Th - Alabama State University · pursuing the building blocks of development, focus, persistence, and reward. Core Values: • Alabama State University continues to pursue excellence

Th

___Graphic: Im(NAAL) (ht

QEP he Ala

________mage Idea an Attp://nces.ed.go

Conceabama

____ Adaptation fromov/naal/ -- Dec

eptual State

m National Assecember 31, 200

l Frame Unive

essment of Ad09)

meworersityrk Mod

y del

ult Literacy

Quality Enhancement Plan

Title Enhancing the Culture of Learning Through

Literacy in the First-Year Experience

Name of the Institution Alabama State University

Dates of the On-Site Review April 7- 9, 2010

Name of the CEO Dr. William H. Harris, President

Name of the Accreditation Liaison Dr. Doris P. Screws, Dean

School of Graduate Studies

The Alabama State University Mission

Alabama State University (ASU) is a student-centered, nurturing, comprehensive, and diverse public historically black university committed to achieving excellence in teaching, research, and public service. The university fulfills its mission through fostering critical thought, artistic creativity, professional competence, and responsible citizenship in its students; by adding to the body of knowledge to enhance the quality of life through research and discovery; and by helping to advance the local, state, national, and international communities through thoughtful public service. Offering baccalaureate through doctoral degrees, the university maintains a scholarly and creative faculty, state-of-the-art facilities, and a living atmosphere in which all members of the campus community can work and learn in pleasant and rewarding surroundings. Consistent with its assurance that neither race, gender, nor economic status inhibits intelligence, creativity or achievement, ASU offers a bridge to success for those who commit to pursuing the building blocks of development, focus, persistence, and reward. Core Values:

• Alabama State University continues to pursue excellence in teaching, research, student services, and public service while creating an environment conductive to teaching and learning.

• Alabama State University demonstrates a strong commitment to integrity by holding all faculty, staff and students accountable to the policies and procedures of the University, and to general expectations of decent and civil conduct.

• Alabama State University will continue to support an environment that respects people with open communication and the free exchange of ideas, while nurturing a diverse community.

• Alabama State University has a commitment to research, service, and the contribution of new knowledge that focuses upon solving problems that affect local, state, national and international communities.

Institutional Goals: • To organize the university in such a manner as to provide sufficient and

appropriate leadership, management and oversight to achieve its mission and goals.

• To ensure the academic integrity of the university. • To ensure the fiscal integrity of the university. • To enhance the public’s perception of the university and thus increase external

support. • To develop and maintain the physical campus so that the university is a

productive, pleasant place to work, study and live. • To ensure that the university responds to all of its constituents. • To improve programs and services that will contribute to the development of

student life. • To employ an organizational Continuous Improvement of Daily Operations

(CIDO) approach to assure the use of best practices in the operating functions across the university.

i

Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

I. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 2

II. The Process Used to Develop the Quality Enhancement Plan ..................................... 3

Appointment and Organization of the QEP Teams ....................................................... 3 Review of SACSCOC and University Documents ........................................................ 3 Assessment of Perceptions Survey .............................................................................. 4 Review of Institutional Assessment Data ...................................................................... 5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 8

III. Identification of the Topic ........................................................................................... 10

Refining the Topic and Focus for the QEP .................................................................. 10 Definition of Literacy .................................................................................................... 12

IV. Desired Student Learning Outcomes ......................................................................... 13

QEP Mission Statement .............................................................................................. 13 QEP Goal Statements ................................................................................................. 13 Desired Student Learning Outcomes for Reading/Writing Literacy ............................. 14 Desired Student Learning Outcomes for Quantitative Literacy ................................... 14 Desired Student Learning Outcomes for Information Literacy .................................... 15 Scope of Literacy Instruction to Achieve Student Learning Outcomes ....................... 16 The QEP Conceptual Framework Model .................................................................... 18 QEP Cohort Progression ............................................................................................. 20

V. Actions to be Implemented ........................................................................................ 21

Institutional Context ..................................................................................................... 21 Implementation Actions ............................................................................................... 24

VI. Implementation Timeline ............................................................................................ 29

VII. Organizational Structure ........................................................................................... 32

Organizational Chart ................................................................................................... 32 Explanation of Responsibilities ................................................................................... 33

VIII. Assessment (Comprehensive Evaluation Plan) ....................................................... 35

The QEP and the University Assessment and Evaluation System ............................. 35 QEP Assessment and Evaluation Strategies .............................................................. 36

IX. Resources .................................................................................................................. 44

ii

Alabama State University

Budget Narrative ......................................................................................................... 44 Table 11: Budget Summary ........................................................................................ 46

X. Review of the Literature and Best Practices .............................................................. 47

Overview ..................................................................................................................... 47 Review of the Literature .............................................................................................. 48 References .................................................................................................................. 59

XI. Appendices ................................................................................................................ 63

Appendix I: Alabama State University: History and Characteristics ............................ 64

Appendix II: The Alabama State University Mission.................................................... 65

Appendix III: The Quality Enhancement Plan Teams.................................................. 66

Appendix IV: Data Tables and Figures ....................................................................... 70

1

Enhancing the Culture of Learning Through Literacy in the First-Year Experience

Introduction Alabama State University (ASU) has developed a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) consistent with the requirements of Core Requirement 2.12 of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Commission on Colleges’ Principles of Accreditation. The QEP is an essential component of the university’s reaffirmation of accreditation process. Just as importantly, however, its development has come at a time of renewed and dynamic focus on the future of the university. This convergence of the development of the QEP with the revitalizing emphasis on moving Alabama State University forward creates an unparalleled opportunity for launching a process that positively impacts student learning and thereby enhances overall institutional quality and effectiveness. Vision 2020: The Alabama State University Transformation Plan outlines the comprehensive change in direction for the university over the next ten years. The bold and robust vision of this strategic plan incorporates, among several transforming actions, the building of a “culture of learning” to provide ASU students the kind of “education appropriate to cope with the challenges and realities of the 21st century.” Embedded in this vision is the awareness of a need to continue to uphold the institution’s historic role as a premier historically black college/university while effectively addressing the growing diversity of a population of students who must prepare for success in a more technological, multinational world community. Appropriately, the overarching theme guiding all aspects of the university’s progression toward the year 2020 echoes the idea of “rebirth,” of capturing the best of what has gone before and moving boldly in a new direction-- The Renaissance: Building a Culture of Learning. The Transformation of Alabama State University Through Excellence in Teaching, Research, Service and a Diverse Population. The mission, core values, goals, and objectives articulated in the Vision 2020 strategic plan are framed to assure a “unified approach” to meeting the needs and requirements of all university constituents as the “Transformed ASU” becomes reality. ASU’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) reflects and seeks to advance the university’s guiding theme. Titled “Enhancing the Culture of Learning Through Literacy in the First-Year Experience,” the QEP presents a model for instruction designed to draw upon and move beyond past and current practices. The goal is to revitalize the culture of learning starting with the students’ first-year (freshman) experience at the university. This revitalization includes infusing into the core curriculum a dynamic focus on specific forms of literacy coupled with the development and use of innovative and engaging approaches to teaching and learning. Creating a vibrant learning environment nurtured by strong teaching and active student engagement along with careful monitoring of performance contributes as well to an enhanced culture of learning. Some independent examples currently exist of faculty and students involved in classroom practices and processes termed “revitalizing” in this document. However, the Quality Enhancement Plan will direct a well-coordinated, broad-based, and concerted effort, with university-wide management and support, designed to realize significant improvements in student learning and in overall institutional quality.

2


I. Executive Summary The Alabama State University Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) focuses on enhancing the culture of learning by integrating intensive literacy instruction into the curriculum. The focus and design for the QEP evolved from the QEP Exploratory Team and the university administration posing the question “What do we expect of an ASU graduate?” The information collected from several sources almost unanimously identified proficiency in reading, writing, and computational skills as paramount expectations for an ASU graduate. Further considerations revealed that the ability to gather, process, and use information effectively for daily decision-making, problem-solving, and continuous learning is critical, as well, to an ASU graduate’s personal, academic, and professional success. “Literacy” as a general concept embraces all of these expectations specified for an ASU graduate. Therefore, the QEP Exploratory Team, the administration, and other university constituents determined that an ASU graduate should be proficient in three specific literacy areas: reading and writing literacy (integrate the two), quantitative literacy, and information literacy. The QEP defines student learning outcomes in each literacy area and presents a plan to target the outcomes for intensive, foundational instruction in the core curriculum courses required of all students during their first year and for a continuation literacy focus in selected courses in the major disciplines. The following statement expresses the overarching mission of the QEP: The Quality Enhancement Plan will enhance the culture of learning at Alabama State University through building higher levels of student competence in the defined literacy areas beginning with a strong first-year launch and extending into the degree majors. This enhanced culture of learning will positively impact the first-year retention rate of each entering freshman class and promote successful academic progression through graduation. It will further help create self-directed, life-long learners with stronger capacity for succeeding in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex global environment. Through accomplishing its mission, the QEP literacy program will support the achievement of the following objectives of Alabama State University’s Vision 2020 strategic plan: • Produce higher quality outcomes in all academic programs….

(Specifically: Systematically measure and improve the achievements of students’ educational outcomes at the course and curricular levels.)

• Ensure a successful transitional matriculation experience for entering students. • Ensure a teaching-learning process that reflects new realities of assessing and

assimilating information and varied learning styles of students. (Specifically: Support a program to assist the faculty in developing instructional strategies and methods, including expertise in the use of information technologies.)

3


II. The Process Used to Develop the Quality Enhancement Plan The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) was developed through a methodical, logical, and inclusive process carried out by two QEP teams, the QEP Exploratory Team and the QEP Development Team. Appointment and Organization of the QEP Teams The QEP Exploratory Team was appointed in November of 2007 by the university’s SACSCOC Accreditation Leadership Team. Since this time, the university’s administration and organizational structure have undergone significant changes and the strategic plan has been revised. However, the QEP Exploratory Team remained intact and continued its work throughout 2008 and spring 2009. The responsibility of this team was to conduct initial exploration and research activities that would lead to the identification of the QEP focus and topic. In spring 2009, after the topic had been identified, this team was expanded with the involvement of more faculty members and was renamed the QEP Development Team. The responsibility of the QEP Development Team was to develop the components of the plan and draft a document for review and discussion among university constituents. Both teams consisted of campus-wide representatives from academic and non-academic units and from the Faculty Senate and the Student Government Association (Appendix III). The QEP Exploratory Team’s search for a QEP topic involved reviewing several campus documents, conducting surveys, reviewing qualitative and quantitative institutional data, meeting with focus groups to discuss data results and other issues, and identifying elements that would provide the greatest impact to improve student learning outcomes. The work of the QEP Exploratory Team led to the formulation of significant decisions for identifying and developing the succeeding components of the plan. This section discusses the exploratory process undertaken by the team and the findings that led to identifying the focus and topic for the QEP. Review of SACSCOC and University Documents The initial meetings of the QEP Exploratory team involved a careful review of the QEP section of the SACSCOC Principles of Accreditation and QEP documents from institutions similar in size and scope to Alabama State University. With an understanding of the SACSCOC requirements and with a view of approaches taken by other institutions to address these requirements, the team identified tasks to be accomplished in the QEP exploratory process and a timeline for progress reports and task completion activities. Initial tasks undertaken by the team included a review of relevant university documents. The QEP Exploratory Team was aware that the development of the QEP must be driven by the mission, goals, and objectives of the university, and that, according to SACSCOC guidelines, the “QEP should be embedded within the institution’s ongoing integrated institution-wide planning and evaluation process.” Therefore, the first university document reviewed by the team was the institution’s strategic plan. The strategic plan has been revised and updated since the team started its work in 2007. However, then, as now, the mission, goals, and objectives contain key components related to teaching and learning, to “ensuring the academic integrity of the university,” to “producing higher quality outcomes in all academic programs,” and to “measuring and improving the achievements of students’ educational outcomes at the course and curricular levels.”

4


With these concepts as a starting point, the team proceeded to examine the institution’s program of study to establish familiarity with the relationship of various curricular offerings to the educational goals and objectives for promoting student achievement. Familiarity with the curriculum was critical to identifying a future direction for “increasing the effectiveness of some aspect” of the “educational program relating to student learning,” a foundational aspect of Core Requirement 2.12 of the Principles of Accreditation. Also important to crafting such a future direction, the team believed, was some knowledge of existing perceptions about factors important to promoting student achievement and the needs for improving the learning environment at the university. To this end, the team enlisted the services of the university’s Office of Planning and Institutional Research (OPIR) in developing and administering a perceptions survey. Assessment of Perceptions Survey The QEP Exploratory Team and OPIR created the perceptions survey instrument in several stages, using ideas from current literature and from faculty, staff, and student input. First, team members conducted informal surveys in their units and collected ideas from faculty, staff, and students about a focus for improving student learning at the university. Next, a master list was compiled from these ideas and organized into broad categories. These categories were then used to construct a set of four Likert response scale survey instruments designed to identify perceptions of factors critical to student learning outcomes. Each survey item required a rating on a scale of 1 to 5 for two categories, importance and need for improvement. Finally, the OPIR administered the surveys electronically to students, faculty, and staff during spring semester 2008. Data from the surveys were collected, analyzed, and submitted to the team members. According to the survey results, the staff perceived oral communication to be number one in importance and oral and written communication number one in need for improvement. The faculty perceived written communication to be number one both in importance and in need for improvement. Students, on the other hand, ranked technology access as number one in importance and freshman experience as number one in need for improvement. All in all, survey results revealed six areas viewed by the respondents as being critically important or needing improvement for successful student learning outcomes:

• Written Communication • Oral Communication • Student Engagement • Access to Technology • Computational Skills • Freshman Experience (supplemental instruction, academic support)

Among these top six areas are basic academic skills critical to the success of an educated person—writing skills, speaking skills, and computational skills (Appendix IV, Table IV-A). In addition to the QEP Assessment of Perceptions Survey, informal conversations and person-to-person interviews occurred with some key community stakeholders; many were ASU alumni. Among these were in-service teachers, principals, other school personnel, pastors, politicians, and employers. These constituents expressed similar concerns about communication and computational skills. In addition, several alumni expressed a preference for those classes that allowed them greater active participation and interaction and more real-world-type experiences.

5


The results of the survey were presented to the faculty during the opening Faculty Conference on August 13, 2008. Following the conference, members of the QEP Exploratory Team conducted focus group discussions of the survey results. In addition to the six areas identified above, reading emerged as a key variable from the faculty focus groups and was cited as an obvious omission from the survey. Survey results were also presented to the Council of Academic Deans, to the Board of Trustees’ Academic Affairs Committee, and to the Board of Trustees. These groups concurred with the findings that improving communication skills (writing, oral, and reading skills) would provide the greatest impact on student learning outcomes. The non-academic staff and the Student Government Association conducted focus group discussions as well and came to similar conclusions. The survey revealed that the most significant areas viewed as necessary for increasing the effectiveness of the educational program at ASU related to the first-year experience and to the general education requirement. Therefore, the team reviewed the statewide general education requirement and ASU’s core curriculum to gain clarity for moving forward. ASU students, regardless of major, must complete 42 credit hours in the core curriculum. Consistent with the state requirement, this core consists of courses in written composition, humanities and fine arts, natural sciences and mathematics, and history, social and behavioral sciences. Students not required to enroll in developmental courses may complete the major portion of the core curriculum during their first year. Review of Institutional Assessment Data The next task deemed important by the team was to review institutional data related to the assessment of student learning outcomes as a means of developing a profile of student performance particularly in the core curriculum during the first-year experience. Of necessity, the focus fell on assessment of communication and computational skills since these were key areas of concern in the perceptions survey. Also, these skills are at the top of the list of the following college-level general education competencies identified by the university as central to its educational program: • Demonstration of speaking, writing, and reading skills necessary to communicate

effectively. • Demonstration of mathematical skills necessary to solve problems. • Demonstration of critical thinking skills to analyze problems and make logical

decisions. • Demonstration of the ability to effectively use computers and other related

technologies. • Demonstration of an understanding of humanities, social sciences and natural

sciences. • Demonstration of an ability to work in diverse group settings. • Development of an understanding of the rich African-American heritage and culture. SAT and ACT Scores SAT and ACT admissions test scores were the first institutional data reviewed. These tests are designed to assess the knowledge and skills students transitioning from high school to college need for academic success. The Office of Planning and Institutional Research (OPIR) presented SAT and ACT test data for first-time, first-year (freshman), undergraduates from academic years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009. Although ASU did not use SAT and ACT scores for general admission decisions (only for specially identified cases) prior to spring semester 2010, applicants for admission as first-time

6


undergraduates have, over time, been asked to submit scores. SAT scores in critical reading and mathematics and the ACT composite score and sub-scores in English and mathematics have been reviewed over several years for academic advisement and placement purposes. SAT and ACT scores were aggregated and averaged to provide a profile of the skills levels of ASU entering freshmen. The majority of ASU entering students submit ACT scores. Of the 3,895 first-time enrollees submitting scores during the three-year period, 731 submitted SAT scores and 3,164 submitted ACT scores. The scores on each section of the SAT (critical reading, mathematics) can range from 200 to 800. The average score nationwide for each section is roughly 500. (http://sat.collegeboard.com/) Scores for each ACT category (composite, English, mathematics) range from 1 to 36. The average score nationwide is about 20. (http://www.actstudents.org) For ASU first-time freshman enrollees in 2006-2007, an average of 89% of the SAT scores in both reading and mathematics were below 499. A similar trend is noted for the years 2007-2009. This low performance is evidenced in the ACT scores as well. In 2006-2007, 96% of the composite scores for ASU first-year students fell within the 12-23 range. The pattern continues in the sub-scores. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of sub-scores in English were in the 12-23 range. Ninety-seven percent (97%) of sub-scores in mathematics were in the 12-23 range. A similar trend is noted for the years 2007-2009. The analysis of these data for the three-year period show that ASU freshman students performed less well on both the SAT and ACT than did students in the national population (Appendix IV, Tables IV-B and IV-C). The Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) ASU uses the Educational Testing Service’s Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP), renamed the ETS Proficiency Profile in 2009, to ascertain the extent to which students have attained college-level general education competencies while at ASU. Beginning in 2007, institution-wide, college-level general education student learning outcomes were evaluated using the MAPP test, which measures proficiency in four core skill areas--critical thinking, reading, writing, and mathematics in the context of humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences and provides evidence of academic skills developed, versus subject knowledge taught, in general education courses. The MAPP test was administered to 652 students in 49 different cohorts between 2007 and 2009. Each cohort was a sophomore, junior, or senior-level class selected at random by the deans of the colleges. ASU’s MAPP scores were compared with scores from Master’s Level I and Level II universities. The mean score of students from the other universities was 443.8. By comparison, the mean score of the ASU students was lower at 428.2 (Appendix IV, Table IV-D). ASU’s MAPP sub-scores were examined in an effort to identify proficiency levels in reading (Levels 1, 2, and critical thinking), writing (Levels 1, 2, and 3), and mathematics (Levels 1, 2, and 3). Results revealed high percentages of students categorized as marginal and not proficient (totals for the two categories) in all levels of reading (58%, 85%, 99%), writing (60%, 95%, 99%), and mathematics (81%, 96%, 99%) (Appendix IV, Table IV-E and Figure IV-A).

