score 151 or higher are placed directly into ENGL 101

� Students who score 146-150 are placed into ENGL 101 with required concurrent enrollment in ENGL 100 (1-unit workshop)

� Students who score 137-145 are placed in ENGL 096

� Students who score 136 or below are placed in ENGL 095

9/25/2009 9

Placement in English

26%120-136ENGL 095

33%137-145ENGL 096

17%146-150ENGL 101 with ENGL 100 tutorial

24%151 or higher (or exempt from EPT)

ENGL 101

Pct of First-time Freshmen (FTF) Cohort Placed in this Course

EPT Total ScorePlaced in

9/25/2009 10

Placement in English

� CSULA is typical amongst CSU campuses in� using the EPT to place students

� enrolling students who score slightly below the EPT “cut score” directly into the GE Written Communications course (i.e. ENGL 101) with appropriate academic support (i.e. ENGL 100)

� offering a multi-term developmental writing sequence for students who score below the EPT “cut score”

9/25/2009 11

Placement in English

� CSULA is not typical amongst CSU campuses in

� setting the “cut score” dividing its developmental writing population several points lower than other campuses with multi-term developmental writing sequences

� Of the 8 CSU campuses with two or more developmental writing courses, five divide the population at 142, one divides it at 141, one at 140, and CSULA at 137

9/25/2009 12

Placement and Performance

� Purpose of Developmental Writing

� Short-term goal of preparing students for ENGL 101

� Long-term goal of helping students succeed at the university

9/25/2009 13

Placement and Performance

� Measuring Success of Developmental Writing Program

� Short-term goal of preparing students for ENGL 101: Eventual grade in ENGL 101

� Long-term goal of helping students succeed at the university:2-yr Retention Rate

9/25/2009 14

Placement and Performance

� Eventual grade in ENGL 101

� Short-term goal of preparing students for ENGL 101: Eventual grade in ENGL 101

� Long-term goal of helping students succeed at the university:2-yr Retention Rate

9/25/2009 15

Placement and Performance

ENGL 095 (Fall 2005) Student Performance in Subsequent Writing Courses

ENGL 095 ENGL 096 ENGL 101

EPT Total Count Pass % Count Pass % Count Avg Grade

121 1 100% 1 100% 1 3.30

122 0 0% 0 0% 0 0.00

123 2 50% 2 100% 2 2.65

124 10 80% 9 60% 6 2.62

125 5 100% 5 100% 5 2.28

126 8 63% 7 71% 5 3.06

127 9 67% 9 89% 9 1.78

128 26 88% 24 92% 22 2.92

129 20 85% 18 94% 16 2.51

130 25 88% 22 95% 23 2.69

131 25 88% 23 91% 21 2.80

132 25 92% 24 83% 20 3.26

133 38 82% 35 97% 35 2.77

134 48 92% 41 90% 36 2.34

135 35 86% 27 90% 23 3.04

136 37 89% 34 100% 32 3.37

9/25/2009 16

Placement and Performance

ENGL 096 (Fall 2005/Fall 2006) Student Performance in Subsequent Writing Courses

ENGL 096 ENGL 101

EPT Total Count Pass % Count Avg Grade

137 42 81% 37 2.32

138 38 89% 35 2.59

139 41 95% 38 2.37

140 46 96% 45 2.62

141 48 88% 41 2.46

142 46 98% 42 2.33

143 43 93% 37 2.44

144 49 86% 43 2.44

145 41 93% 37 3.02

9/25/2009 17

Placement and Performance

ENGL 101 (Fall 2005/Fall 2006) Performance of Students Placed Directly into ENGL 101

ENGL 101

EPT Total Count Avg 101

Exempt 128 2.95

151 and up 159 2.95

146-150 205 2.70

9/25/2009 18

Placement and Performance

� Eventual Grade in ENGL 101 (based on A = 4.0)

� 2.95: Students placed directly in 101

� 2.80: Students placed in 095

� 2.70: Students placed in 101/100

� 2.66: Average of all 101 students

� 2.51: Students placed in 096

9/25/2009 19

Placement and Performance

Average Grade in ENGL 101

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

121 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 152 154 156 158 160 162 164

EPT Total

Avg Grade

9/25/2009 20

Placement and Performance

Average Grade in ENGL 101

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

121 123 125 127 129 131 133 135 137 139 141 143 145 147 149 151 153 155 157 159 161 163 165

