University System of Georgia Regents Advisory Committee on English Annual Meeting, January 27-28, 2011 Georgia Perimeter College, Dunwoody Campus Meeting Minutes USG Representatives in Attendance: Bobbie Robinson, Abraham Baldwin; Lillie Johnson, Augusta State; Barbara Goodman, Clayton State; Kelley Mahoney, Dalton State; Carmine Palumbo, East Georgia; Joyce Jenkins, Fort Valley; Elaine Whitaker, Georgia College & State Univ.; Jen Wunder, Georgia Gwinnett, chair- elect; Jon Hershey, Georgia Highlands; Ted Wadley, Georgia Perimeter, chair; Curtis Ricker, Georgia Southern, past- chair; Marti Singer, Georgia State, executive council; Elizabeth Kuipers, Georgia SW; Rebecca Burnett, Georgia Tech; Leslie Worthington, Gainesville State; Jason Horn, Gordon; Bill Rice, Kennesaw State Univ.; Debra Matthews, Macon State; Rhonda Crombie, Middle Georgia; Laura Getty, North Georgia; Barbara Murray, Dalton State; April Gentry, Savannah State, freshman chair; Mark Nunes, Southern Polytechnic; Mark Smith, Valdosta State, sophomore chair; David Newton, West Georgia; Angela Coleman, USG liaison (Dir Ed Prep) (UGA); Leslie Caldwell, USG Director Testing; Day 1 Session The meeting is called to order at 1:10 pm at the Dunwoody campus of Georgia Perimeter College. Participants were welcomed by Dr. Alan Jackson, Vice President of Academic Affairs, GPC, and Dr. Ted Wadley, ACE chair, reviewed the agenda. Ted Wadley distributed to members a packet of materials for use during the meeting including: The ACE Bylaws, Area F Guidelines for English (originally approved July 2004), ACE July 2010 recommendation to BoR regarding standardizing ENGL 1101 & 1102 as pre- requisites for 2000- level literature surveys, including the ENGL 2130 proposed by the Technical College System of Georgia, ACE September 2010 recommendation to BoR regarding creation of a communications RAC, Summaries of courses and programs proposed in 2010 and the results of ACE discussions and feedback. Regents Exam Leslie Caldwell provided an update on the exam. 21 schools are exempted. (20 at this moment GPC will be 21 shortly and then Kennesaw will be submitting a proposal in the next few days which will be then 22 if approved.) GA is vanguard in the assessment field. Test and skills requirements are still in place methods to prove skills are still required. Schools are simply allowed to use methods other than the Regents Exam to demonstrate the skills/proficiencies. Word is coming down that the HS graduation test may be going away. Not approved yet, but seems to be tending in that direction. Questions from members: How s the pass rate going on the exam? o Leslie explained that it has been going down but the reasons for that are fairly obvious. The standards have remained the same, so it s not a change in standards. Plus, the system is still using raters from all of the colleges, so it s still a system- wide standard. Relevancy system- wide, however, has diminished since only approximately 14 schools are still using the exams.