7


Data from the College of Education The College of Education (COE) served as a strong resource for assessment data from an academic unit offering degrees in a major field. The COE is the oldest degree-granting college on campus and currently graduates approximately 26% of all undergraduates and awards the largest number of degrees in a single major, teacher education, each year. Proficiency indicators in state and professional standards for teacher education include competence in basic academic skills. Therefore, the COE considers basic skills as essential elements of the content knowledge in all program areas. The Alabama Prospective Teacher Test (APTTP I) is a basic skills assessment required by the Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) for teacher certification. The COE requires passing scores on all three parts of the APTTP I for admission to all initial teacher education programs. The three parts are applied mathematics, reading for information, and writing. Minimum passing scores, defining levels of proficiency, are set by the ALSDE. The scores are 4 for applied mathematics, 4 for reading for information, and 3 for writing. The guidelines for the APTTP I allow for multiple retakes of any portion of the assessment, and the data include these numbers. The 2003-2009 data reveal that students did reasonably well in reading, but performed at or below minimum proficiency in writing and mathematics. On the reading portion of the assessment 72% of the students scored above minimum proficiency, but that result was not representative of the performance on the other areas of the test. When the writing portion of the assessment was analyzed, 80% of students scored at 3 or below. Of this 80%, the majority of students (65%) barely achieved the minimum passing score of 3. For mathematics a similar trend is observed. Less than half of the students (38%) tested achieved the minimum passing score of 4. Overall, 26% of the students tested in mathematics scored 4, and a total of 62% scored 4 or lower on the test (Appendix IV, Table IV-F and Figure IV-B). In addition to the requirements of the APTTP I, the ALSDE mandates compliance with the Alabama Quality Teaching Standards (AQTS) for all teacher preparation programs in the state. The third standard addresses directly the mandate that all teaching field programs require teacher candidates to demonstrate competence in literacy, which is clearly defined to encompass the basic academic skills—“oral and written communication, reading, mathematics”:

Standard 3—Literacy: To improve student learning and achievement, teachers use knowledge of effective oral and written communications, reading, mathematics, and technology to facilitate and support direct instruction, active inquiry, collaboration, and positive interaction. Rationale. Research clearly indicates that one of the strongest correlates to effective teaching is a high level of literacy. Not only do effective teachers demonstrate effective use of the spoken and written language, reading, mathematics, and technology, they also model and actively teach their students the fundamentals of reading, writing, and oral communications across all content areas. (http://alex.state.al.us/leadership/alqts_full.pdf)

Key indicators are defined in the standard for oral and written communications, reading, mathematics, and technology. As with all of the ALSDE standards, the indicators in Standard 3 are aligned with relevant elements in the courses of each instructional program within the COE. Performance on the standards and key indicators is assessed

8


through the COE’s college-wide, performance-based assessment system, which monitors students and courses. Teacher candidates who do not meet the standards cannot be submitted for teacher certification. A well-structured and comprehensive system that monitors performance is a requirement of the state and national accrediting associations (Alabama State Department of Education and National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education). The COE consistently maintains accreditation by both bodies. The last review and reaffirmation was in 2007. Student performance ratings on assessments for this review were acceptable, ranging from basic (2) to proficient (3). The highest possible rating was exceptional (4) and the lowest possible rating was unacceptable (1). Course Completion and Retention Rates The Office of Planning and Institutional Research presented data on course completion rates for all courses of instruction from spring 2005 through summer 2007 and retention data from 2000 through 2007. The data show that students complete core curriculum courses at an overall rate of 61% (Appendix IV, Tables IV-G-J). Retention data reveal a decline in continuation rates since 2003-2004. The decline in retention from the first to the second year is particularly noticeable, from 72% in 2003 to 55% in 2007 (Appendix IV, Table IV-K). Conclusions The exploratory process yielded the following conclusions: • For the most part, the general perception is that communication skills (reading,

writing, speaking) and computational/mathematics skills are of paramount importance and most in need of improvement for ASU students.

• ASU students enter as freshmen with performance test scores well below the

national average in the skills (reading, writing, mathematics) necessary for college success as assessed by ACT and SAT results.

• The students’ performance on proficiency tests (MAPP reading, writing,

mathematics) during and after their general education courses is marginal at best and below the national average.

• Data from the College of Education are important because the standards for basic

skills demonstration are clearly stated and assessed and provide a snapshot of the performance of the largest body of ASU students in a single degree field. Performance scores for the students who gain admission to the COE teacher education programs rarely exceed the minimum or mid-range proficiency levels, particularly in the areas of writing and mathematics as assessed on the APTTP I.

• The general conclusion is that the university can benefit from a concerted effort to

implement strong, broad-based measures to create a more effective educational program that targets the improvement of student achievement particularly during the first year. A stronger, more intensive program of instruction at this level will mean higher rates of student performance, hence of student retention and graduation, in succeeding years.

9


• The performance of entering freshmen on national admissions tests indicates that instruction during this period needs to center around the basic academic skills necessary for college success: reading, writing, and computational skills. Oral communication is important but not as easily taught and assessed during the first-year experience; speech courses are electives not requirements at this level. However, oral communication skills should be integrated into the assignments and activities of general education courses.

10


III. Identification of the Topic The work of the QEP Exploratory Team during 2007 and 2008 resulted in the identification of communication skills, with emphasis on reading and writing, and computational or mathematics skills as the topic of focus for the university’s Quality Enhancement Plan. On September 19, 2008, the team presented the results of its exploratory efforts to President William H. Harris and the SACSCOC Leadership Team. The presentation and the intensive discussion that followed led to agreement that the concept of “literacy,” as defined by the Alabama State Department of Education’s Quality Teaching Standards, embraces communication skills (reading and writing) and computational/mathematics skills as well as technology (a number one ranked item by students on the Perceptions Survey). Therefore, literacy as a topic of focus for the QEP would provide a stronger and more broad-based sense of academic purpose for improving student learning outcomes. It is significant to note at this point that between September 2008 and the beginning of the QEP Exploratory Team’s work in 2007, a change in leadership occurred at the university. President Harris, the new president, and his administration proclaimed a new vision for the university. This vision has been articulated in the revised strategic plan designed to guide the university over the next ten years, Vision 2020: The Alabama State University Transformation Plan. The vision, in the president’s words, is “to reorganize, restructure, renew and revive” (ASU Today, Fall 2008, p. 25), hence, the new university theme, “The Renaissance: Building a Culture of Learning.” Refining the Topic and Focus for the QEP The decision was made that for the QEP to have significant impact on improving the quality of student learning, it must be embedded within the newly crafted vision of transformation, renaissance, and the culture of learning, in keeping with the ideas within the university’s vision and institutional theme. The following considerations emerged from discussion and debate surrounding this decision:

• The Vision 2020 strategic plan proposes to improve the retention rate for each entering class and “enhance the likelihood” that first-year students will “persist and progress academically.”

• Intensive literacy instruction throughout the students’ first-year experience at the university would provide a strong foundation for successful later matriculation, positively impact both retention and graduation rates, thus contributing to achievement of Goal II of the Vision 2020 strategic plan.

These considerations brought the QEP Exploratory Team members and other university constituents to the following conclusions:

• The final topic for the QEP would be “Enhancing the Culture of Learning Through Literacy in the First-Year Experience.”

• The topic appropriately reflects the university’s guiding theme, the idea of enhancing the culture of learning, and the concept of transformation.

• The topic also shows an intensive approach to literacy instruction beginning with, and focused in, the first year of the students’ matriculation at the university.

• However, the focus on literacy instruction must not be confined to the first-year experience but must also be reinforced throughout the curriculum. Conversations seeking to answer the question “What should be expected of an ASU graduate?” led to this conclusion. The performance data described above verify the marginal levels of proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics at

11


which many ASU students are functioning when they enter the university for the first time. Thus, it was determined that every ASU graduate should demonstrate competence in reading, writing, and computational skills. Furthermore, the ability to gather, process, and use information effectively for daily decision-making, problem-solving, and continuous learning is critical to an individual’s, thus to an ASU graduate’s, personal and professional success. “Literacy” as a broad concept incorporates all of these expected competencies. Therefore, it was determined that the university should focus on shaping an ASU graduate who is proficient in three specific literacy areas: reading and writing literacy (integrate the two), quantitative literacy, and information literacy.

• It was further determined that developing higher levels of proficiency in these literacy areas could not be achieved and reinforced through instruction concentrated in just one year of the student’s enrollment at ASU. In the early QEP planning and implementation phase, a strong infusion of focused literacy instruction in the core courses that all students must complete is easily attainable because these courses are conveniently housed in University College, the college of entry for all freshman students. This infusion would be reinforced through an emphasis on literacy in targeted discipline-specific courses that would carry the theme of literacy throughout every major from admission through graduation.

The Spring 2009 Faculty Conference served as a forum for launching the Quality Enhancement Plan with the refined topic and focus of “Enhancing the Culture of Learning Through Literacy in the First-Year Experience.” The QEP was introduced to the faculty and staff, and Provost Karyn Scissum Gunn presented her vision for an improved first-year experience within the context of developing a “University-wide Academic Transformation Plan.” She outlined two strategies. The first one involved “restructuring the entering/first year student agenda” in order to have a “sustainable and multi-level impact” that will bring improvement in the following areas:

• Retention and enrollment stabilization • Enhanced recruitment of academically prepared students • Enhanced learning support for academically underprepared students • Enhanced academic progression • Improved graduation rates.

The second strategy called for a focus on implementing effective first year experiences that result in a “pipeline” of students whose academic progression at ASU is undergirded by “an aggressive first-year launch.” The revised and strengthened admissions requirements adopted in May 2009 and put into effect during the opening of the spring 2010 semester provide support for achieving the improvements cited by the provost. (http://www.alasu.edu/admissions/undergrad-admissions/index.aspx). The QEP’s focus on enhancing literacy is another major initiative in this direction. Although the aggressive first year experience is highlighted and celebrated, this first year will establish the foundation for further development of literacy competencies throughout the curriculum so as to infuse the entire culture of learning and thus contribute to enhancing the quality of education and skills for lifelong learning experiences of ASU graduates.

12


Definition of Literacy Once the topic and focus for the QEP were identified, the QEP Exploratory Team was expanded to include more faculty members and renamed the QEP Development Team. The purpose of this expanded team was to develop the working components of the QEP for distribution, review, and approval. The first task undertaken by the QEP Development Team was to determine a clear and precise definition of literacy in order that all university constituents (faculty, staff, students, alumni, community stakeholders) would “be on the same page” in understanding the meaning of literacy for Alabama State University’s literacy instruction program. The review of the literature and best practices summarized in Section X of this document provided insights for developing a workable definition of literacy for the QEP. In addition to the Alabama State Department of Education’s definition, the team’s efforts to construct a working meaning of literacy included the following definition from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): “Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning to enable an individual to achieve his or her goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in the wider society.” (http://www.literacy.ca/) Although literacy has been traditionally defined as the ability to read and write with a certain degree of competence, research and best practices in education indicate that, in recent years, the meaning has been expanded to include literacy in information and communication technologies, quantitative literacy, and scientific literacy. To improve academic success in university programs, research indicates that all of these literacy areas should be incorporated into programs of instruction. The UNESCO definition and the ALSDE definition broadly encompass all of these areas as well. The literacy areas selected as most important for ASU students—reading and writing literacy (always connect the two), quantitative literacy, and information literacy—are defined in more specific terms in the student learning outcomes stated in Section IV below.

13


IV. Desired Student Learning Outcomes For purposes of the QEP requirement for reaffirmation, the QEP manual defines student learning as “changes in knowledge, skills, behaviors, or values” (p.4). The main focus of ASU’s QEP is on the students’ development and demonstration of knowledge and skills in the defined literacy areas. To support achievement of the university’s Vision 2020 Goal II, the following mission and goal statements will serve as guides for the literacy program. Student learning outcomes growing out of these statements have been identified as essential to enhancing the culture of learning throughout the university curriculum. QEP implementation will occur in two phases. In the first, instruction during the first-year experience will target these outcomes in core curriculum courses required of all students. This foundational instruction will strengthen the students’ proficiency for mastering the content in their major disciplines. In the second phase, selected courses in the degree majors will provide continuation and reinforcement of literacy instruction. Several key concepts and operational strategies suggested from studying the research and best practices in literacy instruction have been integrated into the following program design. The Review of the Literature and Best Practices follows in Section X of this document. QEP Mission Statement In keeping with the university’s mission (Appendix II), the Quality Enhancement Plan will enhance the culture of learning at Alabama State University through building higher levels of student competence in the defined literacy areas beginning with a strong first-year launch and extending into the major disciplines. This enhanced culture of learning will positively impact the first-year retention rate of each entering freshman class and promote successful academic progression through graduation. QEP Goal Statements Goal 1: Students completing courses designated for focused literacy instruction will demonstrate enhanced competence in reading/writing, quantitative, and information literacy knowledge and skills.

Goal 2: Focused literacy instruction will positively impact course completion rates in core curriculum courses. (This goal will support achievement of the university’s 66% first-year retention rate for each entering class.)

Goal 3: Focused literacy instruction will increase the students’ proficiency scores on the ETS Proficiency Profile Test and a standardized information literacy test. (As a result of this increase, the mean score on the junior year administration of the ETS Proficiency Profile test for Cohort Group A and for each group thereafter will be closer to the university’s goal. The university’s goal is to raise students’ mean score to 440, the national 2007-2009 score for students at master’s colleges I and II: Compliance Certification Report, Standard 3.5.1).

14


Goal 4: Faculty teaching courses designated for literacy-focused instruction will engage in professional development activities to extend their knowledge and expertise in the use of instructional strategies and pedagogy most appropriate for improving student achievement in the literacy areas. Through accomplishing the above goals, the QEP literacy program will support the achievement of the following objectives of Goal II (Ensure the Academic Integrity of the University) of the university’s Vision 2020 strategic plan: • Objective B: Produce higher quality outcomes in all academic programs. . . .

(Specifically: Systematically measure and improve the achievements of students’ educational outcomes at the course and curricular levels.)

• Objective E: Ensure a successful transitional matriculation experience for entering students. (Specifically: Attain a first-year student retention rate of 66 percent for each entering class.)

• Objective H: Ensure a teaching-learning process that reflects new realities of assessing and assimilating information and varied learning styles of students. (Specifically: Support the faculty in developing new instructional modes to respond to changing learning contexts . . . . (Specifically: Support a program to assist the faculty in developing instructional strategies and methods, including expertise in the use of information technologies.)

Desired Student Learning Outcomes for Reading/Writing Literacy The outcomes for reading and writing literacy are based on research and best practices that view reading and writing as reciprocal acts. The writer transforms ideas into print; the reader transforms the print into ideas. The act of composing reinforces concepts important to reading comprehension. The act of writing strengthens reading ability. Combining writing activities with the reading of texts (in all disciplines) improves both reading comprehension and retention; immersing students in reading and reading strategies helps them to incorporate patterns encountered in printed texts into their own writing, thus strengthening and improving their writing skills. Because the two cannot be isolated from each other in the construction of meaning and because they involve some of the same skills and processes, integrating instruction in the two is the most effective method for improving reading and writing literacy. Outcome1: Students will be able to read and respond orally and in writing to challenging texts that demand critical thinking. Outcome 2: Students will be able to recognize and demonstrate effective use of various patterns for organizing and developing written communication. Outcome 3: Students will be able to recognize and use correctly and effectively the rules and conventions of standard English. Desired Student Learning Outcomes for Quantitative Literacy In simple terms, the literature defines quantitative literacy as the ability to understand and use numbers and data in everyday life, to use mathematical thinking as a tool for solving real-world problems. Mathematical concepts and computational skills are essential elements of quantitative literacy, but they may not always be the primary focus. More important is their function in decision-making, their role in informing an individual’s

15


ability to reason and communicate with numerical insight. Use of technology to gather, analyze, and present quantitative information is an important component of quantitative literacy. Outcome 1: Students will demonstrate knowledge of fundamental mathematical concepts, symbols, and principles in performing basic computational operations. Outcome 2: Students will interpret mathematical/quantitative models (such as formulas, graphs, charts, tables, maps) that describe real-world phenomena. Outcome 3: Students will demonstrate competence in analytical and quantitative reasoning skills as these apply to real-world situations (such as basic financial operations like balancing a checkbook, calculating interest, managing investments, reviewing mortgage options). Desired Student Learning Outcomes for Information Literacy According to the American Library Association, information literacy is a set of abilities enabling individuals to “recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information.” Information literacy allows people to engage in effective decision-making, problem-solving, and research, and enables them to take responsibility for their own continued learning in areas of personal and professional interest. In the past, information literacy has been viewed as library instruction, bibliographic instruction, and library skills. Today, technology plays a key role in accessing information. Therefore, information literacy includes skill in the effective use of electronic resources as well as print resources; information literacy encompasses and employs technological literacy. The outcomes presented below are designed to improve students’ competencies as they progress through their studies by providing repeated opportunities for seeking, evaluating, and managing information gathered from multiple sources and discipline-specific research tools and methods. Outcome 1: Students will be able to identify and articulate their information needs in the process of defining a problem, question, or project for research. Outcome 2: Students will be able to use library and information technology resources and tools to carry out research. Outcome 3: Students will be able to design and execute a research project using a systematic process to collect, analyze, synthesize, and present information in written formats, properly incorporating, citing, and documenting sources. The literacy outcomes are framed to indicate overall university expectations for observable improvement in students’ knowledge and skills. Each outcome will be further defined by performance indicators, by statements of what students will be able to do to demonstrate achievement of the outcome. Individual courses will precisely target and teach competencies to achieve the broader outcomes. Standard rubrics, based on the performance indicators and national literacy standards, will be used to assess student achievement of literacy outcomes in the courses.

16


Scope of Literacy Instruction to Achieve Student Learning Outcomes According to the review of the literature and best practices (Section X), educators hold an almost unanimous view that the literacy areas identified should be integrated into general education courses and courses in major fields of study or taught across the curriculum with particular emphasis on core curriculum courses. Selected first-year experience courses required of all students will form the foundation for literacy instruction. Selected courses in the degree majors will provide a continuation and reinforcement of the literacy focus within the context of the discipline. Implementation of literacy instruction in the courses will occur in phases. The first phase will concentrate on required core curriculum courses. Lessons learned and strategies developed during this phase will be used to implement the next phase which will be to extend literacy instruction into the major courses. Both phases will involve and immerse faculty in University College, the degree-granting colleges, and from essential units throughout the university. Courses identified for literacy learning outcomes are the following: Required Core Curriculum Courses in University College

• English Composition, ENG 131: Reading/Writing Literacy • English Composition, ENG 132: Reading/Writing Literacy and Information

Literacy • Mathematics, MAT 136 (Finite Mathematics) and MAT 137 (Precalculus Algebra)

(as specified by major): Syllabi for these courses will be modified to include specific learning outcomes for Quantitative Literacy within the context of the course objectives and content.

• The following core courses will be targeted for specific instruction in each of the literacy areas within the context of the course objectives and content: GEO 206, HIS 131 & 132, BIO 127 & 128. Each course will include the following:

A reading/writing literacy learning outcome An information literacy learning outcome

A quantitative literacy learning outcome

Courses in Degree College Majors • Each major will include the following in at least two existing courses (1

sophomore, 1 junior) within the context of the course objectives and content: reading/ writing, information literacy, and quantitative literacy learning outcomes.

Ideally, students would complete English composition and mathematics courses prior to enrollment in the other core courses because skills and concepts learned in English and mathematics are basic for further literacy studies. Of necessity, however, during their first-year experience, students are enrolled concurrently in English, mathematics, and some other core courses. For example, students entering the core curriculum usually enroll in both ENG 131 and HIS 131 during their first semester. The basic principles of writing an essay (selecting a topic, writing a thesis sentence and supporting statements, developing paragraphs) may be taught early in the semester in English 131 and the assignment to write an essay in History 131 may come later during the semester and reinforce and build upon the principles taught in ENG 131. Therefore, instruction must be carefully structured and coordinated among the core courses. Teams of faculty working

17


with the learning outcomes and activities for the courses will make these kinds of coordination decisions. The teaching/learning process to achieve the learning outcomes within the courses is meant to be more recursive than linear. Courses in English and mathematics will focus on basic principles in the literacy areas and provide the foundation for instruction in other courses. The other courses will repeatedly build and strengthen literacy skills and concepts from the foundation courses. The expectation is that concepts and skills will be reinforced throughout the courses, that the assignments and activities will be increasingly more sophisticated, that concepts and their treatment will be more complex, and that students will demonstrate increased proficiency in performance as they move through the curriculum. Literacy instruction in core curriculum courses, accompanied by effective academic advisement and strong academic support services, will provide the “aggressive first-year launch” (called for by the provost and vice president for academic affairs) that will result in successful progression to the degree college majors for a greater number of entering students. In the degree colleges, departments offering an academic major will identify two required courses, one sophomore and one junior level course, in each major for intensive literacy instruction designed to achieve designated literacy outcomes within the existing framework and content of the courses. Again, instruction will reinforce and build from what has been taught in the core courses. Table 1 summarizes the distribution of literacy learning outcomes within required core and targeted major courses.

Table 1: Courses Selected for Literacy-Learning Outcomes

Required Core Courses Reading/Writing Literacy

Quantitative Literacy

Information Literacy

ENG 131 ENG 132 MAT 136 MAT 137 HIS 131 HIS 132 BIO 127 BIO 128

GEO 206 Targeted Courses by

Degree Programs Major Course 1 (200-level) Major Course 2 (300-level)

Instruction in the literacy areas will be required for the selected courses in the core curriculum and in the degree majors; however, all colleges and departments will be encouraged to integrate literacy instruction (writing, reading, quantitative, and information) into their existing curricula, as appropriate, to further enrich the culture of learning and support achievement of Goal II, Objectives B, E, G, and H of the Vision 2020 strategic plan.