EPT Total

Avg Grade

ENGL 095 ENGL 096 ENGL 101/100 ENGL 101

ENGL 096 Cut ENGL 101/100 Cut ENGL 101 Cut Overall Average Grade

9/25/2009 21

Placement and Performance

� Very strong correlation between

� EPT total score

� Amount of instruction received

� Eventual performance in ENGL 101

� Clear correlation only for EPT total

� Moderate correlation for composing and essay subscores

� Weakest correlation for reading subscore

9/25/2009 22

Placement and Performance

�Two Areas of Concern

� Students who score below 128

� Relatively poor performance of ENGL 096 students

9/25/2009 23

Placement and Performance

�Students who score below 128

� Earned average 101 grade of 2.39 (128-136 avg 2.85)

� Very small population

�Only 28 students in Fall 2005 (11% of ENGL 095 cohort and only 3% of Fall cohort)

�Not enough data to be reliable

9/25/2009 24

Placement and Performance

�Relatively poor performance of ENGL 096 studentsAverage Grade in ENGL 101 by Placement Cohort

Placement Cohort

Average Grade

in ENGL 101

Difference from Overall Average

Grade in ENGL 101 (2.66)

ENGL 095 2.80 5%

ENGL 096 2.51 -6%

ENGL 101/100 2.70 2%

ENGL 101 2.95 11%

9/25/2009 25

Placement and Performance

�Two Possibilities

� Students at the high end of a placement range could be moved up to the next placement group

� Students at the low end of a placement range would benefit from being placed in a lower group

9/25/2009 26

Placement and Performance

� Move Top of 095 Range into 096?� Those students can expect their eventual ENGL 101 grades to decline by 25%

Extrapolating ENGL 101 Grades for ENGL 096 Cohort

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

121 123 125 127 129 131 133 135 137 139 141 143 145 147 149 151 153 155 157 159 161 163 165

EPT Total

Avg Grade

ENGL 096 ENGL 096 Cut ENGL 095 ENGL 096

ENGL 101/100 ENGL 101 Overall Average Grade

9/25/2009 27

Placement and Performance

� Move Bottom of 096 Range into 095?

EPT Score Avg Grade When Placed

in ENGL 096

Avg Grade If Placed

in ENGL 095

Pct

Change

137 2.08 2.83 36%

138 2.43 2.90 19%

139 2.49 2.97 16%

140 2.50 3.03 21%

9/25/2009 28

Composition and Retention

� Findings

� Students who perform well in ENGL 101, ENGL 096, and ENGL 095 are more likely to stay at the university

� Students placed in developmental writing are more likely to stay at the university than students placed directly into ENGL 101

� Students placed in ENGL 101/100 are significantly more likely to stay at the university

9/25/2009 29

Composition and Retention

Two-Year Retention and English Placement

61%

60%

66%

58%

57%

50%

52%

54%

56%

58%

60%

62%

64%

66%

68%

70%

120-136 137-145 146-150 151+ Exempt

ENGL 095 ENGL 096 ENGL

101/100

ENGL 101 ENGL 101

English Placement

Retention Rate

9/25/2009 30

Composition and Retention

Retention Based on Placement and Grade

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

A A- B+ B B- C+ C NC

Grade in ENGL 101

2 Year Retention Rate

ENGL 101

ENGL 101/100

University Retention

Rate

9/25/2009 31

Conclusion

� Placement� EPT total score is an effective placement tool

� EPT subscores correlate less effectively with measures of short-and long-term success, with reading subscore showing no correlation

� The placement ranges used at CSULA are appropriate, though students with scores between 137 and 140 (inclusive) would probably be more appropriately placed in ENGL 095

9/25/2009 32

Composition and Retention

� Coursework

� Developmental writing courses are effectively preparing students for success in ENGL 101.

� Students placed in ENGL 095 earn grades in ENGL 101 that are comparable to the grades earned by students placed directly into ENGL 101. Students placed in ENGL 096 earn grades in ENGL 101 that are slightly below average for the course.

9/25/2009 33

Composition and Retention

�Coursework

� Students enrolled in developmental writing courses are more likely to stay at the university than students not enrolled in such courses.

� ENGL 100 effectively helps developmental students bypass developmental writing courses.