Are you getting any appeals on RT Essays & how is that being handled? o Yes, appeals are still occurring and the process is continuing as it has been in the past (keeping in mind that the exam is now online and scored in PDF format). Is it possible to see successful proposals from schools who have received exemptions? o Yes, members of schools can certainly share those. (Committee members discussed and agreed to contact each other on list about this.) Introduction of Angela Coleman Ted Wadley introduced Dr. Angela Coleman and Angela spoke briefly. Dr. Coleman is Director of Educator Preparation and the new liaison to ACE for this year for the BoR. Her research is based in K- 12 and post- secondary schools, including testing and assessment. Core Curriculum Implementation & Discussions Ted Wadley recapped the shift to the new system of approvals for the core and introduced Curtis Ricker who provided an overview of past practices and how me might best complete this work moving forward. We have different levels 2- year colleges, state colleges and universities (divided) and Curtis offered and the committee agreed that we do want to get responses on proposals submitted to ACE from all levels. This ensures good coverage. Carmine Palumbo is the English representative for the Council on General Education (CGE) at the BoR and will provide us with an update as to progress of courses going to the CGE. Communication is discussed as there has been some confusion as to the new approvals process. Creating a slightly more formalized process and providing some guidelines is suggested and supported. In the past, new courses were placed onto the ACE listserve for responses and feedback from the committee members. The committee has seen this not so much as approval but as an opportunity to provide constructive feedback and suggestions, particularly for new programs. The chair has collated a coherent response and sent that on to the system. The requested review and comments for individual classes in the core is new. i. New requirement that the committees (RAC) must review courses in the core, approve and send to CGE for review and approval. Keep in mind, in many institutions, the core has stayed the same and institutions have created the outcomes for them to submit them to the CGE. Schools may go the assessment route rather than a re- vamp of the core. Question to Carmine How much weight do the RACs recommendations carry when they go to the CGE? 1. Carmine explained that these are respected and taken seriously. As Curtis continued to lead the discussion a consensus emerged that we as a committee are invested in Areas A & C and transferability and Area F also is understood to be vital. Discussion turned to how many schools are changing their core. The majority seem to be staying the same. Elaine Whittaker noted that the effect of changing the core at GCSU has been the migration of some courses from Area C resulting in more work for English in courses like World Lit. GCSU had a big interdisciplinary program and the shift resulted in that. i. The question was posed: Are any schools using World Lit as a global overlay? 1. Yes, some plan to use it as an option there. Others already had it specifically in one or two spots outside of Area C and the global overlay is covered there.
Carmine noted that schools seem to be listing a number of options that students have to take in the core that could meet the overlay. A possible issue is noted, however: more options mean that schools must assess many more courses, and too many ways to satisfy it means extra assessment work. Another concern people have seen expressed at a variety of schools is that shifting the core may impact faculty and people do not necessarily want to do something that will result in the loss of jobs for people. Because of this, schools have been moving with careful deliberation. Discussion turned to schools where literature is being made an explicit requirement in the core. Some schools are making literature a requirement in the core because the schools are finding that students in Learning Support have been closing out Area C without ever taking a literature class because of courses in Area C without college- level reading or writing requirements. These are sometimes the only options students in Learning Support can take in Area C, but there has been concern that an entire area of the core curriculum is being completed in courses that do not require college- level reading and writing. Schools like GPC have this as a concern. As an example of ways in which we are implementing the new processes for review and approval, discussion turned to an update on the courses Georgia Southern proposed which combined English 1101 & 1102 into a 6- credit class. i. The Georgia Southern courses generated an interesting mix of votes., and it is suggested that In the future when members vote, it would be helpful to supply a rationale that can be used for the person who must draft the course recommendation for the course to go to the CGE. Members agreed that we should provide some information for the person drafting the ACE response. ii. In the case of the combined 1101-02 class (6 credit) for individuals who transferred in without English requirements and needed to complete the core quickly to get into major, GA Southern has been seeing a lot of non- traditionals and military interested in this opportunity. iii. Discussion ensured and more information was provided by Curtis about the nature of this ENGL 1160 class that is essentially a combination class. It is face- to- face and similar to a half- term ENGL 1101 followed by a half- term 1102 with longer instruction time in each period. The school has had it for 3 years. One benefit is that it allows students who are progressing but not quite there @ midway to progress further. 1. Course only has a 9-10% W, D, F rate. (They do limit the number of courses there that students can withdraw from, so that may be part of the low rate.) 2. Question posed: Why did they change the numbering from just half terms 1101/1102? a. So it would be clearly one corpus of work and students would receive one grade for the entire class. This also allowed the institution to not have to link sections together where students have to sign up one and then for the other, but then run into some difficulties. b. The 6 in the course number indicates 6 credits 3. Question posed: Are there other advantages? a. It was explained that first- time, first- year students are not placed into this class. It s entirely for transfer and non- traditional students who have different time frames, transcripts, and responsibilities.