18


The QEP Conceptual Framework Model The QEP conceptual framework for achieving the desired student literacy learning outcomes is represented in the model that follows. The graphic illustration places literacy and the three literacy areas of focus at the center of the students’ educational experience (the inner circle of the model). Reading/writing literacy, quantitative literacy, and information literacy are essential to learning in all subjects, at all levels of education, and in all learning environments. The first-year core curriculum courses provide broad-based, foundational instruction in these literacy areas that strengthens the students’ academic proficiency thereby fostering greater mastery of the content in the major disciplines. As students move into their majors, selected courses provide continuation experiences that reinforce and expand this basic literacy development in relationship to the students’ chosen discipline of study. As represented in the outer circle of the model, the enhanced culture of learning engendered through focused instruction to achieve the desired literacy outcomes promotes improvement in student retention, academic persistence, and graduation rates. Further, it helps to create self-directed, life-long learners.

19


Figure 1: The QEP Conceptual Framework Model

_____________ Graphic: Image Idea an Adaptation from National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) (http://nces.ed.gov/naal/ -- December 31, 2009)

20


QEP Cohort Progression Implementation of the QEP will begin in academic year 2010-2011. This will be a program planning year. Literacy instruction will begin in 2011-2012 for the selected core curriculum courses. Each year, cohort groups will be identified from within the entering freshman class and followed through graduation. The grid below displays the intended progression of the groups through the curriculum.

Table 2: QEP Cohort Group Progression Grid

Cohort Year and Cohort

Group

First-Year Core Literacy Courses

Sophomore Major Literacy

Course

Junior Major Literacy Course

Graduation

2010-2011 Planning

2011-2012 Group A

Group A Implementation

2012-2013 Group B

Group B Implementation

Group A Progression

2013-2014 Group C

Group C Implementation

Group B Progression

Group A Progression

2014-2015 Group D

Group D Implementation

Group C Progression

Group B Progression

Group A Summative Evaluation

Program implementation with Cohort Group A will serve as the first “trial-run” to determine what works and what does not, to identify problems and possible “glitches” in order to make adjustments and modifications. As each group moves through the curriculum, assessment and evaluation data will be collected, analyzed, and used for continuous improvement. The degree colleges, along with University College, will be intricately involved in the program planning processes during the 2010-2011 planning year. While Cohort Group A is moving through the first year, the degree colleges will be developing the literacy-focused courses for the sophomore and junior years. They will thus have two years to prepare for the sophomore course and three years to prepare for the junior course and will benefit in their development of courses from the results of instruction during the prior years. By the end of the fifth year of the program, one group, Cohort Group A, will have completed the progression through the literacy instruction program, and a complete evaluation report will be prepared including all aspects of implementation through this time period. The results will be used for continuous improvements in sustaining the QEP.

21


V. Actions to be Implemented The institutional context at ASU embodies the supports necessary for implementing the QEP. Institutional Context The lower division-upper division structure (University College and degree-granting colleges) of the educational program at ASU offers a suitable framework for anchoring a program of literacy instruction in the core curriculum and extending it into the degree majors. University College The students’ first-year experience at the university and most of the course requirements of the core curriculum are contained primarily in University College, which does not award degrees. ASU has a long history of focusing on improving student achievement during the first-year experience—of providing courses and academic support services to address the individualized educational needs of students at the point of entry to the university. University College was established for this purpose in 1975. As the college of entry for all undergraduates enrolling at ASU for the first time, University College seeks to achieve the following objectives: • To offer students a basic program of general studies and the prerequisite courses in

preparation for collegiate study in the major degree-granting areas; • To make available to students academic services designed to promote the

development of those skills and competencies required for success in collegiate studies;

• To provide students with academic advisement services that will maximize retention and promote successful achievement in college. (ASU General Undergraduate Catalog 2008 – 2010, p. 42).

In addition to offering most of the required general education courses, University College provides a full range of academic support services for entering students, including academic advisement. Academic placement procedures provide for instruction that meets the needs of entering students at different levels of ability and academic preparation. Beginning freshman students may enter developmental courses, the standard core curriculum courses, or honors courses. All students must complete the requirements to exit University College before enrolling in a degree-granting college to pursue the academic major of their choice. Exit requirements include successful completion of a minimum of twenty-four (24) of the required forty-two (42) credit hours in the core curriculum. Entering freshman students normally spend their first year in University College but continue enrollment in some University College core courses after entering into a degree-granting college. The students’ first-year tenure in University College facilitates the university’s efforts to initiate programs during this period that concentrate on strengthening their opportunities for successful academic progression. University College is administered by a dean and department chairs each with his or her own unit budgets. The college is organized into three departments: Advancement Studies, Humanities, and Mathematics and Science. Advancement Studies offers developmental courses in English, reading, and mathematics, and a course in freshman orientation and study skills. The Reading Center is supervised by this department. The Department of Humanities offers core curriculum courses in English composition, world

22


history, geography, and humanities and operates the Writing Center and the History and Geography Center. The Department of Mathematics and Science offers core courses in mathematics and science and operates the Mathematics and Science Tutorial Center. The Academic Advisement Center provides a centralized system of academic advisement for all new students during their first year of enrollment at the university or until they meet the exit requirements of University College. Each department has a department chair and a faculty who teach courses and a staff of instructors and tutors for the academic support centers; the Academic Advisement Center is staffed with a director and professional advisers. The QEP will involve specific roles for the academic support centers. Because these are directly supervised by University College, the college administration and the faculty can easily plan for coordination of course instruction with tutoring, resources, and other forms of academic support to meet student needs in achieving the QEP learning outcomes. This kind of collaboration is already a routine occurrence in the college. In addition, the centers’ staff will include additional peer tutors who will be trained in the three literacy areas of the QEP. The Academic Advisement Center will also play a pivotal role in QEP implementation. The center’s staff is responsible for managing the course placement procedure for entering freshmen. Each adviser in the Academic Advisement Center has a student caseload and provides advisement on course selection and scheduling and maintains accurate records of the students’ progress through University College. Advisers will be critical in ensuring student enrollment in the appropriate QEP core courses and in closely monitoring student progress during the first year. The center advisers also work with the University College Mentor Retention Program in which peer and faculty mentors provide proactive counselling and advisement to help retain new students and help them in completing their academic and professional goals. The freshman orientation course in University College is another asset for the QEP. ORI 100, a requirement for all undergraduates, is designed to provide an orientation to the purpose of higher education and to the academic skills necessary for college-level success. The course features a Common Reader Project that will help reinforce some of the literacy skills emphasized in the QEP. As the foregoing discussion discloses, University College has the infrastructure to support a coherent first-year experience for ASU students. In addition, the history of program development in University College serves as a strong foundation and an appropriate springboard for discovering and implementing new directions for revitalizing and enhancing the quality of student learning starting with the first-year experience. The QEP will no doubt require uniformity in some features of the syllabi for selected courses. Use of common course syllabi in all sections of a course is standard procedure in University College. Faculty members teaching the same course cooperate in developing the syllabus: format, objectives, suggested assignments and assessments, and some course policies. Collaboration is also central to the successful implementation of the QEP. Over the years, the University College faculty has worked well together in carrying out the goals, projects, and programs of the college, and especially in course syllabi development and other team efforts for improving instruction. Faculty members have experience collaborating in the development and use of scoring rubrics and procedures for

23


establishing inter-rater reliability when engaging in holistic scoring sessions. Over time, one department chair and some faculty have participated with the Educational Testing Service (ETS) as readers and table leaders for scoring various ETS examinations. They have shared this experience in collaborative instructional and assessment efforts in the college, particularly in writing across the curriculum activities. University College has implemented a Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) Program. Although the program has faced certain challenges, it has provided experience with designing some features of cross-curricular instruction. Efforts were also made to extend the program into the degree majors. Thus, the across-the-curriculum approach suggested in the QEP is familiar to the faculty. As a starting point for development of the QEP, University College embraces many strengths. But the college also has a major challenge that could impact successful QEP implementation: the large class enrollment and the high faculty to student ratio in three of the courses selected for literacy instruction--biology, history, and geography. This challenge poses a need for additional faculty and is discussed further in Section IX, Resources. The Degree-Granting Colleges ASU has thirty (30) baccalaureate degree programs offered across seven (7) degree-granting colleges. Degree-granting colleges will contribute to the implementation of the QEP in a number of ways:

• The colleges will directly address literacy learning outcomes of the QEP by including an outcome for each literacy area in one sophomore and one junior course.

• Colleges that share general education content areas with University College (for example, history, biology, mathematics, English) also share teaching faculty when feasible. This will help to offset or balance out the high faculty to student ratio in University College courses such as history, biology, and geography.

• Many faculty in the degree colleges have special expertise in the literacy areas of the QEP and will be working closely with the planning and implementation of literacy instruction at all levels and in all academic units, not just in their particular colleges and departments. QEP implementation will rely on the professional knowledge and experience of these faculty members as well as that of external consultants.

• A key objective of the Vision 2020 strategic plan is to “develop and nurture Centers of Excellence” in each of the colleges. These centers will address the needs and requirements of the disciplines in the colleges as these advance the mission and goals of the university. Although these units vary according to the programs offered in the colleges, all Centers of Excellence will be involved in integrating into their programs enrichment resources and activities related to the literacy learning outcomes of the QEP.

• The Teacher Education Center in the College of Education provides tutorials, workshops, and other activities to assist prospective teachers in meeting the standards for teacher certification, specifically the APTTP I Basic Skills Test, the Praxis II Examination, and the Alabama Quality Teaching Standards. As explained in Section II of this document, literacy, Standard III of the Alabama Quality Teaching Standards, encompasses the literacy areas that are the focus of the QEP. Supportive literacy instruction resources and activities are currently

24


essential to the tutorials and workshops in the Teacher Education Center. The QEP will contribute to strengthening the emphasis on literacy instruction.

Other Contributing Units In addition to those already discussed, some other university units will be crucial to the implementation of the QEP. The University Library and Learning Resources, Levi Watkins Learning Center is one such unit. It provides a very active Information Literacy Program for students, faculty, and staff. The mission of the program is to offer instruction in finding, evaluating, and using information to further academic, professional, and personal growth. The program also emphasizes the creation of life-long learners who are capable of thinking critically about information and its uses. An Information Literacy Librarian will work with the QEP staff and faculty in developing and coordinating information literacy instruction in the core and major courses. The Living Learning Communities (LLC) in the residence halls are a special academic support program available in the Division of Student Services. University College faculty and the Academic Advisement Center staff assist with these Living Learning Communities which are coordinated for students with shared cultural, academic, and professional interests. Academic assistance related to literacy enhancement will be incorporated into the activities of these residential programs. Other university units with direct involvement in the QEP implementation are discussed later in this document. These include the Office of Academic Assessment, Planning, and Evaluation; the Instructional Development Center; and the Office of Planning and Institutional Research. Implementation Actions The actions essential to the successful implementation of the QEP are outlined and explained in detail in the items listed below. Action #1: Appoint QEP Implementation Steering Committee and Staff A QEP Implementation Steering Committee with broad university representation will be appointed, organized, and charged with specific responsibilities. A QEP program director and a staff associate will be appointed and job descriptions for both will be finalized. The QEP Program Implementation Office will be set up and put into operation. Action #2: Include QEP in Fall and Spring Faculty and Staff Conferences and Student Convocations A QEP orientation and marketing plan will be developed and implemented for the Fall 2010 Faculty/Staff Conference. A power point presentation of the QEP will be prepared for viewing and discussion at this conference and at subsequent college and departmental meetings and at campus convocations for students. Brochures and other materials will be prepared and distributed for orientation purposes. The focus of the orientation and marketing sessions will be to study and clarify aspects of the QEP: background and importance, definitions of literacy and literacy areas, student learning outcomes, and implementation procedures. Succeeding fall and spring conferences for each year will feature QEP updates and work sessions for faculty.

25


Action #3: Appoint Faculty/Course Development Literacy Teams A Faculty/Course Development Literacy Team will be appointed for each literacy area (3 teams). These joint University College and degree-granting college teams will organize and conduct faculty development workshops and seminars and will work in collaborative groups with faculty who teach the courses to develop course components, materials, instructional strategies, and assessments as described in the action items below. Chairs of these teams will be full-time faculty members with expertise in the appropriate literacy area and will serve on the QEP Implementation Steering Committee. Because of the volume of work expected of them in carrying out their QEP tasks, they will be granted release time from one course during the planning year for the QEP. Faculty from the colleges and staff from the Learning Resources Center with education and experience in the literacy areas will be selected to serve on the teams. Action #4: Plan and Conduct Faculty Development Activities Several faculty development workshops will take place, some with external consultants. The QEP director, steering committee, and appointed Faculty/Course Development Literacy Teams will provide leadership in faculty development activities. Faculty workshops and work sessions will be evaluated with a qualitative evaluation instrument (survey, questionnaire, etc.). The teams will work with the newly developed Office of Academic Assessment, Planning, and Evaluation to develop and administer qualitative evaluation instruments for each faculty development activity. Faculty/Course Development Literacy Teams will work together to carry out the tasks described in the Action Items #5 through #8 that follow. In addition to on-campus faculty workshops and group work sessions, travel to conferences and site visits to view programs at other institutions will be included for planning and development purposes. Faculty development activities and resources are readily available in all three literacy areas of the QEP. For example, the annual Writing Across the Curriculum and Writing in the Disciplines Conference offers sessions on using writing and reading to improve teaching and learning in post-secondary education; the Mathematics Association of America and the National Numeracy Network sponsor annual conferences with foci on teaching quantitative literacy in the core curriculum; the Association of College and Research Libraries offers online elearning information literacy seminars on “Best Practices in Information Literacy in Undergraduate Education” and “Information Literacy and Assessment.” Many colleges and universities have integrated literacy education into their curricula. For example, quantitative literacy is one component of the QEP at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and Philadelphia University has an extensive information literacy program of instruction. Travel to conferences, workshops, and site visits to other institutions would provide immeasurable benefits to the planning and development of the literacy program at ASU. Action #5: Define Performance Indicators (Competencies) for Each Student Learning Outcome Three (3) general university student learning outcomes have been stated in Section IV above for each literacy area. Each Faculty/Course Development Literacy Team will write a brief explanation and specific performance indicators--what students will be able to do to demonstrate achievement of the outcome--to accompany each outcome. The standards of the appropriate professional association will serve as a guide for developing the performance indicators. Consider the following examples for information literacy (based on the Association of College and Research Libraries’ “Information

26


Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.” (http://www.ala.org/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/ALA): Learning Outcome 1: Students will be able to identify and articulate their information needs in the process of defining a topic/problem for research. This outcome refers to identifying and stating the information problem to be solved and recognizing sources that may be used for research. Performance Indicators for Learning Outcome 1:

• Students will identify a research topic (confer with instructors and librarians, participate in class discussions, peer workgroups, and electronic searches).

• Students will state their research topic in well-formed English sentences. • Students will develop a thesis statement and formulate questions for research

based on identified information needs. • Students will explore at least ten (10) general information sources (print and

electronic) to increase familiarity with the topic. Standard rubrics for assessing student achievement of each literacy outcome will be developed by the faculty literacy teams with external consultative support as required based on the performance indicators for the outcome. Action #6: Classify/Categorize Student Learning Outcomes Student learning outcomes and performance indicators will be classified according to basic and more advanced and will be designated for instruction in specific core curriculum courses and in one sophomore and one junior level course in the major disciplines. For example, the information literacy outcome above is basic and will be taught initially in English 132. Since it is a foundational learning outcome, other courses will reinforce this outcome, build upon and move beyond it to achieve the more advanced, discipline-specific outcomes designated for the higher-level courses. Action #7: Re-examine and Modify Courses Implementation of the QEP will center on re-examination, “revitalization,” thus modification of the selected courses (core courses and major courses) to achieve student learning outcomes stated for literacy areas. Literacy outcomes will be appropriately integrated within the context and content of existing courses. In collaborative groups with the Faculty/Course Development Literacy Teams, teachers who teach the courses will review and revise syllabi to incorporate the literacy outcomes and develop suggested course materials, activities, assignments, teaching methods, and assessments (including standard rubrics) for each course. Modification of syllabi must adhere to the university’s system for review and approval which follows a procedure for verifying the proper alignment of course objectives (outcomes), assessments, grading practices, and criteria for passing the course. The Instructional Development Center is the quality assurance unit for this approval process. What is expected to be a “dynamic course revitalization” process will involve researching, discovering, and constructing innovative paradigms for classroom interaction and student engagement in learning. In preparing instructional components, faculty will incorporate ideas and approaches for interactive and collaborative teaching/learning, for active learning, for a wide variety of writing experiences, for critical thinking and problem solving assignments, for technology use, for team work, and for service learning projects where appropriate. The Research and Best Practices section of this document, Section X, provides good starting points for ideas and resources.

27


Throughout the course modification and revitalization process, faculty will be oriented to understand that literacy instruction must be discipline specific, designed to promote understanding of the knowledge, content, and skills of the subject being taught. Action #8: Prepare Literacy Instruction Documents (Resource Manuals) The faculties’ work from Action Items #5-7 above will be compiled in three (3) separate literacy instruction documents, one for each literacy area. Each document will include the following:

• Definition of Literacy (General) • Definition of the Literacy Area (Reading/Writing, Information, or Quantitative) • Basic Principles of (the Area) Literacy Instruction at ASU • Internet websites to professional standards for the literacy area • Student Learning Outcomes, Performance Indicators, and Assessment Rubrics • Examples of Teaching Strategies for the Courses

A standard format will be developed using the following components: Description of Teaching Strategy/Activity What does it do? How to Implement Linkage to Academic Support Centers

• In-course Assessments for Assignments/Activities Consider the following example for an outcomes and assessment grid:

Table 3: Sample QEP Outcomes and Assessment Grid

Information Literacy

Course

Learning Outcome

Performance Indicator(s)

Assessment Method/Instrument

English 132

1: Students will be able to identify and articulate their information needs in the process of defining a topic/problem for research.

Students will identify a research topic. Students will state their research topic in well-formed English sentences. Students will develop a thesis statement and formulate questions for research based on identified information needs. Students will explore at least ten (10) general information sources (print and electronic) to increase familiarity with the topic.

One (1) rubric may be used for the outcome. Rubric states the requirements/standards for each letter grade or assessment points awarded each indicator. Space allowed for feedback (comments) to improve on assignments, including referral to an academic support center if necessary.

28


The three documents will be distributed, reviewed throughout the university, and used in workshops to orient faculty to the “revitalized” instructional model, strategies and materials. Feedback will be used to revise the documents as appropriate. The documents will be used for class instruction and for continuous planning and assessment. Documents may be placed online for easy access and will be continuously revised and modified as required throughout the implementation of the program. Action #9: Finalize and begin acquisition of faculty and resource needs for QEP implementation. Recruit and employ needed faculty; secure necessary resources. Orient new faculty. Action #10: Conduct a four-day faculty workshop during the 2011 summer term. The main purpose will be to study in-depth the three literacy documents and provide orientation and hands-on experiences and other activities in preparation for QEP implementation in the fall 2011 semester. Action #11: Implement QEP program according to the timelines and conduct assessment and evaluation activities as outlined in the QEP Evaluation Plan in Section VIII. Timelines for implementing the above and other necessary actions over a five-year period follow in Section VI below. During this period, the literacy instruction program will be securely embedded in the curriculum and will be continued beyond the five years with the necessary modifications and enhancements required by time and experience. The reader should refer back to Section V for complete descriptions of the actions represented in the timelines. Positions of responsibility reflected in the timelines are described in detail in Section VII, Organizational Structure.

29


VI. Implementation Timeline QEP program actions described in Section V above will be implemented during the five-year period according to the following timelines.

Table 4: Implementation Timeline 2010-2011

Academic Year

1 Implementation Actions Responsible Parties

*Bold indicates lead person(s) PLANNING YEAR

Summer Term 2010

Action #1: Appoint QEP Steering Committee, QEP Director, and staff associate.

Provost/VP Academic Affairs

Operationalize QEP office and budget. QEP Director Action #2: Plan QEP orientation, marketing, and conference, convocation. Develop generic qualitative evaluation instruments for faculty development workshops/activities.

