"Developing Curriculum for a Multi-Course Interdepartmental Learning Community to Promote Retention and Learning for Underprepared Engineering Students"
About the AuthorsRachel A. Milloy is a Ph.D. student in the Rhetoric and Professional Communication program at New Mexico State University where she teaches first-year writing and technical communication courses. She serves as a writing program assistant and as a co-writer for the English department’s first-year composition textbook, Paideia 14. Her research interests include online pedagogy, composition pedagogy, writing technologies, writing program administration, and student success. When not teaching, she enjoys reading, running, and spending time outdoors. Matthew Moberly is a doctoral student in Rhetoric and Professional Communication at New Mexico State University where he has taught first-year composition and technical communication. His current research interests include writing center administration, incorporating information literacy into first-year writing curriculum, and assessment in higher education. Outside of teaching and research, he enjoys cooking, watching reality television, and figuring out ways to design productive classroom activities based on the reality television he watches. Rebecca Powell is a Ph.D. student in Rhetoric and Professional Communication at New Mexico State University. She revised this article with a baby in her lap. When the baby is not in her lap, she teaches, writes, gardens, runs, and bikes. Her publications include chapters and articles on the intersections of literacy and place, expressivism pedagogy, discourses surrounding motherhood, online instructor identity, and teacher inquiry. Her research interests include writing-across-the-curriculum, literacy, place studies, and composition pedagogy. ContentsThe ILC: Interdisciplinary Collaboration The ILC: Interdisciplinary Collaboration (cont.) Collaborative Curriculum Design for Learner Independence Dependent Learners Become Active Participants Active Learners Gain Confidence Confident Learners Collaboratively Investigate Real World Issues Self-Directed Learners Take on Complex Tasks Formative and Summative Assessment: Gathering Stories and Numbers In Their Own Words: Assessment Outcomes |
Formative and Summative Assessment: Gathering Stories and NumbersAfter revising the ILC English 111 curriculum, we chose formative and summative assessment measures to gauge the effects of our efforts and how students experienced those efforts. Likewise, to create “a more responsive pedagogy” and ensure the best outcomes in the summative assessments, we utilized formative assessment tools (Kuh et al. 105). Formative assessment tools make space in the classroom for reflection, continually asking the question, “What have students learned and how well have they learned it?” (Gabriel 8). Moreover, Kathleen F. Gabriel’s Teaching Unprepared Students: Strategies for Promoting Success and Retention in Higher Education claims underprepared students benefit from formative assessment techniques because they develop a metacognitive awareness of their own learning. This metacognitive awareness allows students to “think about their thinking” and develop new ways to approach problems, an important skill for students who may enter the university unaware of “alternative ways of approaching learning situations, and of options other than increasing or decreasing one’s effort as one approaches different learning situations” (McKeachie 5). Instead of asking students to work harder, we wanted to arm them with strategies to work smarter by focusing their learning and thinking on the objectives. Because the ILC aims to influence student attitudes, learning, and work habits, we adopted the following formative assessment tools that would encourage those behaviors: classroom assessment techniques (CATS), learning logs, cover letters, and student conferences. In addition to these formative measures, summative assessment measures gave us the big picture in both numbers and stories. Focus groups, student work reviews, a qualitative survey, and institutional tracking allow us to see how the experience of the ILC impacts students’ attitudes, learning, and work habits. By using both formative and summative assessments, we focused our teaching and our student’s learning on the course and ILC objectives. This wide variety of assessment strategies allowed us to make timely adjustments throughout the semester and in preparation for upcoming semesters. Adjustments may mean tweaking an assignment, modifying curriculum, or simply having a chat with a student. For example, in the midst of the Writing as an Engineer Website Project, we noticed students were enjoying web design and gathering primary research, but that they were not crafting their message for a particular audience, and instead employing the bells and whistles of the software and text for their own enjoyment. As English instructors, we redirected our students’ attention to the audience for the websites, which resulted in carefully crafted text and deliberately chosen software and effects. Larger adjustments occurred after reviewing the summative assessment data. The following section explains the tools we used to “notice” how our instruction played out in the classroom. Classroom Assessment Techniques: Because at-risk students are unsure of their academic abilities, they may need frequent communication and contact. In a seminal work on student attrition, Tinto writes “A productive learning environment involves establishing and communicating student expectations and providing meaningful feedback to students” (85). Formative assessments like CATS let instructors gauge student learning on a