Many schools have moved to situations where a major now has Pre- Major elements for admission to the program that pre- reqs ENGL, and if that s the case and you draw out ENGL 1101 and 1102 in two semesters, you draw out the situation where they might not be able to be full time because most of their other core classes are done. So, one benefit is that this assists students in their timely progress to degree. iv. It was proposed that If the ACE group was generally supportive, we could make a recommendation for Georgia Southern to do a limited trial/experiment for this, keeping in mind elements and populations it would not be ideal for. But, as Lillie Johnson noted, and was seconded by others, the course has already been in existence and successful, so what was needed was not a trial, but rather, a clarification of ACE s feedback and recommendation. a. Ted Wadley noted that If we voted to retro- actively approve, we would make clear that this was based on the clarification we received about the course. b. Under the new review system, Georgia Southern must actually submit a form and this has not yet been done. The committee concludes that we need not make a special motion. Instead, Georgia Southern will submit the proposal using the new system and forms and the committee will then review it. Discussion moved to grades in Area A English courses. Some schools allow a D in the ENGL classes. We voted on this two years ago, but never made formal recommendation from the ACE. i. Clayton State does not require C or higher and has a C or higher pre- req in Area C for literature. This creates a problem because if a transfer student who transfers in an Area C class has an 1102 D, then they can t catch the student and require him/her to retake English 1102. They are proposing to close the loophole there right now and have talked to Robert Vaughn about it. ii. Southern Poly used to take a D in 1102, but in fall they proposed a C requirement in 1102. The proposal is under review at CCC and they believe that starting fall 2011 they will be required to have a C or higher. When they looked at the numbers of the students affected, it was very small approximately only 2% of the population. iii. Macon State approved C or higher last year and is putting it into effect. iv. At South Georgia Technical College, they require 1101 and a sophomore literature but not 1102 so the transfer students are coming in with the literature satisfied. A solution is to say credit will not be awarded for the literature unless a student earns a C or higher in 1102. A post- requisite. v. Some schools allow students to transfer a D in, but a major requires a C or higher and that solves the problem. vi. Some issues at some schools is the RPG data. Discussion moved to whether or not non- Stem majors can now require their students to take certain courses in the core. Carmine was asked if this was now possible. 1. Yes, it can be done, but there are restrictions. These are outlined on the core curriculum USG website. Schools must demonstrate need and the way in which the requirement will benefit the students. EG: potentially lessening the number of credit hours required overall. 2. World Lit is an example because it s required in Area F for English majors.
The ACE recommendation that the Am Lit class require successful completion of ENGL 1101 and 1102 as a pre- requisite was discussed. The ACE recommendation to the Chief Administrative Officers was accepted. (This rec was available the packet distributed to meeting members.) ACE also recommended that a RAC on Communications be created but has not yet heard any word on that. Many institutions have this program. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Jen Wunder provided an overview of the CCSS and the ways in which it will shift assessment at the K- 12 level. The CCSS are being adopted by many states and while they are already closely aligned with current Georgia standards, the ways in which they will be assessed will be different. Emphasis will shift to more performance based tasks and require greater mastery of skills required to be college and career ready. Members noted that if accountability is a part of the shift scores on assessments will likely be low initially. Students will be more challenged. Members noted that, sometimes, the schools surrounding colleges request that professors come and grade their papers, but this is not a scale- able model. Discussion of possible solutions and ways to lend assistance include lending expertise for professional development & workshops. Members expressed a desire for a statewide vehicle to help HS and college professors coordinate and avoid a sort of task list or work aspect disconnected from professional development and cooperative partnership. It is agreed that a greater connection is needed. Discussion turned to the ways in which teacher effectiveness might be measured and how teacher certification program effectiveness is measured. Are there ways to create a system from the statewide level to add professional development? As the CCSS process moves forward, the listserve will receive links to materials and requests for feedback. The goals are: To engage K- 12 and higher education in a discussion of which core competencies in the Common Core State Standards are most important for students to know to be college- ready so that they can be targeted on the PARCC high school assessments; To discuss the priority purposes the PARCC high school assessments will serve, both in K- 12 and higher education, and to develop a set of parameters that will guide the development of the assessments in order for those purposes to be met; and To engage key higher education faculty and high school content experts in each PARCC state more broadly in the consortium s work and to position them to play leadership roles when they return home. Learning Support Assessment Leslie Caldwell led discussion on this topic. He was seeking advice/feedback regarding the possibility of allowing for forms of assessment other than the COMPASS. To get into and out of Learning Support students take and don t pass (then pass to exit) the COMPASS (and sometimes something else depending on the college). But, the COMPASS is a very specific, multiple choice format & can cause problems for some disability students sight Impaired as well as some others.