QEP Director, QEP Steering Committee VP/Marketing, Council of Academic Deans, Director Academic Assessment

Fall Semester 2010 September

Action #2: Conduct conference, convocation, workshops. Launch QEP orientation/marketing. Evaluate action.

Provost/VP, QEP Director QEP Steering Committee Deans and Dept. Chairs

September Action #3: Appoint faculty literacy teams. QEP Director QEP Committee

September -December

Actions #4, 5, 6: Teams, course faculty work on performance indicators (PIs) and rubrics for learning outcomes. Develop evaluation instruments and evaluate actions.

QEP Director, Director Academic Assessment Consultant, IDC Director Dept. Chairs, Faculty

September -December

Action #9: Determine additional faculty for courses, begin process to recruit and employ new faculty by summer term 2011.

Provost/VP, Deans, Dept. Chairs

November -December

Actions #2 and #4: Plan faculty conference and development sessions for January.

Provost/VP, QEP Committee and QEP Director

Spring Semester 2011 January

Action #2 and #4: Conduct Spring Faculty Conference, present work of teams and faculty on PIs. Faculty development sessions to review outcomes and PIs. Evaluate actions.

Provost/VP, Deans, Dept. Chairs, Faculty QEP Committee and Director, Consultant

January through May

Action #7: Develop strategies & assessments for outcomes and PIs. Modify courses, revise syllabi. Evaluate action.

QEP Director, Dept. Chairs Faculty, IDC Director

March through May

Action #10: Plan summer four-day faculty workshop, including evaluation. Confer with ETS about local test items, etc.

QEP Committee and QEP Director

Summer Term 2011 June- Aug.

Action #8: Prepare literacy instruction documents and ETS local test items.

QEP Director, Faculty Teams, QEP Committee

August Action #10: Four-day Faculty Workshop: Review/study 3 literacy documents in depth and ETS, etc. testing process. Evaluate action.

QEP Director, Deans, Dept. Chairs, Faculty, Consultant

August Action #9: Finalize employment of new faculty. Provost/VP, Deans

30


Table 5: Implementation Timeline 2011-2012

Academic Year

2 Implementation Actions Responsible Parties

*Bold indicates lead person(s) 2011-2012 IMPLEMENTATION YEAR

Core Curriculum Courses Fall Semester 2011

Actions #2 and #4: Conduct Faculty Conference with QEP updates and faculty work sessions. Evaluate actions.

Provost/VP, Deans, Dept. Chairs, QEP Director, Faculty

Action #11: Establish Cohort Group. Administer, analyze ETS and IL tests.

QEP Director, Directors Academic Assessment & IDC

Implement instruction for English and Math courses.

Faculty

Implement course assessment procedures.

Faculty

Collect and analyze faculty course reports. Prepare semester interim reports.

QEP Director Academic Assessment Director

Spring Semester 2012

Actions #2 and #8: Faculty Conference, work sessions, review implementation, make recommendations. Evaluate.

Provost/VP, Deans, Dept. Chairs, QEP Director and Committee Faculty

Action #11: Administer ETS and IL Tests.

QEP Director, Director Academic Assessment

Implement instruction for other core courses. Implement course assessment procedures.

Faculty

Collect course assessment reports and work sessions evaluations.

QEP Director Directors Academic Assessment & IDC

Summer Term 2012

Compile and analyze assessment and evaluation data. Review data and prepare reports.

QEP Director Director Academic Assessment

Recommend improvements based on data. Review ETS and IL Test results. Make recommendations for improvements in test administration.

QEP Director IDC Director QEP Steering Committee

31


Implementation years 3, 4, and 5 will follow the same timelines focused on faculty development, literacy instruction in the courses, assessment and evaluation, and revision for program improvement. The QEP Five-Year Impact Report will be prepared and submitted along with the Fifth-Year Interim Report in 2015.

Table 6: Implementation Timeline 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015

Academic Years 3, 4,

and 5

Implementation Actions Responsible Parties *Bold indicates lead person(s)

IMPLEMENTATION YEARS Fall Semester

Actions #2 and #4: Conduct Fall Faculty Conference with QEP updates and work sessions. Review prior year recommendations. Evaluate actions.

Provost/VP Deans, Dept. Chairs, QEP Director, Faculty

Action #8: Revise/modify courses/processes based on recommendations.

QEP Director Faculty

Action #11: Establish Cohort Group. Administer, analyze ETS test and IL test.


Implement instruction for courses. Implement course assessment procedures.

Faculty

Collect and analyze faculty course reports.

QEP Director Academic Assessment Director

Prepare semester interim assessment reports.

QEP Director Director of Academic Assessment

Spring Semester

Actions #2, #4, and #8: Conduct Spring Faculty Conference and work sessions. Review implementation, assessment reports, recommendations. Revise/modify as needed.

Provost/VP QEP Director Directors Academic Assessment & IDC Faculty

Action #11: Administer ETS and IL tests.


Implement instruction in courses. Implement course assessment procedures.

Faculty

Collect assessment and evaluation data.

QEP Director Directors Academic Assessment & IDC

Summer Term

Analyze data Prepare reports.

QEP Director Directors of Academic Assessment & IDC

Conduct Faculty Workshops as needed. Review assessment reports. Recommend improvements based on data. Evaluate.

QEP Director Deans/Dept. Chairs w/ Consultant Faculty

Summer/Fall 2015

Prepare and submit QEP Impact Report with Fifth-Year Interim Report.

QEP Director

32


VII. Organizational Structure The QEP will be an integral component of the university structure. This section illustrates how the implementation of the QEP fits into the overall administrative organization of the university and explains the responsibilities of the university officers, QEP staff and committees, and other units involved. Organizational Chart The following chart reflects the lines of authority and responsibilities of the units and officials directly associated with implementing and sustaining the QEP.

Figure 2: Organization for Implementing and Sustaining the QEP

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

PRESIDENT ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL

PROVOST & VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

COUNCIL OF ACADEMIC DEANS & DIRECTORS

DIRECTOR ACADEMIC PLANNING,

ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION

QEP DIRECTOR

QEP IMPLEMENTATION STEERING COMMITTEE

STAFF ASSOCIATE

DIRECTOR INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

QUANTITATIVE LITERACY

ACCREDITATION DIRECTOR

STEERING COMMITTEE COORDINATING CHAIRS

FACULTY/COURSE DEVELOPMENT LITERACY TEAMS

INFORMATION LITERACY

READING/WRITING LITERACY

33


Explanation of Responsibilities 1. The ASU Board of Trustees has ultimate legal authority for the university. 2. The President is responsible for all units of operation within the university and

reports directly to the board. 3. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs is the chief university officer

responsible for academic affairs and student services. This officer reports directly to the president and serves on the president’s Administrative Council. Oversight for the implementation of the QEP will be the direct responsibility of this academic officer with the assistance of the Council of Academic Deans and Directors (CADD) and the QEP Director. QEP responsibilities of the Provost will be to

• Determine the composition of, appoint, and organize the QEP Implementation Steering Committee. Outline duties/responsibilities of the committee (with input from the Council of Academic Deans).

• Develop qualifications, position description, recruit, and recommend appointment of a QEP Director to the president (with input from CADD).

• Provide oversight for the work of the QEP Steering Committee and the QEP director.

4. The Council of Academic Deans and Directors (CADD) is directly responsible to the provost and vice president for academic affairs. As a group, the CADD will assist the provost in all areas of QEP implementation as requested. The dean of University College will have the responsibility of working with the QEP director in the successful implementation of QEP activities during the first-year experience since this first-year is the primary focus and is in University College. QEP responsibilities of each dean will be to

• Provide administrative oversight for QEP implementation as required in his or her college.

• Ensure involvement and participation of his or her college faculty and staff as required, especially in identifying and developing courses and faculty for QEP literacy instruction focus.

• Ensure adequacy of resources for QEP implementation as required in his or her college.

• Execute QEP duties and responsibilities as assigned by the provost/vice president.

5. The QEP Director will report to the provost/vice president and the staff associate and student assistants will report to the QEP director. Responsibilities of the QEP Director will be to

• Coordinate and supervise overall implementation of the QEP. • Administer the day-to-day functions of the QEP implementation process. • Manage the QEP office and budget. • Serve as general chair of the QEP Implementation Steering Committee:

schedule meetings, set the meeting agendas, preside at meetings, etc. • Coordinate and manage the work of the steering committee and all QEP

matters with other university units as necessary. • Participate in meetings of the CADD as requested. • Prepare and submit all reports related to QEP implementation.

6. The QEP Implementation Steering Committee will report to the QEP director and carry out duties as assigned for implementing the QEP.

34


7. The Steering Committee Coordinating Chairs will be appointed by the steering committee, in conjunction with CADD, to oversee and direct the work of the Faculty/Course Development Literacy Teams.

8. Three Faculty/Course Development Literacy Teams will be appointed from the college faculties by the QEP director and the steering committee, in conjunction with CADD. A Steering Committee Coordinating Chair will chair each team. Each team will be assigned responsibility for one of the literacy areas and will work with the faculty teaching the courses on faculty development and course development for the assigned literacy as specified in Section V, Action Items 4-8.

9. The staff of the Office of Academic Assessment, Planning, and Evaluation reports to the provost and will be responsible for managing the QEP’s assessment activities along with the QEP director, including administering tests and other forms of evaluation ; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting all QEP data; assisting with selection and development of assessment instruments and rubrics (for the ETS and other tests, courses, faculty development activities, workshops, etc.); assisting the QEP director with preparing and distributing evaluation reports. This office will also assist departments hosting targeted courses in infusing the planning, assessment, and evaluation of QEP activities into their planning process for monitoring and continuous improvement of the QEP at the unit level.

10. The staff of the Instructional Development Center reports to the provost and will be responsible for assisting the faculty teams with Action Items 4-8 in Section V, including assisting faculty teams with the development of performance indicators and assessment strategies and with modifications in syllabi, assisting with the administration of assessments and evaluations (for the ETS and other tests, courses, faculty development activities, workshops, etc.) and with the preparation and distribution of QEP reports.

11. The Director of Accreditation will ensure that all aspects of QEP implementation adhere to the requirements and standards of SACSCOC.

35


VIII. Assessment (Comprehensive Evaluation Plan) The QEP will be evaluated by internal measures and external standardized assessments. The provost’s Office of Academic Assessment, Planning, and Evaluation and the QEP director will be responsible for implementation of the plan and will work with the Office of Planning and Institutional Research as needed. The QEP and the University Assessment and Evaluation System As a part of the institutional effectiveness process, units within the university participate in the university-wide planning and assessment/evaluation system. This system is an adaptation of the Nichols Assessment Model (from A Road Map for Improvement of Student Learning and Support Services Through Assessment by James O. Nichols, 2005, Agathon Press, New York). As illustrated in Figure 3 below, the system incorporates processes for identifying expected outcomes and criteria for success, assessing the extent to which these outcomes are achieved, and effecting improvements based on the analysis of results. QEP assessment and evaluation will be incorporated into this system which employs WEAVEonline software for electronically storing and reporting assessment plans and reports. Assessment information from the academic departments include data from student performance in courses and will be a component of the QEP assessment as explained in the discussion below.

Figure 3: The Nichols Five-Column Assessment Model

Write Expected Outcomes

View Assess-

ment Results

Effect Improve-

ments

Establish Criteria for Success

Assess Perfor- mance

36


QEP Assessment and Evaluation Strategies In the context of the QEP evaluation plan, the following definitions will apply: • Assessment: Assessment focuses on student learning, on information gathered to

measure learning and understanding in order to improve student achievement. Assessment employs both formative and summative strategies. Formative assessment provides an immediate determination about performance. It involves continuous reflection and feedback and allows for ongoing interventions, adjustments, and improvements. Summative assessment occurs at the end of an activity and is used to determine whether the designated outcomes for the activity have been achieved.

• Evaluation: Evaluation refers to the analysis and comparison of results to determine the quality of the program in order to improve future implementation. Evaluation measures are quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative evaluation involves statistical analyses of participation and performance. Qualitative evaluation presents information about the value of the program based on patterns observed in such measures as interviews, surveys, and questionnaires.

QEP assessment and evaluation strategies will consist of the following: • In-course Assessments: These will be both formative and summative. Formative

strategies will be used as ongoing assessments of individual student performance on course assignments and activities and may include rubrics, checklists, self-assessments, anecdotal records, narrative descriptions or comments, portfolios, eportfolios, etc. Summative strategies will be used to assign a grade after completion of an activity (exam, test, quiz, essay) and at the end of the course. A standard scoring rubric will be a required summative assessment strategy for each literacy taught in a course. A writing/reading, quantitative, and information literacy rubric will be used. The rubric will be aligned with the outcomes and performance indicators for the literacy and will be used for assessing each student’s performance on each literacy area taught in the course. Rubrics (and performance indicators) will reflect standards-based assessment concepts and strategies. The following standards of professional associations will serve as guidelines for developing assessment rubrics: “Standards for the Assessment of Reading and Writing,” Revised Edition (2009), prepared by a joint task force of the National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association (http://ncte.org/standards/assessmentstandards); “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education” endorsed by the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the American Association for Higher Education (http://www.ala.or/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/ALA); “Quantitative Reasoning for College Graduates: A Complement to the standards” developed by the Mathematical Association of America’s Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics (http://www.mas.org/past/ql/ql ). Standards from these professional associations will be meshed with the discipline-specific standards, especially in the major courses, in the preparation of literacy assessment rubrics.

37


Literacy rubrics will be used to assess performance on each assignment which helps to determine whether a student has attained expected literacy proficiency. Each rubric will be developed by the faculty literacy teams and pilot tested in selected courses. Sessions directed toward enforcing a consensus of understanding about the rubrics will be conducted in faculty workshops and will involve careful review of the rubric, the rating scale, and trial-runs using the rubric. As required, examinations for inter-rater reliability and variability among instructors will be conducted. In their final departmental Course Assessment Reports, instructors will include data on the number and percentage of students achieving the literacy outcomes for the course and the levels of achievement. Course Assessment Reports will be entered on WEAVEonline. The QEP director and the assessment director will view the reports for each course, extract and aggregate the data related to the literacy outcomes, and prepare a composite QEP course evaluation report each semester. Course assessment data will be used on a continuous basis to further align learning outcomes, course content, instruction, and assessment to enhance student learning. Formative assessment activities such as reflection journals may be used by course instructors to reflect on their classroom experiences, teaching techniques, student learning outcomes, and other issues. These may be shared and discussed in teaching forums or roundtables (or in the lounge or at the water cooler) during each semester. Topics for inclusion in faculty workshop agendas may evolve from such informal discussions.

• Program Evaluations: Evaluation strategies will occur at the program level.

Quantitative evaluation will include statistical analyses and comparisons of performance on the following: 1. The ETS Proficiency Profile will be used for an external assessment of

reading/writing literacy and quantitative literacy. The test will be administered to first-time freshmen (pre-test) at entry to the university to gather baseline data. It will be administered again during their junior year (post-test) and the data will be compared. In addition to assessing general education outcomes in critical thinking, reading, writing, and mathematics, the test allows for inclusion of locally authored test items and an essay. In consultation with ETS, the Faculty/Course Development Literacy Teams will develop items that target the literacy expectations of the QEP and include those items in the revised test as permitted by ETS.

2. Two standardized tests are being reviewed for external assessment of information literacy: the Information Literacy Test (ILT) developed by James Madison University and the Standardized Assessment of Information Literacy Skills (SAILS) developed by Kent State University. Both assessments are designed to assess the ACRL Information Literacy Standards for Higher Education. The QEP learning outcomes are based on these standards. The test selected will be administered to first-time freshmen at entry to the university to gather baseline data. It will be administered again during their junior year, and performance data from the two administrations will be compared.

38


3. Student performance data from Course Assessment Reports completed by instructors teaching the courses targeted for literacy instruction will be compiled and analyzed for program evaluation each semester. Data in these reports will be aggregated from the standard literacy assessment rubrics used in the courses. These data will be studied for across-program patterns and trends.

4. Course completion rates for courses targeted for literacy instruction will be

compiled, analyzed, and reported annually with assistance from the Office of Planning and Institutional Research.

Qualitative evaluation will include informal satisfaction surveys and questionnaires completed by program workshop participants.

Implementation of the QEP will begin academic year 2010-2011. This will be a planning year, and data collected will come from qualitative evaluations of faculty workshops and work sessions conducted during the planning period. These data will be used to improve the quality of the workshops in program planning and delivery. To begin the 2011-2012 academic year and each year thereafter, cohort groups will be identified and followed from the first year through graduation. Each group must be comprised of first-time, first-year, fulltime degree seeking (freshman) students and identified by entering semester (fall, spring, and summer). Each group will be administered the ETS Proficiency Profile Test and the selected information literacy test during the first week of enrollment. SAT/ACT test scores will be used for placement purposes. A system will be established for identifying and comparing the performance and progress of students placed in one or more developmental courses prior to enrolling in the core courses with the performance of students entering core curriculum courses upon enrollment. ETS Profile and information literacy test baseline scores and Teachers’ Course Assessment Reports will be reviewed each semester. Course completion reports will be prepared and reviewed each semester. At the end of the fifth year of the program, Cohort Groups A and B will have completed the second ETS Profile and information literacy testing, and graduation rates will have been determined for Group A. A complete evaluation report will be prepared including all aspects of implementation through this time period. The results will be used for continuous improvements in sustaining the QEP. The following tables, using components of the Nichols five-column assessment model described in Figure 3 above, display QEP goals and expected outcomes, the means of assessment and the criteria for measuring success, and the intended use of results for improving student learning outcomes.

39


Table 7: ASSESSMENT OF EXPECTED QEP OUTCOMES Reading/Writing Literacy Learning Outcomes

QEP Goal

1 *Desired Student Learning

Outcomes

Means of Assessment

for Each Outcome

Criteria for Measuring Success

Use of Results

Students in courses designated for literacy focused instruction will demonstrate enhanced competence in reading/ writing literacy knowledge and skills.

1. Students will be able to read and respond in writing to challenging texts that demand critical thinking. 2. Students will be able to demonstrate effective use of various patterns for organizing and developing written communication. 3. Students will be able to recognize and use correctly and effectively the rules and conventions of standard English.

Standard Reading/Writing Literacy Outcomes Assessment Rubrics will be scored for each assignment that helps to determine whether a student has attained the outcome. (each semester) Course Assessment Reports entered into WEAVEonline will be reviewed; the percentage of students achieving the outcome and the level of achievement will be aggregated and reported (each semester).

A rating on the rubric for passing the assignment at a score equivalent to a C or better. At the end of academic year 2012-2013, and each year thereafter, 60% of the students completing courses designated for reading/writing literacy-focused instruction will achieve the reading/ writing literacy learning outcomes for the course at 70% proficiency.

Results will be compiled and reported each semester, reviewed in detail annually. Based on the results, strategies will be implemented to achieve closer alignment of outcomes, content and instruction, and assessment.

*Note: Means of assessment, criteria, and results apply to each of the three outcomes separately.

40

Table 8: ASSESSMENT OF EXPECTED QEP OUTCOMES Information Literacy Learning Outcomes

QEP Goal

1 *Desired Student

Learning Outcomes Means of Assessment

for Each Outcome Criteria for Measuring

Success Use of Results Students in courses designated for literacy focused instruction will demonstrate enhanced competence in information literacy knowledge and skills.

1. Students will be able to identify and articulate their information needs in the process of defining a problem, question, or project for research. 2. Students will be able to use library and information technology tools and resources to carry out research 3. Students will be able to design and execute a research project using a systematic process to collect, analyze, and present information in written formats, properly incorporating, citing, and documenting sources.

Standard Information Literacy Outcomes Assessment Rubrics will be scored for each assignment that helps determine whether a student has attained the outcome. (each semester). Course Assessment Reports entered into WEAVEonline will be reviewed; the percentage of students achieving the outcome and the level of achievement will be aggregated and reported (each semester).

A rating on the rubric for passing the assignment at a score equivalent to a C or better. At the end of academic year 2012-2013, and each year thereafter, 60% of the students completing courses designated for information literacy-focused instruction will achieve the information literacy learning outcomes for the course at 70% proficiency.