daily basis and open opportunities for communication. Popularized by Angelo and Cross, classroom assessment techniques can assess student learning, allowing us to deliver just-in-time instruction and facilitate review and discussion. CATS, like the One-minute paper, the Muddiest Point, Most Important Point, and What’s the Principle, ask students what they took away from the day’s learning, but more importantly, they communicate the message that students should have taken away something meaningful that day. Thus, one of the most important functions of the CATs is to remind students and instructors why we are in the classroom in the first place – to learn. Learning Logs: Learning Logs ask students to demonstrate their mastery of the learning objectives. Created by Chris Burnham, Learning Logs ask students to practice metacognition and allow instructors to gauge how assignments, course materials and class discussion is being interpreted and used by students. Four times throughout the semester, students are asked to reflect on how their work meets the learning objectives for the course. First, students are asked to brainstorm a list of all the assignments and activities that have thus far helped them gain a mastery of the objectives. Next, they are to describe one activity that best encompasses the objectives and how the activity helped them achieve the objectives. Finally, they are asked to name a take-away from the activity, something they learned that they think they will use in their future and current careers as students or professionals. Again, students, and instructors, are reminded of the focus of the course and the larger ILC program and asked to reflect on their performance. Cover Memos: For major assignments, we asked students to complete cover memos. Cover memos have a long lineage in composition courses, beginning with Toby Fulwiler’s The Journal Book. Cover memos engage students in a conversation about writing where they reflect on the process of writing and communicate what they hoped to say. Students address the following topics in their cover memos: time spent on the assignment, strongest and weakest portions of the paper, changes they would make in the draft or their writing process, and specific sections or issues they would like the instructor to address. Typically, students’ cover memos demonstrate an articulate awareness of their writing process and the strengths and weaknesses of their writing. Thus, instead of spending time pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of a draft, instructors can spend more time helping students overcome obstacles in their writing. By asking students to reflect on their writing process and name the strengths and weaknesses of their own drafts, we encourage students to take ownership of their own learning. Student Conferences: Throughout the course of the semester, students were also asked to meet individually two-three times with English instructors. These individual conferences foster another avenue for communication. During these conferences, instructors and students dialogue about writing, learning, and scholarly behaviors. Students use this time to address their concerns and ask questions. Through individual conferences, instructors can model academic behaviors and foster student-instructor relationships. Student Work Review: At the end of each semester, instructors informally review student performance through discussion and analysis of final drafts. These conversations focus both on student performance and how the curriculum influenced student performance. In this way, the student work review provides both summative and formative feedback. In future semesters, we hope to formalize the student work review, so that we can document student performance in the ILC. Student Survey: At the end of the semester, each student in the ILC completes a qualitative survey. In the survey, students develop a metaphor about their experience in the ILC, write a paragraph about attitudes and habits they developed/did not develop during the ILC, and describe the activities and concepts they found most valuable. These surveys are delivered online and completed during the last week of the semester by all students in the ILC. The data is collected and analyzed for dominant themes. Focus Groups: At the end of the curriculum revision, we knew why we were doing what we were doing, but we wanted to know how students experienced the course re-design. Another form of qualitative assessment in the form of focus groups gave us that knowledge. The program employs a directed focus group methodology, using both written responses to specific questions that focus group participants complete in advance of the formal focus group meeting (the survey) that are discussed and more fully articulated in the focus group session. Focus groups are a key internal assessment strategy for the project, revealing issues the students themselves see as problematic, as well as ILC activities that they find most helpful. Institutional Tracking: The program tracks the retention rate, GPA and graduation rate of participating ILC students. These numbers demonstrate the long-term effects of the program and speak persuasively to the learning community model. Although the assessment measures are set up to encourage and gauge student progress, we found they also encouraged us to pay attention, to actively engage in the art of teaching, and to focus our efforts on interventions that would be most beneficial to student learning. Moreover, “when we interweave formative and summative assessments throughout the semester,” we “are demonstrating an interest in our students’ progress,” an important message for underprepared learners (Gabriel 90). |