Results will be compiled and reported each semester, reviewed in detail annually. Based on the results, strategies will be implemented to achieve closer alignment of outcomes, content and instruction, and assessment


41


Table 9: ASSESSMENT OF EXPECTED QEP OUTCOMES Quantitative Literacy Learning Outcomes

QEP Goal

1 *Desired Student

Learning Outcomes Means of Assessment

for Each Outcome Criteria for Measuring

Success Use of Results

Students in courses designated for literacy focused instruction will demonstrate enhanced competence in quantitative literacy knowledge and skills.

1. Students will demonstrate knowledge of fundamental mathematical concepts, symbols, and principles in performing basic computational operations. 2. Students will interpret mathematical, quantitative models (such as formulas, graphs, charts, tables, maps) that describe real-world phenomena. 3. Students will demonstrate competence in analytical and quantitative reasoning skills as these apply to real-world situations (such as basic financial operations like balancing a checkbook, calculating interest, managing investments, reviewing mortgage options).

Standard Quantitative Literacy Outcomes Assessment Rubrics will be scored for each assignment that helps to determine whether a student has attained the outcome (each semester). Course Assessment Reports entered into WEAVEonline will be reviewed; the percentage of students achieving the outcome and the level of achievement will be aggregated and reported (each semester).

A rating on the rubric for passing the assignment at a score equivalent to a C or better. At the end of academic year 2012-2013, and each year thereafter, 60% of the students completing courses designated for quantitative literacy-focused instruction will achieve the quantitative literacy learning outcomes for the course at 70% proficiency.

Results will be compiled and reported each semester, reviewed in detail annually. Based on the results, strategies will be implemented to achieve closer alignment of outcomes, content and instruction, and assessment.


42


Table 10: ASSESSMENT OF EXPECTED QEP General Program Literacy Outcomes

QEP Goals

2 , 3, 4 Expected Program

Outcomes Means of Assessment Criteria for Measuring

Success Use of Results

2. Focused literacy instruction will positively impact course completion rates in core curriculum courses.

Over the five-year period, completion rates in core courses targeted for literacy instruction will increase to 66% (from 61%).

Course completion rates for core curriculum courses targeted for literacy instruction will be compiled, analyzed, and reported each semester beginning fall 2011-2012 and compared with core courses not targeted for literacy instruction and with historical course completion data.

Comparisons of course completion rates will show an annual increase of 8% over the first five years in courses with literacy-focused instruction.

Raise percentage if criteria are met. If not met, study trends and patterns across courses, noting courses with lower rates; review data, develop and implement interventions for specific courses.

3. Focused literacy instruction will increase the proficiency scores of students on the ETS Proficiency Profile Test and the Standardized Information Literacy Assessment Test.

The percentage of students scoring proficient at each level in sub-categories of the ETS Proficiency Profile will increase by 10% on the junior year administration of the test. A similar proficiency outcome will be established for the junior year administration of the information literacy test selected (ILT or SAILS).

The tests will be administered to each entering freshman cohort group during orientation week. The tests will be administered to the same group during the junior year.

Comparisons of scores from each administration showing a 10% increase in sub-categories. Two groups will have completed the two administrations at the end of the five years. Scores will be compared within and between the groups, with historical data (ETS) from other ASU administrations, and with national data.

Raise the percentage if criteria are met. Perform item analyses to determine non-proficient areas; target these areas for more focused and intensive instruction in courses.

43


QEP Goals 2 , 3, 4

Expected Program Outcomes

Means of Assessment Criteria for Measuring Success

Use of Results

4. Faculty teaching courses designated for literacy-focused instruction will engage in professional development activities to extend their knowledge and expertise in the use of instructional strategies and pedagogy most appropriate for improving student achievement in the literacy areas.

Each semester, 90% of faculty will participate in and express satisfaction with university-sponsored workshops, conferences, forums to develop strategies and course materials, review assessment results, share resources and ideas, and engage in scholarly dialogue—all directed toward improving instruction and student performance in courses.

Surveys and questionnaires will be used to collect and analyze faculty responses and ratings for each activity. Attendance rolls will be used to track participation.

90% of responses/ratings equivalent to satisfactory and very satisfactory 90% attendance by faculty teaching courses

Results will be used to ensure that faculty development activities address needs for effective course instruction and improved student performance.

44

IX. Resources (Personnel, Financial, Physical) The university is committed to providing fiscal support appropriate to plan, implement, and sustain the QEP as outlined. The budget summary follows the budget narrative.

Budget Narrative Personnel Items 1, 2, 12: The QEP director, staff associate, and student assistants are new positions required for the direct administration of the QEP. Items 3, 4, 5: The discussion of the institutional context in Section V of this document presents information about the university units to be involved in implementing the QEP, specifically about the suitability of University College for a focus on literacy to enhance students’ first-year experience. In the discussion of University College, one major challenge to the successful implementation of the QEP is cited: the large class enrollments in three of the courses designated for literacy instruction—biology, geography, and history. The practice in University College is to keep class size at 25 to 30 students. The rationale for the focus on class size includes the following:

• Freshmen enter the university with admissions test scores well below the national average in the academic skills necessary for successful college-level matriculation (data presented in Section II)

• The mission and goals of University College are to ensure these students’ “optimal performance and achievement in the degree-granting colleges” (Section V)

• Instructional approaches and strategies that will accomplish the University College mission and goals require small classes. These include student-centered learning activities (group collaboration and interaction and a variety of writing, problem solving, and critical thinking assignments) rather than teacher-centered instruction (the traditional one-way, lecture, delivery of instruction).

• Efforts to implement the writing-across-the-curriculum program in University College has verified the need for smaller classes with the student-centered instructional approach dictated by teaching/learning writing. The large class size has been the main impediment to the success of the program. The QEP literacy focus in all of the literacy areas is rooted in writing as a means of learning.

Data presented by the Office of Planning and Institutional Research (OPIR) verify the anecdotal reality of large class enrollments reported by faculty teaching the courses (Appendix IV, Table IV-L). Therefore, the QEP budget includes three (3) new full-time faculty positions in order to achieve a reduction in class size to 25-30, absolutely no more than 35, students in biology, geography, and history classes. Consider the following data for these courses over three semesters:

• Biology 127 & 128 – 2,935 students in 81 sections with an average of 37 students per section; 98 sections, or six additional sections per semester, are needed for a class size of 30 per section; 1.42 faculty.

• History 131 & 132 -- 4, 310 students in 129 sections with an average class size of 42 per section; 144 sections, or 5 additional sections per semester, are needed for a class size of 30; 1.25 faculty.

45


• Geography 206 -- 1,934 students in 44 sections with an average class size of 44 per section; 64 sections, or 7 additional sections per semester, are needed for a class size of 30; 1.75 faculty.

Item 6: The QEP information literacy coordinator is needed to chair the information literacy faculty team and to coordinate information literacy activities and instruction among the faculty and courses. Faculty with expertise in the reading, writing, and quantitative (mathematics) literacies are on the faculties in the colleges. Information literacy, however, is not a major discipline at ASU. The University Library staff sponsors an information literacy program for the entire university. This position may be a University Library position but will be dedicated to QEP implementation and operation. Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 13: The academic support centers are severely understaffed. These positions will allow for optimum use of the tutorial laboratories to provide one-on-one and small group tutoring in support of literacy instruction in the courses. Item 11: The Academic Advisement Center will need a QEP designated adviser, thus the QEP academic advisement coordinator who will assist the QEP director and coordinate the work of the academic advisers in managing the course placement and scheduling procedures for entering freshmen and in establishing and monitoring the cohort groups. Professional Development Faculty professional development will be a critical component of QEP implementation. A big expenditure in this area will be during the planning year for a four-day summer workshop which will be an intensive orientation and work sessions for about 50 faculty in preparation for launching the literacy program in the fall. Each participant will receive a $75.00 per day stipend and a consultant will be employed for some of the workshop period. Faculty workshops will be conducted each semester. Release time will be requested for the three (3) Steering Committee Coordinating Chairs of the Faculty/Course Development Literacy Teams. Faculty development activities are described under the implementation actions in Section V. Infrastructure and Other Items Items in these sections will be needed for the routine activities of the QEP.

46

Table 11: Budget Summary QEP BUDGET 2010-2015

NUMBER

FY 2 2010-2011

FY 2 2011-2012

FY 3 2012-2013

FY 4 2013-2014

FY 5 2014-2015

PERSONNEL* 1 QEP Director 1 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 2 QEP Staff Associate 1 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 3 Biology – Assistant Professor 1 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 4 Geography – Assistant Professor 1 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 5 History – Assistant Professor 1 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 6 QEP Information Literacy Coordinator 1 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 7 Writing Center Professional Staff 2@$35,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 8 Reading Center Professional Staff 2@$35,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 9 History & Geography Center Professional Staff 2@$35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000

10 Math & Science Center Professional Staff 2@$35,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 11 QEP Academic Advisement Coordinator 1 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 12 Student Assistants, QEP office (20 hours, $8.00/hour ) 2 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 13 Peer Tutors (609/month/8months)(4 labs) 20 (5/lab) $97,000 $97,000 $97,000 $97,000 $97,000

SUBTOTAL $693,000 $693,000 $693,000 $693,000 $693,000 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

14 Workshop- Summer (4 days) 1 $25,000 15 Annual Faculty Workshops $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 16 Conferences/Faculty Travel 5 $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 17 Faculty Release Time 3 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 18 Consultants – Planning 3 times $15,000 19 Consultants – Program $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

SUBTOTAL $90,000 $21,500 $46,500 $21,500 $46,500 INFRASTRUCTURE

20 Computers for Labs 60@1500 $90,000 21 Smart Boards - University College 5@2000 $10,000 22 Projectors - University College 5@749 $3,745 23 Laptops - QEP Resource Area 5@1297 $6,485 24 Literacy Software $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

SUBTOTAL $120,230 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 OTHER

25 Supplies & Materials $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 26 Publications & Marketing $5,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 27 ETS Profile & Assessment Measures [email protected] $12,800 $12,800 $12,800 $12,800 $12,800 28 Miscellaneous $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

SUBTOTAL $27,800 $28,800 $28,800 $28,800 $28,800 GRAND TOTAL $931,030 $743,300 $778,300 $743,300 $778,300 $3,974,230

average/year $794,846 *benefits not included avg/Univ. College student/year $397

avg/all students/year $199 avg/new freshmen/year $662

47

X. Review of the Literature and Best Practices Overview Several key concepts and operational strategies related to defining the types of literacy and to curriculum development and literacy instruction from the Review of the Literature and Best Practices section have been integrated into the QEP for Alabama State University. Perhaps of greatest significance is the emphasis on across the curriculum and across disciplines theories and practices being implemented at colleges and universities throughout the country. Implementation of Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) programs by colleges and universities has been a common practice since the late 1970s. Frequently, WAC programs integrate reading in innovative ways. Related professional associations have developed standards to serve as guidelines for writing and reading programs. For example, “Standards for the Assessment of Reading and Writing,” Revised Edition (2009), was prepared by a joint task force of the National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association (http://ncte.org/standards/assessmentstandards) A variety of model writing and reading programs exist, and the successes of such programs have been widely documented. Only recently, however, have colleges and universities engaged in widespread implementation of programs focusing on information and quantitative literacy. As with writing and reading, professional associations have recommended standards for such programs in higher education. The American Library Association (ALA), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), and the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) have endorsed and published “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.” These standards define literacy, distinguish between information literacy and information technology, outline performance indicators and outcomes, and suggest teaching and assessment methods. (http://www.ala.org/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/ALA). The Mathematical Association of America (MAA) through its Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics (CUPM) has established quantitative literacy requirements “for all students who receive a bachelor’s degree.” The CUPM’s Subcommittee on Quantitative Literacy Requirements has developed “recommendations which both mesh with the new pre-college standards” of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics “and are realistically achievable in the college years.” (http://www.maa.org/past/ql/ql). Titled “Quantitative Reasoning for College Graduates: A Complement to the Standards,” the report outlining the subcommittee’s recommendations explains the need for quantitative literacy in the college curriculum, states five program goals, suggests actions and strategies for program development, and recommends assessment procedures. Models for information literacy and quantitative literacy programs tend to follow the designs of the WAC programs in that key elements include critical thinking and analysis and an across-the-curriculum approach. In addition, the professional associations, as well as educational research, recommend an initial focus on these literacy areas during the students’ college-level foundation experience, that is, in general studies or core curriculum courses during the first year. This too is an important feature of WAC programs. Research also emphasizes that literacy areas (reading, writing, quantitative, and information) are necessary for learning in all disciplines; ideally, all courses should provide ongoing and frequent reinforcement in literacy throughout a student’s academic career. The review of the literature and best practices which follows offers further documentation for the concepts, design, and components that comprise ASU’s Quality Enhancement Plan.

48


Review of the Literature According to the U.S. Department of Labor, two-thirds of all U.S. jobs will require some postsecondary training. While more Americans than ever are enrolling and graduating from college, several reports indicate that far fewer are leaving higher education with the skills needed to comprehend routine data, such as, reading charts and tables (Romano, 2006). A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts examined college students nearing the end of their degree program. The study found that more than half of students at four-year colleges—and at least 75% at two year colleges—lack the literacy skills to handle real life-tasks such as understanding credit card offers (American Institute for Research, 2006). There are several literacy enhancement recommendations for university programs that are identified as the catalyst for improving student retention (McGriff, 2009). The major areas of focus include: reading literacy (Romano, 2006), writing literacy (ICAS, 2002), and information literacy (Ehrmann, 2004). Although students may have met the requirements for a high school diploma, they invariably have poor study habits and skills for reading assignments, taking notes, and appear to have had very limited test taking strategies. While most college students are intelligent enough to score well enough on the ACT to gain admission to college, many are lacking basic literacy skills to be successful in college (ACT Study, 2006). This deficit in college readiness most likely translates directly into low rates of student success in terms of retention and degree completion (Hauptman, 2007). More than three-quarters of postsecondary institutions offer at least one remedial course. Twenty-eight percent of entering freshmen in 1995 and 2000 took at least one remedial course, with the length of time spent in courses below the collegiate level increasing in 2000 (Hauptman, 2007). There are, however, certain expectations held for students as they travel through their postsecondary experience. This includes demonstrating independence in the learning process. Because of daunting statistics regarding remedial courses, research has shown that only 20 – 30% of postsecondary students read textbook assignments (Nilson, 2007). University faculty is more frequently facing the challenge of encountering students who come to class without completing the assigned readings. A large number of students enrolled in remedial courses are taking a reading enrichment course. This occurs because many students in the college setting have reading skills that are so insufficient that they have difficulty comprehending course material. They are, additionally, hampered by a lack of motivation to become active learners. Nilson (2007) reports that students in general are unable to focus on text for more than five minutes. Aside from the challenges posed by limited reading abilities and a lack of motivation, students are also not reading the text assignments because there is little pressure for them to do so or to even buy the books. These are generally the students for whom special support services have been developed; unfortunately, it has also been determined that college students under utilize these academic support services (Cuseo, 2003). Most discouraging is that at-risk students, in particular, are often reluctant to seek help even if they recognize that they are experiencing academic difficulty. One study, in fact, suggested that male students most often have a strong reluctance to enrollment in remedial courses, basically due to pride issues (“Achieving the Dream,” 2009). Reading and Writing Across the Curriculum What does this mean for students and faculty at the college level? Reading and writing assignments are critical parts of most college courses. The combination of activities and

49


assignments are critical to student learning. Therefore, there has been a renewed focus on Reading Across the Curriculum and Writing Across the Curriculum to address students’ needs for their success and participation in higher education and in society (Horning, 2007). How and what we read and how we use language speaks volumes about how we conceive our college/university experience. Compositionist Mariolina Salvatonri in Reading Theory in Student Writing (306) views the act of reading and writing are interconnected, interrelated processes whereby readers interact with or engage in the author’s or writer’s text or context. Academic studies visa vis intellectual inquiry requires and places demand on a student to access his and her own relationship to author-writer, text context. Bartholomae and Petrosky (2008) in their gateway freshman composition/writing course at the University of Pittsburg approach reading and writing as collorary, interconnected subject and skills rather than as disparate or separate learning activities or courses of study/disciplines. In is teaching-training program, the teacher and students use a common reader as a point/frame of reference for teaching and developing and instilling core skills of reading and writing in an effort to make teaching visible (Bartholomae and Petrosky, 2008) as a way of enabling individual teachers to define themselves in relationship to a faculty, a program, its ideas, and traditions and concurrently engage students in an academic inquiry. Further, textbooks, manuals, and other reading materials within courses serve as a primary source of information upon which learning is built. Many courses require the use of multiple books, professional journals, electronic resources, and other library materials and data bases. Writing assignments often call for students to expound upon the information presented in course reading materials, demanding that they analyze, synthesize and otherwise critically engage with the course material. Spivey (1997) also describes reading and writing tasks which help students become active readers and writers with discourse synthesis activities, to include “ the process in which writers are engaged when reading multiple texts and produce their own related text.” All the elements of reading, writing, critical thinking, and use of technology foster academic success and are expected of college freshmen across all college disciplines. These experiences with literacy prepare students to be critical thinkers and life-long learners. Hence, an understanding of the needs of students in regards to both reading literacy and writing literacy practices with instructional strategies which work must be examined to develop a framework for success with first-year students Reading Literacy The importance of effective reading skills cannot be overstated, yet the level of college students’ reading ability is often overestimated. According to a study by Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates (2002), since 1995 “an increasing number of students who take the CSU [California State University] English Placement Test are unable to read at threshold level.” The study goes on to note that 83% of surveyed faculty members reported that “the lack of analytical reading skills contributed to students’ lack of success in a course.” New students face the challenge of reading college material that bears little resemblance to the high school text many experienced. College faculty assign much higher reading loads, requiring an increased level of vocabulary and reading comprehension. They assume that entering students have mastered needed reading techniques when that is often not the case (ISAC, 2002). A study conducted on college campuses by the American Institutes for Research in 2006 on literacy revealed that more than 50% of students at four-year schools and more than

50


75%at two-year colleges lacked the skills to perform complex literacy tasks such as interpreting a table about exercise and blood pressure, understanding the arguments of newspaper editorials, comparing credit card offers with different interest rates and annual fees, or summarizing results of a survey about parental involvement in school (Feller, 2006). Most efforts to improve students’ reading skills have involved reaching across disciplines and emphasizing the essential bond between reading and learning. In a presentation at the 2007 conference of the College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA), McNaught (2007) of Chesapeake College recommended linking college-level courses with developmental studies classes as a relevant and meaningful way of engaging students in reading, as well as providing opportunities for collaboration among teachers of different disciplines. Strengthening the connections between reading and other disciplines also grew out of a collaborative effort as a learning community benefitted from team-teaching between a reading instructor and an instructor of basic math at Penn Valley Community College in Kansas City, Missouri. Reading strategies such as vocabulary-building, previewing a chapter, and analyzing word problems were employed to help students learn to read mathematics (Haehl, 2003). Norgaard (2007) proposes that reading strategies should be linked to the genre of text. Ordinary readers tend to think of genre as the outward appearance of a text (Composing knowledge, 13). After all, poems, novels, essays differ in appearance. On the other hand, fluent or critical readers approach genre as discourse with style and structure adapted to match a rhetorical situation—audience, purpose, occasion—for composing the material and work. Moreover, the critical reader or fluent reader is prepared to reread different fashion, a text or discourse genre to meet different goals. Instruction can include demonstrations of how to read differently based on the genre of text. Each discipline has its own pattern or genre which should be anticipated by the reader. Writing Literacy The report of the College Board's National Commission on Writing, “The Neglected R,” states that “analyses indicate that more than 50 percent of first-year college students are unable to produce papers relatively free of language errors” (2003). An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education notes that “as many as half of today's college freshmen must take at least one remedial course in college and more than four in ten of these students take a remedial writing course” (“Writing,” 2008). Given such need for writing literacy—involving written communication and critical thinking skills—the Report of the College Board’s National Commission on Writing (2003) recommends the following:

1. State and local education leaders should provide support for workshops to encourage teachers in the classroom to upgrade their writing skills and competence as writing teachers.

2. Colleges and universities have an obligation to improve teacher preparation and make writing more central to their own programs of study.

3. The teaching of writing at the college level should be infused across the curriculum. 4. Formal courses in the teaching of writing (including English Composition) should be

the responsibility of well-trained, qualified professional staff. As the report notes, English composition and language arts teachers basically bear the responsibility for teaching students how to write. However, the more exposure students have to writing, the more they will use it as an indispensible tool. Making writing a key

51


component of all disciplines of study will not only increase students’ writing literacy but also will help to improve writing in all subject areas (ICAS, 2002). Another effective approach to assisting students with writing at the college level includes writing in the disciplines in general studies; great strides have been identified for enhancing students’ writing literacy. It is often cited as one of the current best practices, although it has been implemented in a variety of ways. At Auburn University, for example, selected composition classes are designed around a particular discipline’s genre, resulting in discipline-specific (business, education, science, etc) sections of the course. Other universities have taken a more flexible approach to WID by offering students a selection of genre areas in each section that would serve as the focus for their research and writing. One of the more innovative expressions of this genre approach to writing is the electronic course newsgroup (discussion group). Students can engage in a dialogue with their class peers making an entry or “post” and by offering and receiving feedback to/from the posts of others. Because it is primarily a resource for both knowledge-making and knowledge-sharing, the discussion board, as a genre, functions according to a less formalized set of rules. Students are encouraged to interact on their most familiar and perhaps most natural level—colloquially and conversationally.

As Carter, et al point out, a recent study revealed that “students reported that writing in their majors is more engaging than writing in non-major courses, that writing encourages learning about the body of knowledge that constitutes their disciplines that the . . . assignments helped them learn about the [communication] methods used by their disciplines.” In addition, as Artemeva, et al (1999) note, the use of discipline-specific genres can help provide an environment that will facilitate students’ success in future workplaces. They write, “Learning how to understand and manipulate the genres of written communication in one’s field is essential to professional success.” Such student engagement is critical to every FYE program’s efforts to increase student retention and promote academic achievement. Information Literacy Information literacy, knowing when and how to find, evaluate, and appropriately use information, is essential for student success in their undergraduate courses (Allen, 2000). Information literacy is important for students striving to succeed in their careers and in their communities (Allen, 2000). According to Allen, the notion that most people are information illiterate has had a negative effect on business and society. Studies show that a vast majority of college students do not use the library correctly and lack information literacy skills. While internet use is rapidly growing, students are not taught how to use the computer for research. Alarmingly, college seniors are no better at completing research papers than freshman (Ehrmann, 2004). The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) supports collaboration between all members of the higher education community, particularly faculty, librarians and administrators in the incorporation of information literacy across curricula (ACRL, 2000). An Information Literacy Handbook, developed at Adirondack Community College in Queensbury, New York, advocates the collaboration between faculty members and librarians in creating assignments designed to help students increase their learning from research assignments. This is significant not only because of the vast amount of information that is currently available, but also because research shows that 85% of college students procrastinate in completing research assignments because they don’t know how to conduct research. Implications for curriculum adjustments are directed toward teaching

52


students how to gain new skills, including how and when to use computers and the information stored in data bases (Breivik, 1998). One approach is to develop students’ information literacy skills needed to locate, retrieve, assess, and use information in a library or on the Web. Almost every discipline requires students to know how to find and use information on the Internet or from print sources. Often, these skills are taught in a research writing course by librarians and information specialists as part of a university’s writing requirement. Ehrmann (2004) argues that true information literacy requires ongoing and frequent reinforcement throughout a student’s academic career and should function like Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) in that it has a curriculum-wide emphasis. Ideally, information literacy would be a part of all courses (with a particular emphasis on core curriculum courses). For example, information literacy assignments might require students to search for and interpret academic literature on a topic and then write an analysis of the article for a general audience. “Olson argues (1997) that such online learning can lead to enhanced perception of the students’ work, increased motivation and extended time spent by students on task. Therefore, if students are engaged actively in online learning activities, they can develop independent learning,” (Jowallah, 2008, 45). Another popular approach supported with information literacy is to have students contribute to or create a Web page project. Students contribute to either a discussion list, responding to prompts posted by the instructor, or write journal entries for a Web page that houses responses from all the students in the class. One study of 211 psychology students found “positive relations between Web discussion frequency, average word count, total word count, and total course points earned” (Pettijohn & Pettijohn, 2007, p.1). Students might also produce multimedia projects that utilize computers or the Web. Student authored Web sites could house the evidence they cited in a written research paper (databases, links to references, audio recordings, video clips, etc) or serve as the end product itself, containing the written arguments, supporting data, and references in a multimedia format (Ehrmann, 2004). Another best practice in terms of technology is the use of electronic portfolios. Since the 1970s, many colleges and universities have been using portfolios to deepen student learning. These thoughtfully organized collections of student work might contain reflective essays by students, feedback reports, and other material in addition to traditional academic papers. Portfolios have traditionally provided a way to chart student progress towards institutional educational goals. Electronic portfolios serve the same purpose, but because they are easily accessible and provide a flexible multimedia platform, they can be a more powerful assessment tool. Quantitative Literacy (Mathematics) When the need to increase student literacy is mentioned, the thought generally moves toward increasing skills in reading and writing. More frequently, however, conversations are involving quantitative literacy. There are many different definitions of quantitative literacy, but a simple one is using simple mathematical concepts to solve everyday problems (Steele & Kilic-Bahi, 2008). A critical question for today’s secondary and post-secondary institutions is how can they best prepare their students, future entrepreneurs and small business owners, with the quantitative skills for the real-world challenges that they will likely encounter? “Small

53


business owners need to be able to communicate with bankers, lawyers, tax consultants, their suppliers, their customers, their employees, and others about many quantitative issues” (Taylor, 2007, 117). Ganter and Barker found that students do not see the connections between mathematics and their fields of study (Steele & Kilic-Bahi, 2008). Upon completing their math courses, they are left with skills that they see as irrelevant to their career choices. For this reason, relevance is an important factor in undergraduate students’ experiencing success in college and in the real world—especially in the business world. In helping “students develop and retain the kinds of quantitative skills that they will apply in the real world…” students need more opportunities for decision-making that “involve information-gathering and assessment, quantitative analyses, and communications about quantitative topics” (Taylor, 2007, 118). The case method, used extensively in business programs, is an effective approach to promoting quantitative literacy with students. Students are presented with a real-life situation and are not merely asked to make a calculation, but they must make a decision as well (Taylor, 2007). Workplaces need individuals who can communicate effectively with each other about quantitative issues. The importance of being able to communicate effectively about quantitative topics is reflected in the job interview processes of today. Consulting firms do not want to hire math geniuses who can solve problems on paper but cannot talk about the approaches and solutions with others. They want individuals who can communicate with others on a team about assumptions, techniques, results, and decisions. They look for evidence of ability in logical reasoning, creativity, quantitative skills, business judgment (not business knowledge), and an ability to structure problem solving. Again, this requires not only the logic and mathematics skills but also strong communication skills about quantitative topics. In supporting this concept, Lutsky (2008) suggests that an essential way that teachers can facilitate quantitative reasoning is to give students writing assignments that require quantitative reasoning. Suggestions for effective ways to write about numbers can be gleaned from the literature on writing and quantitative reasoning; in fact, Miller identifies principles for expressing numbers in writing, including seven basic ones. These are (1) establish the context, (2) choose effective examples and analogies, (3) use an appropriate vocabulary, (4) decide where to present numbers, (5) report and interpret numbers in text, (6) specify the size and direction of associations, and (7) summarize overall patterns (Lutsky, 2008). Although schools still need to teach English and mathematics as separate subjects at times, there is also a need to help students integrate those mathematics, reading, and writing skills as well as provide opportunities to practice quantitative reasoning. The only way to get students to combine their information literacy, mathematics, and communications skills within various contexts is to train teachers to do the same (Taylor, 2007). How then can teachers be better prepared to guide students to seek, analyze, and communicate information that is quantitative in nature? Several colleges and universities have researched and implemented what has been considered best practices as related to quantitative literacy. Colby-Sawyer College encourages the use of collaborative efforts to develop students’ quantitative reasoning skills (Steele & Kilic –Bahi, 2008). Taylor suggested the use of team-teaching seminars or courses on quantitative, interdisciplinary

54


topics as helpful for equipping teachers to guide students through quantitative literacy at Wellesley College (Taylor, 2007). In implementing its QL program, Colby-Sawyer College credits several factors with the success of its program:

• Institutional-wide collaboration; • Summer faculty-development workshops; • Stipends for faculty participants; • Voluntary participation in spreading QL across the curriculum; and • Institutional and financial support (Steele & Kilic-Bahi, 2008).

Several elements seem to appear throughout the research as best practices.

• The implementation of a quantitative literacy or reasoning assessment tool that students complete upon enrollment;

• A required minimum score to demonstrate proficiency (Students not meeting the proficiency level are assigned to an introductory quantitative reasoning course that they must complete during the first two years of college);

• Assignment of students to a non-credit “basic skills” tutorial component that they must complete prior to retaking the exam;

• A requirement that students complete an upper-level course designated as having a quantitative component;

• The completion of both the basic skills component and the discipline-specific course to fulfill the college requirement;

• A designated space that serves as the quantitative literacy center to support the quantitative literacy or reasoning requirement;

• The quantitative centers house a tutoring program, staff support for faculty and student development, and other curricular and pedagogical resources; and

• Faculty or staff responsible for the quantitative literacy component recognize the importance of assessment in the success of quantitative literacy (Emory & Henry College, 2006).

These best practices are further supported by a publication of the Mathematical Association of America (MAA), Quantitative Reasoning for College Graduates: A Complement to the Standards (MAA, 2006). San Jose State University (October, 2006) identified several categories of institutional best practices for quantitative literacy. These include: Resource Programs

• Quantitative Literacy Center • Mathematics Center • Q-Center • Quantitative Skills Center • Q-Skills Center • QR-Center

Common Services • Tutors • Study Groups • Test Administration • Qualitative Literacy Courses

55


• Resources for Faculty & Course Development

Further, a Subcommittee on Quantitative Literacy Requirements lists four conclusions about quantitative literacy at the undergraduate level: Conclusion 1: Colleges and universities should treat quantitative literacy as a thoroughly legitimate and even necessary goal for baccalaureate graduates. Conclusion 2: Colleges and universities should expect every college graduate to be able to apply simple mathematical methods to the solution of real-world problems. Conclusion 3: Colleges and universities should devise and establish quantitative literacy programs each consisting of a foundation experience and a continuation experience, and mathematics departments should provide leadership in the development of such programs. Conclusion 4: Colleges and universities should accept responsibility for overseeing their quantitative literacy programs through regular assessments (MAA, 2006). Hughes-Hallet suggests only four basic principles as best practices for implementing quantitative literacy programs at the university level (MAA, 2006): 1. Teach Quantitative Literacy, not Mathematics. Simply increasing the mathematics

requirements for all students would only increase the already huge number of students taking remedial math and further lower the student retention rate. It would do little to promote quantitative literacy.

2. Teach in Context; 3. Teach for Insight; and 4. Teach across the Curriculum. Summary of Literature Review It has been fully documented that the postsecondary student population in general experiences difficulties with literacy (Nilson, 2006). And, colleges have been called upon in this new age to pay attention to students’ abilities to master various forms of literacy across the disciplines. Writing or written literacy should always be combined with reading; these areas are reciprocal and should be used concurrently as essential tools for learning in all disciplines. Also, information literacy plays a significant role in helping students become life-long learners. It requires knowing how to find and evaluate information for use; this is at the core of the learning process and is an area of great importance for success in college (Allen, 2000). The critical information that follows will serve as the knowledge base that is needed to enhance the goals and objectives of the Quality Enhancement Plan related student support services; these services are critical during the first year. Most importantly, other best practices related to the freshmen experience and supported by the research will also be included in this section. Best Practices for Instructional Support: Tutoring Reading and Writing Centers Tutoring and supplemental instruction are critical components at many colleges and universities, especially those that enroll at-risk students. According to Swail (2004), between 30 and 40 percent of all entering freshmen are unprepared for college-level reading and writing, and 44 percent of all college students who have earned their degrees from two or four year colleges have required some type of academic intervention. For entering freshman who only marginally meet the admission criteria, academic services play an even more important role. Overwhelmingly, research shows that tutoring and mentoring, particularly in the form of out-of-class contact with peer tutors or faculty, are critical services for students with academic needs (Tinto, 1975, 1993). Both quantitative and qualitative

56


data from the Mohawk research (Latomasi, 2005) indicate that such peer tutoring affects academic outcome. Most professionals who work with freshman students or those in need of academic reinforcement note that tutoring works best when it functions as a support service for course instruction (Atlantic Educational, 2009). For example, Western New England College (2009) has a number of programs designed to assist students during the first year, including academic support centers in writing, math, and science, along with other tutoring services. In particular the college’s Peer Tutoring Program works with students to achieve long and short term goals in 100 and 200 level courses by offering one-on-one tutoring and rigorous training sessions. Florida State University (FSU) provides students needing learning support with a first-year writing classroom (Writing at Florida State, 2009). Based on best practices supported by the National Council of Teachers of English and the Conference on College Composition and Communication, the program works to address individual student’s needs in the following areas: Rhetorical Knowledge, English and Critical Thinking, Reading and Writing, Knowledge and Convention, and Composing in an Electronic Environment. FSU also provides tutoring in the Strozier Library, a satellite location where students can receive support during late evening hours. This has proven to be especially helpful to students during peak times in the semester (Writing at Florida State, 2009). At King College a student assistance model is used to promote student success. Student tutors are selected by the director, certified by the College Reading and Learning Association. They then serve as part-time tutors offering individual and small group tutoring services. In a research study on retention, Swail (2004) noted that resources and academic services for students play a major role in student success and that a campus must provide support services to engage and retain students. Institutions such as MIT and Harvard, which attract the best and brightest, invariably provide support services to ensure that students have all of the tools they need to succeed in college (Swail, 2004). Best Practices in the First-Year Experience Alabama State University’s Quality Enhancement Plan is being launched during the First-Year Experience. Therefore, it is imperative to review other best practices which will support the literacy thrust for improving student learning at the institution. Overwhelmingly in designing an effective First-Year Program, a review of recent best practices suggests that building a supportive, integrated campus experience is often the key to successful student outcomes. Assessment tools need to be standardized and systematically incorporated into the curriculum; courses need to be more closely related to one another, allowing students to understand the connections between various disciplines; faculty members need to work collaboratively, sharing and learning new approaches to teaching and enhancing student learning; the university needs to provide the technological infrastructure and training necessary to take full advantage of computer and Web-based learning. Of importance are the support services provided during first-year programs to support the campus new students. According to an ACT study of retention, Creighton University and Xavier University cite the contributors to this success as: first-year transitional programs, academic advising and learning support (Habley and McClanahan, 2004). Understandably, the First-Year Experience is a time of transition for new students. It is a period which includes added responsibility and challenges without the supportive environment of adults in the decision-

57


making process; therefore, support services are often necessary for successful student outcomes. These services include the following: advisement services, mentoring programs, tutoring services, early alert programs, supplemental instruction, and sometimes academic coaches. Moreover, several universities have started Freshmen Reading Clubs or Online Reading Communities. Academic support services such as these are the most diversified and expansive in terms of student success during the first year (Swail, 2004). The plethora of services during the freshman-year experience supports student retention, persistence, and graduation. A significant aspect of the first-year experience also includes campus services and activities with students socially integrated in non-academic extra-curricular activities. Many studies suggest that services and activities of the first-year experience can set the stage for students’ academic success in subsequent years or determine if they receive their degrees (Upcraft and Gardner, 1990).

The first-year experience is important to students’ success and often includes mentoring coupled with advising. Moreover, some campuses provide performance coaches whose role is to assist students in adjusting to the new environment by helping them develop skills, set goals, and identify strategies to achieve them (Walls and Jackson, 2002). Performance coaches work closely with advisors to identify at-risk students; this is necessary because of the prevailing concern of first-year programs to retain students. Noel identified academic advisors as the most essential elements in the higher education sector impacting successful campus retention for first-year students (Smith, 2004). It has been established that effective advising is positively linked with student retention in general. It may be reasonable to predict that high-quality advising will have a positive impact on the retention of at-risk students in particular. Since academic advisement may be an institution’s only structure which ensures that students have personal, one-to-one contact with a faculty member or professional staff (Cuseo, 2003) lead administrators should support the strengthening of this component.

Why is effective advising such a key element in student retention and success? Levitz and Noel (1989) found “lack of certainty about a major and/or career” to be the number-one reason cited by high-ability students for their decision to drop out of college. This again points to the need for effective advising systems to meet the needs of students and especially during the first year.

Finally, the first-year experience is critical to student retention, persistence and graduation. If colleges are expected to impact graduation rates, they need to focus on activities and best practices which support the first-year programs and activities. According to Barefoot and her colleagues at the Policy Center on the First Year of College, the absence of a centralized unit to focus on first-year is not a best practice. A unit administrator or designated professional is needed to handle first year courses, programs and activities, (Kelly, 2006). The need for a campus-wide committee which serves in an advisory capacity to help the first year unit plan for their future students is also needed. Some activities could include mentoring, advising, teaching a freshmen seminar course or others provided by the First-Year unit. Faculty engagement and buy-in with first year programs or units is an excellent model to strengthen the first-year experience.

58


Conclusion The bond must be clearly and totally understood: reading,writing, thinking (inductively and deductively), as well as discussion among student peers and instructors is an essential activity in the literacy-learning process. Most importantly, they are necessary for information literacy and quantitative literacy. For most first year students, learning has been acquired through a process of transmission. Many college professors continue to teach the way they were taught; the pedagogy is stilted and dated. Moreover, their entire class period is spent “telling”– lecturing, in addition to preparing their notes for students as a handout. The approach is teacher-centered; this is the transmission model of teaching and learning. The knowing and the known come as a direct result of whatever they have been spoon-fed. The literature supports learning and the power of exchange: collaboration among teachers across the disciplines, as well as collaboration among teachers and students and students and peers. According to Vygotsky (1978), learning is also a distinct part of the socialization process. Scholars carefully observe the interaction of individuals in their small group settings and have determined the interchange to be social in nature thereby supporting Vygotsky’s model of learning as a socialization process. And it is this particular model that a revitalization to create a learning environment that works for the general studies or core course curricula will be embraced at Alabama State University. Students will be assigned more group activities; discussion will allow them to present short summations or writing of reading assignments; discussion will promote sharing and opportunities to re-think/revisit readings and writings. Therefore, students will be given opportunities to engage in class activities related to instructional models of reading and writing literacies across the curriculum which promote student learning. Such will also encourage problem solving in quantitative literacy and information literacy which promotes learning and critical thinking. All activities relative to this model will help students persist and progress from the freshmen level to graduation from the university.

59


References Achieving the dream: Context, background, and expectations (2009). Retrieved January 20, 2010, from www.elgin.edu/WorkArea/downloadasset.aspx?id=1038. Allen, L, (2000). Information literacy in higher education: A revolution in learning. Retrieved from http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~1a35/Information_Literacy_in_Higher_Education. American Institutes for Research (2006). The literacy of America’s college students. Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedfiles /wwwpewtrustsorg/News/PressReleases/Higher_education_performance. American College Testing, Inc. (2006). Ready for college and ready for work: Same or different. Retrieved May 24, 2006 from http://www.actorg/path/pdf/readinessbriefpdf. Artemeva, N., Logie, S., & St. Martin, J. 1999). From page to stage: How theories of genre and situation learning help introduce engineering students to discipline- specific communication. Technical Communications Quarterly 8(3), 301-316. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) (2000). Best practices in America’s libraries. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acr/index.cfm. Bartholomae, D. and Petrosky, A. (2008). Resources for teaching ways of reading. Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s. Breivik, P. S. (1998). Student learning in the information age. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Carter, M., Ferzli, M., & Wiebe, E. N. (2007). Writing to learn by learning to write in the disciplines. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21(3), 278-302. Cuseo, J. (2003). Comprehensive support for students during the first year of college. In G. L. Kramer & Associates, Student academic services: An integrated approach (pp. 271-310). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ehrmann, S. C. (2004). Computer literacy: Implications of technology for the content of college education. Liberal Education, Fall, 6-13. Emory & Henry College (2006). Quality enhancement plan executive summary: Quantitative literacy for the 21st century. Retrieved November 13, 2009 from http://www.ehc.edu/qep/pdf/qep.pdf. Feller, B. (2006, January 20). Students can’t handle reading tasks. Boston Globe, p. 4A. First-Year Writing Classroom at Florida State University (2009). Retrieved November 15 2009 from http://wwwEnglish3.FSU.ed/writing/?Q=node/172. Florida State University (2009). Making an appointment to improve students’ writing and reading skills. Retrieved from http://www.FSU.edu/writing/rwc/aptts.html

60


Habley, W., & McClanahan R. (2004). What works in student retention? Retrieved January 10, 2010, from http://www.act.org/path/postsec/droptables/pdf/FourYearPublic.pdf.

Haehl, M. (2003). Reading? In a math class? In Thomas C. Armington (Ed.), Best practices in developmental mathematics, 2nd ed. (pp. 31-37). NADE Mathematics Special Professional Interest Network.

Hauptman, A.M. (2007). Strategies for improving student success in postsecondary

education. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Retrieved from www.wiche.edu/Policy/Changing _Direction/Pubs.asp. Horning, A (2007). Reading across the curriculum the keys to student success. Retrieved

December, 29, from Interdisciplinary perspectives on language and learning and academic writing, http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/horning2007cf.

Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates (ICAS) (2002). Academic literacy: A

statement of competencies expected of students entering California’s public colleges and universities. Retrieved from http://www.asccc.org/Publications/Papers/AcademicLiteracy/main.htm.

Jowallah, R. (2008). Using technology supported learning to develop active learning in

higher education: A case study. US-China Education Review, 5(12), 42-46. Retrieved March 24, 2009, from ERIC database.

Kelly, J. M. (2006). The first-year college experience: Strategies for improvement.

Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/Kelly721Sp06.html.

Knoblauch, C.H. (2006). Literacy and the politics of education. In R. Norgaard

Composing Knowledge. (pp. 198-207). Latomasi, B.(2005). Peer tutor program report: Mohawk college of applied arts and

technology. Retrieved November, 28, 2009 from http://www.mohawkcollege.ca/homepage.html.

Levitz, R. & Noel, L. (1989). Connecting students to institutions: Keys to retention and

success. In M. L., Upcraft, Gardner, J.N., & Associates, The freshman year experience (pp.65-81). San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.

Lutsky, N. (2008). Arguing with numbers: A rationale and suggestions for teaching

quantitative reasoning through argument and writing. Madison, B. L. & Steen, L.A, (Eds.), Calculation vs. context: Quantitative literacy and its implications for teacher education (pp. 59-74). Mathematical Association of America.

Mathematical Association of America (1998). Quantitative reasoning for college

graduates: A complement to the standards. Retrieved November 14, 2009 from http://www.maa.org/past/ql/ql_toc.html.

61


McGriff, S.J. (2000). The socialization of faculty of higher education, Retrieved November 12, 2009 from http://www.bing.com/search.faculty development.com.

McNaught, S. (2007). Links for success: Linking developmental English with content

courses. 40th Annual CRLA Conference, Portland, Oregon. Retrieved June 29, 2009, from www.pvc.maricopa.edu/~sheets/CRLA2007/presentations.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2003). A first look at the literacy of

America’s adults in the 21st century. Retrieved from http://www.nces.ed.gov /Pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006470. The National Commission on Writing in America’s Colleges and Schools (2003). The

Neglected “R.” Retrieved from http://www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/Writingconeglectedr.pdf.

Nilson, L. (2007). How the text syllabus fails: Why we should design a graphic syllabus. In

Newsletter: Reflections on Teaching and Learning—Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence 2(2).

Norgaard, Rolf. (2007). Composing Knowledge. New York, New York: Bedford/St.

Martin’s. Pettijohn, T. F., II & Pettijohn, T. F. (2007). Required discussion web pages in

psychology courses and student outcomes. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(4), 8.

Romano, L. (2006). Experts stunned: Literacy of U.S. college grads declining. Retrieved

from http://www.rense.com.

Spivey, N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: reading, writing and making meaning. San Diego: American Press. In Horning. Reading Across the Curriculum the key to Student Success, http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/horning, 2007cf.

Smith, L. W. (2004, April 21). “PAT on the back”: Developing and implementing a peer

advising team. The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/040421ls.htm.

Steele, B. Kilic-Bahi (2008). Quantitative literacy across the curriculum: A case study. Numeracy Journal 1 (2).

Swail, W. (2004, June). The art of student retention: A handbook for practitioners and Administrators. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 20th Annual Recruitment and Retention Conference in Austin, Texas, June 21, 2004, Retrieved January 3, 2009 from http://www.policy.org. Taylor, Corrine. (2007). Preparing Students for the Real (and Highly Quantitative) World. Retrieved from http://www.maa.org/ql/cvc/cvc-109-124.pdf

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition

(2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

62


The Tutoring Program at the University Main (2008). Retired November 15, 2009, http://www/umaine.edu/tutoring program/. United Student Aid Funds, Inc. Education Access Report (2004). African-American-

student Retention: Writing is the key to college success. Do your students write well right now? (2008). The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Writing-is-the-key-to-college/46940.

Upcraft, Gardner, J.N., & Associates, The freshman year experience (pp.65-81). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walls, C. & Jackson, S (2002). Empowering minds: A guide for the first year

experience. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt.

Writing is the Key to College Success. Do Your Students Write Well Now? (June 22, 2008). Chronicle of Higher Education.

63


XI. Appendices

64


Appendix I

Alabama State University: History and Characteristics Alabama State University (ASU), founded in 1867, is a comprehensive regional university that offers students throughout the world a first-class education by providing learning experiences designed to develop intellectual abilities and instill in them social, moral, cultural and ethical values. In so doing, the university equips its students with the skills, insights, attitudes, and practical experiences that make them well-rounded and discerning citizens fully qualified for their chosen professions in the workplace and service to humanity. Alabama State University today boasts of an enrollment of more than 5, 500 students from 42 states and 7 countries. One-third of ASU students are non-Alabama residents and 11 percent are minorities. With a student-faculty ratio of 14:1, ASU faculty work closely with students, encourage ambition, and challenge students to meet their academic and career goals and their personal aspirations. ASU offers 48 degree programs at the bachelor’s, master’s, education specialist, and doctoral levels. University faculty leaders continue to encourage colleges to seek resources and new ideas to develop even more programs and degree opportunities. Located in near downtown Montgomery, the capital of the state, Alabama State University operates on a 383-acre campus with a mixture of historic and contemporary buildings that amount to more than 16.7 million square feet of space. Adhering closely to its well-established Campus Master Plan, the university continues to develop facilities appropriate for its programs and for the living and working expectations of its students, faculty, and staff. During the past decade, ASU has completely renovated four major residence halls and developed a first-class dining facility for is residential students. The university has also constructed four major academic facilities during this period. These latter facilities include the John L. Buskey Health Sciences Building the Robert C. Hatch Forensic Sciences Building (which also houses the Montgomery State Department of Forensic Science Montgomery regional laboratory), the ASU Life Sciences building, and the Ralph David Abernathy Education Building. In addition to the recently completed projects, ASU continues a robust and active building program of ongoing construction. Projects include a total renovation and expansion of new space for the University Library, a Student Services Center, two new residence halls to house an additional 500 students, a new football complex, a new football practice field, a baseball and soccer facility, and numerous playing fields and green space for students, faculty, and staff. These facilities should meet the programmatic and student growth needs for the next two decades. For additional information: http://www.alasu.edu/index.aspx and click on “About ASU”

65


Appendix II

The Alabama State University Mission

Alabama State University (ASU) is a student-centered, nurturing, comprehensive, and diverse public historically black university committed to achieving excellence in teaching, research, and public service. The university fulfills its mission through fostering critical thought, artistic creativity, professional competence, and responsible citizenship in its students; by adding to the body of knowledge to enhance the quality of life through research and discovery; and by helping to advance the local, state, national, and international communities through thoughtful public service. Offering baccalaureate through doctoral degrees, the university maintains a scholarly and creative faculty, state-of-the-art facilities, and a living atmosphere in which all members of the campus community can work and learn in pleasant and rewarding surroundings. Consistent with its assurance that neither race, gender, nor economic status inhibits intelligence, creativity or achievement, ASU offers a bridge to success for those who commit to pursuing the building blocks of development, focus, persistence, and reward. Core Values:

• Alabama State University continues to pursue excellence in teaching, research, student services, and public service while creating an environment conductive to teaching and learning.

• Alabama State University demonstrates a strong commitment to integrity by holding all faculty, staff and students accountable to the policies and procedures of the University, and to general expectations of decent and civil conduct.

• Alabama State University will continue to support an environment that respects people with open communication and the free exchange of ideas, while nurturing a diverse community.

• Alabama State University has a commitment to research, service, and the contribution of new knowledge that focuses upon solving problems that affect local, state, national and international communities.

Institutional Goals: • To organize the university in such a manner as to provide sufficient and appropriate

leadership, management and oversight to achieve its mission and goals. • To ensure the academic integrity of the university. • To ensure the fiscal integrity of the university. • To enhance the public’s perception of the university and thus increase external

support. • To develop and maintain the physical campus so that the university is a productive,

pleasant place to work, study and live. • To ensure that the university responds to all of its constituents. • To improve programs and services that will contribute to the development of student

life. • To employ an organizational Continuous Improvement of Daily Operations (CIDO)

approach to assure the use of best practices in the operating functions across the university.

66


Appendix III

The Quality Enhancement Plan Teams

QEP Exploratory TEAM

CO-CHAIRS Dr. Evelyn Hodge (University College)

Dr. Caterina Bristol (Visual and Performing Arts)

• Duncan Kirkwood (student, SGA President) – 2007 - 2008

• Dr. Angela Davis, Health Science – Administration /Faculty

• Dr. B.K. Robertson, College of Arts & Sciences - Faculty

• Dr. Sharron Herron, College of Arts & Sciences - Faculty

• Dr. Kevin Hicks, University College - Faculty

• Mr. Ricky Drake, Student Affairs

• Dr. Necoal Driver, College of Education - Faculty

• Mr. Willie McCladdie, Administrative Services

• Ms. Kathy Williams, Student Affairs

• Ms. Arnetta Arnell, Fiscal Affairs

• Mr. Freddie Gallot, Fiscal Affairs

• Mr. Cedric Davis, Library Staff

• Dr. Gow-Cheg Huang, College of Business Administration – Faculty

• Ms. Brenda Bryant, Office of Institutional Research – Director

• Mr. Albert Calhoun, Office of Institutional Research – Statistician

• Council of Academic Deans – Office of Academic Affairs

Purpose: To conduct initial exploration and research activities that would lead to the identification of the QEP focus and topic.

67


QEP DEVELOPMENT TEAM

CO-CHAIRS Dr. Evelyn Hodge (University College)

Dr. Caterina Bristol (Visual and Performing Arts)

• Dr. Angela Davis, College of Health Sciences • Dr. Kevin Hicks, University College - Faculty • Dr. Necoal Driver, College of Education -Faculty • Dr. AnnMarie Depas, University College -Administration faculty • Dr. Carly Johnson, College of Visual & Performing Arts - Faculty • Ms. Shanina Carmichael, Student Government Association • Mrs. Mary Mitchell, Academic Advising • Mr. Stanley Giles, Student Government Association, President – 2009 - 2010 • Ms. Jessyca Darrington, Student Affairs • Dr. Lisa James, Assessment and Instructional Development • Mr. Cedric Davis, University Library, Levi Watkins Learning Center - Staff • Dr. Janice Franklin, Dean of Library Services • Dr. Audrey Napier, Biological Science, Director of Research - Faculty • Dr. Gow-Cheng Huang, College of Business Administration • Mr. Albert Calhoun, Institutional Research, Statistician • Dr. Parichart Thornton, University College - Faculty • Ms. Lynda Humphrey, University College - Faculty • Dr. Carly Johnson, College of Visual & Performing Arts – Faculty • Dr. Brenda Marshall – College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences - Faculty • Ms. Acquanetta Bracy, University College - Faculty • Ms. Sonya Obas, University College - Faculty • Mr. Antione Kirby, Doctoral Student-College of Education • Duncan Kirkwood (student, SGA President)- 2007-2008 • Dr. B.K. Robertson, College of Arts & Sciences - Faculty • Dr. Sharron Herron, College of Arts & Sciences - Faculty • Mrs. Leola Harden Luster – Director of Honors Program - Faculty • Mr. Ricky Drake, Student Affairs • Mr. Willie McCladdie, Administrative Services • Ms. Kathy Williams, Student Affairs • Ms. Arnetta Arnell, Fiscal Affairs • Mr. Freddie Gallot, Fiscal Affairs Purpose: To develop the components of the QEP and draft a document for review and discussion among university constituents.

68


QEP Development Team Committees

Reading Group Assignments Best Practices

Objective #1 – Literacy in Developmental Courses

Objective #3 – Academic Advising

AnnMarie DePas Audrey Napier

Acquanetta Bracey Mary Mitchell

Patrichard Thornton Necoal Driver

Cedric Davis

Objective #3 – Student Life and Service

Objective #1 – Literacy in Core Courses Martha Pettway

Kevin Hicks Jessyca Darrington

Evelyn Hodge Sharon Herron

Angela Davis Bryan Weaver

Janice Franklin Shanina Carmichael

Objective #2 – Faculty Development ASU Data, National Data

Lisa James Lisa James

Carly Johnson Caterina Bristol

Janice Franklin Albert Calhoun

Cedric Davis

Objective #2 – Staff Development Brenda Marshall

Martha Pettway

Linda Humphrey Budget

Derrick Frazier Herbert Watkins

Sondra Obas Freddie Gallot

Arnetta Arnell

69


Executive Committee

• Dr. Karyn Scissum-Gunn, Provost • Dr. Doris P. Screws, Director, SACS-COC • Dr. Caterina Bristol, Co-Chair, QEP • Dr. Evelyn Hodge, Co-Chair, QEP • Dr. Senobia Crawford, Chair, Institutional Effectiveness Committee • Dr. Brenda Marshall, Faculty Statistician • Mrs. Stephanie Alexander, Staff Associate

Budget Committee

• Dr. Freddie Gallot, Vice President, Fiscal Affairs • Dr. Karyn Scissum-Gunn, Provost • Mrs. Arnetta Arnell, Fiscal Affairs • Dr. Doris P. Screws, Director, SACS-COC • Dr. Evelyn Hodge, Co-Chair, QEP • Dr. Caterina Bristol, Co-Chair, QEP

Marketing Committee

• Dr. Doris P. Screws, Director, SACS-COC • Mrs. Danielle Kennedy-Lamar, Vice President, Marketing • Mrs. Louis Russell, Marketing • Ms. Tina Joly, Marketing • Dr. Caterina Bristol, Co-Chair, QEP • Ms. Carol Williams, Academic Affairs • Dr. Evelyn Hodge, Co-Chair, QEP • Mrs. Stephanie Alexander, Staff Associate

70


Appendix IV

Data Tables and Figures for Sections II and IX

Table IV-A

Assessment of Perceptions Survey

Table IV-B SAT Test Scores 2006 – 2009 Table IV-C ACT Test Scores 2006 – 2009 Table IV-D Educational Testing Service: Measurement of Academic Proficiency and

Progress (MAPP) Summary 2007 – 2009 Table IV-E Educational Testing Service: Measurement of Academic Proficiency and

Progress (MAPP) Summary of Proficiency Classifications for ASU 2007-2009

Figure IV-A MAPP Summary of Proficiency Classifications Table IV-F Alabama State University Prospective Teacher Test (APTTP I) (Writing,

Reading, and Mathematics) Assessment Results 2002 – 2009 Figure IV-B Alabama State University Prospective Teacher Test (APTTP I)

(Writing, Reading, and Mathematics) Assessment Results 2002 – 2009 Table IV-G

Alabama State University Comparative Course Completion Rates by Successive Curriculum Levels, Spring 2005 – Summer 2007

Table IV-H Alabama State University Core Course Enrollment and Completion Rates,Spring 2005 – Fall 2005

Table IV-I Alabama State University Core Course Enrollment and Completion Rates,Spring 2006 – Fall 2006

Table IV-J Alabama State University Core Course Enrollment and Completion Rates,Spring 2007 – Fall 2007

Table IV-K Alabama State University Retention Data Table IV-L Average Core Curriculum Enrollment Fall 2008 – Fall 2009

71


Table IV-A

QEP Exploratory Team Assessment of Perceptions Survey

Summary of Results – Spring 2008

Rank

IMPORTANCE

NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT

Students Staff Faculty Students Staff Faculty

1

Technology

Access

Oral

Communication

Written

Communication

Freshman

Experience Oral and written

Communication Written

Communication

2

Oral and written

Communication

Written

Communication

Technology

Access

Critical

Thinking

Computational

Skills

Advisement Advisement

Critical Thinking

3

Critical

thinking

Critical

thinking

Oral

Communication

Student

Engagement

Library Skills

Student

Engagement

Critical thinking

Technology

Access

Campus

Environment

Oral

Communication

4

Freshman

Experience

Use of

technology

Technology

Access

Technology

Access

Use of

Technology

Technology

Access

5

Computational

Skills

Student

engagement

Computational

Skills

Advisement

Freshman

Experience

Written

Communication

Computational

Skills

Freshman

Experience

6

Library

Skills

Library Skills

Cultural

Diversity

Campus

Environment

Student

Engagement

Critical Thinking

Campus

Environment

Library

Skills

Collaborative

Learning

Source: Assessment of Perceptions Survey, 2008. Alabama State University QEP Exploratory Team

72


Table IV-B

SAT Test Scores 2006-2009

Range

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Critical Reading

Math

Critical Reading

Math

Critical Reading

Math

700-800

600-699

500-599

400-499

300-399

200-299

0.00

0.80

10.00

37.40

43.30

8.50

0.00

1.30

9.00

35.00

45.20

9.50

0.00

0.30

10.40

38.10

44.60

6.60

0.00

0.70

8.30

36.30

47.40

7.30

2.20

1.50

8.60

40.90

42.00

4.80

0.00

0.40

10.40

43.50

38.30

7.40

Source: Alabama State University, Office of Planning and Institutional Research Common

Data Set 2006-2009.

SAT scores were aggregated and averaged to provide a profile of the skills levels of ASU entering freshmen. The scores on each section of the SAT (critical reading and mathematics) can range from 200-800. The estimated average score nationwide for each section on the SAT is 500 (http://sat.collegeboard.com). Analysis of data for ASU’s first-time freshmen for the period 2006-2009, however, reveal lower averages than that of the national average. Table IV-B shows that the average SAT scores in both reading and mathematics for first-time freshmen entering ASU in 2006-2007 were significantly lower than the national average. Overall, 89.2% of the scores for that year fell below the 500 mark. Of these scores, most (43.3% and 45.2% respectively) were in the 300-399 range. Further analysis of data for the two succeeding years reveals a somewhat similar trend with students generally scoring highest in the 300-399 range. Examination of scores over the three years shows that student scores received by ASU for each successive year were slightly higher in the 400-499 range.

73

Table IV-C

ACT Test Scores 2006-2009

Range

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

ACT Composite

ACT English

ACT Math

ACT Composite

ACT English

ACT Math

ACT Composite

ACT English

ACT Math

30-36

24-29

18-23

12-17

6-11

Below 6

0.00

1.90

25.50

70.80

1.80

0.00

0.2.

4.20

26.10

53.30

16.10

0.10

0.00

1.50

16.20

81.10

1.20

0.00

0.10

1.70

24.60

71.90

1.70

0.00

0.20

2.40

23.70

55.80

17.70

0.20

0.10

2.40

23.70

55.80

17.70

0.20

0.00

2.70

28.30

66.90

1.80

0.30

0.40

4.00

29.10

51.80

14.50

0.20

0.10

2.50

20.80

74.60

1.90

0.10

Source: Alabama State University, Office of Planning and Institutional Research Common Data Set 2006-2009 ACT scores were also aggregated and averaged to provide a profile of the skills levels of ASU entering freshmen. These data are presented in Table IV-C. Scores for each ACT category (composite, English, mathematics) range from 1 to 36 with an average score nationwide of about 20 (http://www.actstudents.org). Generally, the data reveal that ASU first-time freshmen enrolled between 2006 and 2009 overwhelmingly tended to score in the 12-17 (51.8 % to 81%). The next highest scores were in the 18-23 range with 16% to 29% of students scoring in this range. While it is difficult to report exactly how many freshmen fell below the national average of 20, it is observed in Table IV-C that those who fell in the 12-17 and lower ranges account for at least 50 to 80% of all freshmen enrolled. Significantly more than half of all freshmen enrolled at ASU between 2006 and 2009 scored below the national average on English (69.5% 2006-2007; 73.3% 2007-2008; 66.5% 2008-2009). Further examination of the data for mathematics show that generally more than three-quarters of all freshman scores at ASU for the three years reviewed were at the 12-17 range and below (82.3% 2006-2007; 73.5% 2007-2008; and 76.5% 2008-2009). A similar trend is noted for the ACT composite scores. Accordingly, the analysis of these data for the three year period show that overwhelmingly ASU freshman students performed less well on both the SAT and ACT tests than did students in the national population.

74

Table IV-D

Educational Testing Service: Measurement of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) Summary 2007-2009

Results of MAPP Testing 2007-2009

Skills Sub-scores:

National Data All Students Master’s (Comprehensive)

Colleges and Universities I and II (N=150, 910)

ASU Data for 2007-2009 (All N=652, Developmental

N=311, Non-Developmental N=341)

Mean 90th %tile

75th %tile

50th %tile

25th %tile

10th %tile All Developmental

Non-Develop-mental

Total 443.8 471 457 441 430 421 428.2 422.23 433.56

Critical Thinking 111.1 120 115 111 106 103 108

Reading 118.2 128 124 119 113 108 113.7

Writing 114.4 121 118 114 111 108 111.2

Not

Ava

ilabl

e

Not

Ava

ilabl

e Context-Based

Sub-scores:

Humanities 114.7 124 120 114 110 107 111.7

Social Sciences 113.4 121 117 112 108 106 110.1

Natural Sciences 115 123 119 115 111 107 111.6 Source: Computed from ETS supplied data, 2007-2009, Alabama State University.

75


Table IV-E

Educational Testing Service: Measurement of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) Summary of Proficiency Classifications for ASU

2007-2009

Source: Computed from ETS supplied data, 2007-2009, Alabama State University. Alabama State University administered the Measurement of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) test (renamed ETS Proficiency Profile in 2009) to 652 students between 2007 and 2009. The test was administered to a randomly selected group of students chosen by the deans of the colleges, and included sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Tables IV-D and IV-E present the results of these tests. The data show that regardless of subject and level assessed, significantly less than half of the students can be defined as proficient. In the main, students tend to be more proficient in reading level 1 (42%) and writing level 1(40%), and less proficient generally in mathematics (1%). When students categorized as marginal and not proficient are evaluated collectively, a rather significant trend is noted. Results revealed high percentages of students categorized as marginal and not proficient (totals for the two categories) in all levels of reading (58%, 85%, 99%), writing (60%, 95%, 99%), and mathematics (81%, 96%, 99%).

Proficiency

Classification

Skill Dimension

Reading Level 1

%

Reading Level 2

%

Critical Thinking

%

Writing Level 1

%

Writing Level 2

%

Writing Level 3

%

Math Level 1

%

Math Level 2

%

Math Level 3

% Proficient

Marginal

Not Proficient

Marginal +

Not Proficient

42

26

32

58

16

16

69

85

1

4

95

99

40

39

21

60

5

25

70

95

1 9

90

99

19

31

50

81

5

15

81

96

1 2

97

99

76


Source: Computed from ETS supplied data, 2007-2009. Alabama State University.

77


Table IV-F

Alabama State University Alabama Prospective Teacher Test (APTTP I) (Writing, Reading, and Mathematics) Assessment Results 2002- 2009

Source: Alabama State Department of Education 2002- 2009.

Writing Assessment

No. of test takers 2288

Reading AssessmentNo. of test takers

2223

Mathematics Assessment

No. of test takers 2743 Score

Distribution %

Minimum Passing Score 3

Score Distribution

%


Score Distribution

%


>1

2

65

12

1

5

4

3

2

1

7

31

34

26

2

7

6

5

4

3

2

10

26

38

24

7

6

5

4

3

100 - 100 - 100 -

78


Source: Alabama State Department of Education 2002-2009. Table IV-F and Figure IV-B show the results of Alabama State University, Alabama Prospective Teacher Test in the areas of Writing, Reading, and Mathematics for 2002 to 2009. The table and figure show the percent of students who scored 3 and below and 4 and below on the three test areas. Analysis of the data shows that between 2002 and 2009 a total of 2288 students took writing, 2223 took reading, and 2743 took mathematics assessment tests. The passing score for writing was 3 and for reading and mathematics 4. Generally, students performed better on the reading assessment test with 72% scoring above the required 4 passing mark. In the areas of writing and math, however, the opposite was true. Overall, 80% of students who took the writing assessment test scored 3 or below. Of this 80%, Table IV-F shows that the majority of students (65%) barely achieved the minimum passing score of 3. For mathematics a similar trend is observed. Less than half of the students (38%) tested achieved the minimum passing score of 4. Overall, 26% of the students tested in mathematics scored 4, and a total of 62% scored 4 or lower on the test.

79


Table IV-G

Alabama State University Comparative Course Completion Rates by Successive Curriculum Levels, Spring 2005 – Summer 2007

Source: Excerpted from Revised Table 4.1-1, Alabama State University Office of Institutional Research, December 2009. Rate changes between program levels calculated as the percent of the relative difference observed between two course completion rates (% change = b-a/a)(100).

Table IV-G reports the comparative course completion rates for the four successive curriculum levels at Alabama State University. This rate change is cross sectional rather than longitudinal and covers the period spring 2005 to summer 2007. The data show a core curriculum course completion rate of 61%. When compared to the undergraduate major course completion rate of 77%, a 26% gap in completion success rates is observed between the two levels. This gap is the largest for any of the levels assessed for the period under review and will be addressed by the QEP. One goal of the QEP is to increase the rate of successful transition to the major by infusing literacy instruction throughout the core curriculum courses.

Comparative Course Completion Rates by Successive Curriculum Levels (3-Year

Averages)

Percent Gap in Completion Success

Rate Between Curriculum Levels

A B

13%

Developmental Course Completion

Rate

Core Curriculum Course Completion Rate

54% 61% Core Curriculum

Course Completion Rate

Undergraduate Major Course Completion Rate

26% 61% 77%

Undergraduate Major Course Completion

Rate

Graduate Course (Masters) Course Completion Rate

14% 77%

88%

Graduate Course (Masters) Course Completion Rate

Graduate Course (Doctoral) Course Completion Rate

9% 88% 96%

80


Table IV-H

Alabama State University Core Course Enrollment and Completion Rates Fall 2005-Spring 2005

Source: Alabama State University Office of Planning and Institutional Research, 2005. *Number in parenthesis is the course completion count

Summer2005

Spring 2005

Course

No. Enroll.

No. Comp. Course

No. Enroll

No. Comp. Course

No. Enroll.

No. Comp.

ART 131 BIO 127 BIO 128 BIO 127 L BIO 128 L CHE 141 CHE142 ECO 251 ECO 254 ENG 131 ENG 132 ENG 140 ENG 209 ENG 210 GEO 206 HIS 131 HIS 132 HUM 101 HUM 103 MAT 136 MAT 137 MAT165 MAT 265 MUS 121 MUS 122 ORI 100 PHL 201 PHY 206 PHY 207 PHY 210 POS 207 PSC 231 PSC 232 PSY 251 SOC 110 SPE 200 SPE 205 THE 111

287 449 257 443 267 68 33 89 72 888 283 36 310 52 405 1064 303 43 442 385 667 77 54 520 20 1111 102 30 10 5 37 181 114 244 227 273 250 125

56.4 (162)* 65.9 (296) 73.2(188) 59.6 (264) 62.5 (167) 42.6 (29) 72.7 (24) 49.4 (44) 43.1 (31) 67.9 (603) 54.4 (154) 91.7 (33) 76.8 (238) 71.2 (37) 53.1(215) 46 (489) 73.6 (223) 76.7 (33) 57(252) 45.5 (175) 41.4 (276) 41.6 (32) 50 (27) 65.2 (339) 70 (14) 60.1 (668) 60.8 (62) 16.7 (5) 0 (0) 40 (2) 40.5 (15) 54.7 (99) 86.8 (99) 74.6 (182) 70.5 (160) 63.7 (174) 64.4 (161) 80.0 100)

ART 131 BIO 127 BIO 128 BIO 127 L BIO 128 L CHE 141 ECO 251 ECO 254 ENG 131 ENG 132 ENG 209 GEO 206 HIS 131 HIS 132 HUM 103 MAT 136 MAT 137 MAT165 MUS 121 ORI 100 PHL 201 PHY 206 PHY 207 PHY 210 POS 207 PSC 231 PSC 232 PSY 251 SOC 110 SPE 200 SPE 205 THE 111

29 67 61 96 69 22 27 22 74 87 79 101 100 107 113 93 79 38 39 40 16 29 25 1 10 35 29 109 53 52 43 13

37.9 (11)* 61.2 (41) 83.6 (51) 65.6 (63) 68.1 (47) 59.1 (13) 74.1(20) 72.2 (16) 71.6 (53) 43.7 (38) 88.6 (70) 68.3 (69) 61 (61) 81.3 (87) 44.2 (50) 51.6 (48) 62 (49) 57.9 (22) 48.7 (19) 70 (28) 62.5 (10) 3.4 (1) 28 (7) 100 (1) 90 (9) 74.3 (26) (72.4 (21) 87.2 (95) 81.1 (43) 59.6 (31) 60.5 (26) 69.2 (9)

ANT 113 ART 131 BIO 127 BIO 128 BIO127 L BIO128 L CHE 141 CHE 142 ECO 251 ECO 254 ENG 131 ENG 132 ENG 141 ENG 209 ENG 210 GEO 206 HIS 131 HIS 132 HUM 101 HUM 103 MAT 136 MAT 137 MAT 165 MAT 265 MUS 121 MUS 122 ORI 100 PHL 201 PHY 206 PHY 207 PHY 210 PHY 211 POS 207 PSC 231 PSC 232 PSY251 SOC 110 SPE 200 SPE 205 THE 111

29 123 440 354 405 349 65 42 73 101 397 702 15 346 60 415 640 518 19 390 243 391 123 35 276 23 370 138 14 23 2 17 62 213 117 404 223 317 303 87

89.7 (26)* 49.6 (61) 65.9 (290) 66.7 (236) 56.8 (230) 61.3 (214) 47.7 (31) 42.9 (18) 47.9 (35) 41.6 (42) 40.6 (161) 57.3 (402) 93.3 (14) 87.6 (303) 73.3 (44) 43.6 (181) 43.1 (276) 65.4 (339) 63.2 (12) 57.4 (224) 39.1 (95) 39.9 (156) 40.7 (50) 37.1 (13) 58.7 (162) 65.2 (15) 40.5 (150) 59.4 (82) 7.1 (1) 17.4 (4) 50 (1) 41.2 (7) 48.8 (30) 56.3 (120) 74.4 (87) 70 (283) 57.4 (128) 67.8 (215) 64 (194) 58.6 (51)

81


Table IV-I

Alabama State University Core Course Enrollment and Completion Rates Fall 2006-Spring 2006

Source: Alabama State University Office of Planning and Institutional Research, 2006. *Number in parenthesis is the course completion count

Fall 2006

Summer2006

Spring 2006

Course

No. Enroll.

No. Comp. Course

No. Enroll.

No. Comp. Course

No. Enroll.

No. Comp.

ART 131 BIO 127 BIO 128 BIO 127 L BIO 128 L CHE 141 CHE142 ECO 251 ECO 254 ENG 131 ENG 132 ENG 140 ENG 209 ENG 210 GEO 206 HIS 131 HIS 132 HUM 101 HUM 103 MAT 136 MAT 137 MAT165 MAT 265 MUS 121 MUS 122 ORI 100 PHL 201 PHY 206 PHY 207 PHY 210 POS 207 PSC 231 PSC 232 PSY 251 SOC 110 SPE 200 SPE 205 THE 111

307 479 270 375 274 69 26 87 90 912 324 21 317 41 458 1134 318 41 465 334 661 79 50 491 15 881 107 39 10 9 77 187 113 374 205 277 305 138

50.5 (155)* 63 (302) 64.1 (173) 60 (225) 66.4 (182) 49.3 (34) 50 (13) 50.6 (44) 45.6 (41) 63.2(576) 50.6 (164) 90.5(19) 77.3 (245) 65.9 (27) 50 (229) 49.9 (566) 64.2 (204) 80.5 (33) 58.1 (270) 34.4 (115) 44.8 (296) 43 (34) 64 (32) 67.4 (331) 20 (3) 60.6 (534) 69.2 (74) 7.7 (3) 0 (0) 22.2 (2) 58.4 (45) 50.3 (94) 78.6 (88) 72.7 (272) 69.3 (142) 66.1 (183) 60.3 (184) 83.3 (115)

ART 131 BIO 127 BIO 128 BIO 127 L BIO 128 L CHE 141 CHE142 ECO 251 ECO 254 ENG 131 ENG 132 ENG 209 GEO 206 HIS 131 HIS 132 HUM 103 MAT 136 MAT 137 MAT165 MUS 121 ORI 100 PHL 201 PHY 206 PHY 207 POS 207 PSC 231 PSC 232 PSY 251 SOC 110 SPE 200 SPE 205 THE 111

20 55 73 82 73 23 26 251 17 79 100 75 89 96 83 87 93 93 25 41 51 15 18 21 9 38 24 94 32 35 42 26

75 (15)* 60 (33) 68.5 (50) 53.4 (52) 68.5 (50) 56.5 (13) 73.1 (19) 59.3 (16) 41.2 (7) 67.1 (53) 53 (53) 84 (63) 71.9 (64) 57.3 (55) 85.5 (71) 46 (40) 66.7 (62) 73.1 (68) 48 (12) 80.5 (33) 70.6(36) 80 (12) 5.6 (1) 33.3 (7) 100 (9) 71.1(27) 87.5 (21) 87.2 (82) 87.5 (28) 54.3 (19) 69 (29) 96.2 (25)

ANT 113 ART 132 BIO 127 BIO 126 BIO127 L BIO128 L CHE 141 CHE 142 ECO 251 ECO 254 ENG 131 ENG 132 ENG 141 ENG 209 ENG 210 GEO 206 HIS 131 HIS 132 HUM 101 HUM 103 MAT 136 MAT 137 MAT 165 MAT 265 MUS 121 MUS 122 ORI 100 PHL 201 PHY 206 PHY 207 PHY 211 POS 207 PSC 231 PSC 232 PSY251 SOC 110 SPE 200 SPE 205 THE 111

22 131 426 361 411 358 77 48 91 80 413 724 36 301 57 433 632 530 17 380 238 356 120 46 254 22 367 124 17 17 3 52 213 123 385 205 281 218 72

81.8 (18)* 45(59) 58.9 (251) 66.5 (240) 50.9 (209) 50.6 (181) 37.7 (29) 56.2 (27) 68.1 (62) 47.5 (38) 47.5 (196) 62.3 (451) 88.9 (32) 79.1 (238) 66.7 (38 55.8 (194) 39.9 (252) 71.5(379) 47.7 (8) 62.1 (236) 39.1 (93) 40.2 (143) 40.8 (49) 69.6(32) 47.3(120) 45.5 (10) 36.8 (135) 55.6 (69) 11.8 (2) 29.4 (5) 100 (3) 44.2 (23) 51.6 (110) 70.0 (87) 75.3 (290) 61 (125) 63 (177) 69.3 (151) 68.1 (49)

82


Table IV-J

Alabama State University Core Course Enrollment and Completion Rates Spring 2007- Fall 2007

Source: Alabama State University Office of Planning and Institutional Research, 2007.

*Number in parenthesis is the course completion count.

Spring 2007

Fall 2007

Course

No.

Enrolled

No. Completed

Course

No.

Enrolled

No. Completed

ANT 113 ART 131 BIO 127 BIO 128 BIO127 L BIO128 L CHE 141 CHE 142 ECO 251 ECO 254 ENG 131 ENG 132 ENG 141 ENG 209 ENG 210 GEO 206 HIS 131 HIS 132 HUM 101 HUM 103 MAT 136 MAT 137 MAT 165 MAT 265 MUS 121 MUS 122 ORI 100 PHL 201 PHY 206 PHY 207 PHY 211 POS 207 PSC 231 PSC 232 PSY 251 SOC 110 SPE 200 SPE 205 THE 111

29

170 373 324 358 301 78 56 85 73

400 691 24

273 44

454 639 685 16

407 274 332 126 38

293 16

457 92 25 23 4

52 192 108 415 146 290 263 96

86.2 (25)* 39.4 (67) 68.4 (255) 63.6 (206) 52.8 (189) 54.5 (164) 51.3 (40) 55.4 (31) 54.1 (46) 61.6 (45) 52.2 (209) 60.1 (415) 87.5 (21) 80.6 (220) 65.9 (29) 44.7 (203) 36.8 (235) 64.2 (440) 50 (8) 66.8 (272) 39.4 (108) 47 (156) 46 (58) (76.3 (29) 54.4 (171) 68.8 (11) 49.9 (228) 57.6 (53) 28 (7) 13 (3) 50 (2) 50 (26) 51.6 (99) 81.5 (88) 75.2 (312) 54.8 (80) 70.7 (205) 64.3 (169) 71.9 (69)

ART 131 BIO 127 BIO 128 BIO 127 L BIO 128 L CHE 141 CHE142 ECO 251 ECO 254 ENG 131 ENG 132 ENG 209 GEO 206 HIS 131 HIS 132 HUM 103 MAT 136 MAT 137 MAT165 MUS 121 ORI 100 PHL 201 PHY 206 PHY 207 POS 207 PSC 231 PSC 232 PSY 251 SOC 110 SPE 200 SPE 205 THE 111

15 64 74 97 67 21 31 31 15 76

111 71

104 107 77

117 88 76 27 25 64 15 36 20 8

27 10

103 48 18 35 30

80 (12)* 70.3 (45) 73 (54) 72.2 (70) 76.1 (51) 52.4 (11) 54.8 (17) 67.7 (21) 60 (9) 65.8 (50) 53.2 (59) 76.1 (54) 63.5 (55) 59.8 (64) 45.5 (35) 82.9 (97) 69.3 (61) 51.3 (39) 81.5 (22) 72 (18) 71.9(46) 66.7 (10) 38.9 (14) 25 (5) 87.5 (7) 77.8 (21) 100 (10) 89.3 (92) 79.2 (38) 83.3(15) 88.6 (31) 90 (27)

83


Table IV-K

Alabama State University Retention Data

Source: Alabama State University Office of Planning and Institutional Research, 2009. *Cumulative figure includes those who graduated in previous years.

ContinuationRates

Cumulative Graduation Rates and Continuation Rates

Cohort Type

Cohort Year

Head Count

% Cont to 2nd year

% Cont to 3rd year

% Grad in 4

years

% ContTo 5th year

% Grad in 5

Years*

% Cont to 6th year

% Grad in 6

years*

Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

1067 955

1154 1173 1014 1263 1401 1187 1139 1198 1297 1351

60.0 67.0 58.0 65.0 62.4 64.9 64.2 71.9 67.9 56.8 56.4 54.5

44.0 37.0 51.0 49.0 49.8 56.3 51.3 52.4 44.1 45.1 44.7

-

6.0 3.4 3.1 8.6 14.6 11.6 8.7 7.2 8.2 - - -

30.0 30.0 31.7 25.9 22.9 29.5 23.1 24.4 26.0

- - -

17.2 8.2 11.3 18.1 23.9 22.7 17.1 17.8

- - - -

14.1 17.9 16.6 13.4 11.3 10.1 11.1 11.1

- - - -

20.7 18.2 22.6 22.3 28.9 27.2 21.2

- - - - -

Average Percentages

62.4

47.7

7.9

27.0

20.38

13.9

23.0

84


Table IV-L

Average Enrollment in Core Biology, Geography, and History Courses Fall 2008 – Fall 2009

Source: Alabama State University, Office of Planning and Institutional Research, 2009. Table IV-L presents the average enrollment in core biology, geography, and history courses for fall 2008 to fall 2009. The data reveal that enrollment rates range from a low of 7 students per class to a high of 48 students. Examination of the data suggests that in the areas of biology, geography and history, average class sizes tend to be high (37- 48 students per class). One focus of the QEP is to reduce average class sizes so as to maximize teacher efficiency, student performance, and course completion rates.

Courses

Fall 2008 Spring 2008 Fall 2009

Enrollment & Sections

AverageEnrollment


AverageEnrollment


AverageEnrollment

BIO --127

BIO --128

GEO- 206

HIS - 131

HIS – 132

666 (14)

429 (9)

625 (13)

1246 (27)

360 (15)

48

48

48

46

24

516 (16)

405 (14)

638 (16)

815 (21)

484 (23)

32

29

39

39

21

554 (15)

365 (13)

671 (15)

1037 (29)

368 (14)

37

28

45

36

26