Leslie sought feedback on the possibility of creating an assessment that can test if a student is ready for core courses without using the COMPASS (or multiple choice for those types of students.) He was seeking ideas for assessments that might be graded at the system level. Something that would be assessed at the system level. The question was posed: Was this only for disability students or something that would apply across the system as a COMPASS replacement for all students? Could possibly be for all of them, but would be limited to only the subgroups at least at first. Leslie explained that people appear to be of two minds of this. There are some who would prefer to keep assessing via the COMPASS while there are others who would prefer to move to a different method. Leslie suggested an assignment that would be very similar to what you would give a student in 1101. Numbers would be small for the ones in the group. Maybe 100 students who would need to take the alternative assessment. Leslie explained that the COMPASS predicts ENGL performance as well anything else. So, new methods need not be a match. The opinion is offered that the best tool to predict something is an assessment that reflects those kinds of tasks required in the class. Curtis Ricker posed the question: But is ratability and ease of scoring an issue? Not when only 100 or so students are taking the assessment. Leslie described SUNY s option they re phasing out. They give students reading materials a day or two ahead. Then bring the students in a few days later, give them more reading materials and ask them to write a paper using the materials, content, and text. The process and task gets at reading comprehension and writing. Students might need to focus more on one aspect than the other depending one what they are testing. Leslie took a straw poll and the majority thinks this could be do- able. Curtis suggested that the CPE does a good job, so why not just use that for this subgroup? Leslie clarified that yes, they already do. So, the question is posed: Should we consider using the CPE and not make more work? It was clarified that that is a possibility. Some people sometimes give the CPE when a student has failed the COMPASS multiple times and that has been allowed. Ted suggested eliminating the COMPASS as the exit requirement and there was some consideration of this. As an example of another method, it was noted that the Cal State system had students rate students: the incoming class was rated by rising sophomore class. Jen noted that the below 60 score as an indicator of writing abilities, at least in relation to the Regents Exam, at the start (placement) seemed pretty accurate. In a study GGC conducted very few - - approximately 1-2% who scored below 60 could write a passing Regents essay. Would people object to keeping the COMPASS as a placement exam but eliminating it as exit exam?
And, how many would support dropping the COMPASS as an exit requirement, but keeping the exit essay? All but two members indicated this could be something to support but ACE would like to explore and debate it further, so the topic was tabled and members returned to the original problem/issue. How many would support something similar to the Regents test for writing placement for these sight impaired or learning disorder students? In a straw poll, the majority of ACE members support this possibility with the understanding that this is not a binding vote. Members indicated they would like to know how similar the exams might be and would like to see the options collected and offered together with further details and context. It is noted that this is particularly needed for those new to the committee. Additional comments included the following: Curtis Ricker noted that the best example for entrance to 1101 is a writing sample. It all comes down to who s defining competency, how you measure it, and who s grading the exams. Carmine Palumbo added that more robust prompts would be desirable and could get better results. The question was posed as to why these discussions were not first in Learning Support and it was explained that ACE is consulted because LS is not a goal or an end. Additionally, students who exit LS do not pass the core courses at a rate comparable to the ones who never enter the LS program. This is an academic issue so it comes to ACE because this is the advisory committee for the college- level academic rigor related to English competencies. o Ted Wadley noted that LS students should not be compared to all first- time non- LS students. They should be compared to the students who barely made it into 1101 without LS. These groups are more comparable because the point in LS is to help students reach the minimum proficiency level for success in college classes. o Leslie noted that students who exit LS with the highest grades don t do as well as students who barely avoid LS with the lowest SAT scores. Curtis: That s a big change because it seemed like that used to not be true. Leslie: A lot of these things depend on how you look at the data. LS has increased by 50% more than the average population. Curtis explained that the rates used to be above the system minimum but RPG s and other items have resulted in many of these cut scores now set at the minimums. It was determined that Leslie would continue discussions outside the meeting and then send materials to the listserve. At this time members decided to adjourn and cover Area F discussions and update the Bylaws the next day. The meeting adjourns until 8:30 am the next morning. Day 2 Session The meeting is officially called to order at 9:00 am after breakfast and general discussions. COMPASS Revisited Ted Wadley re- opens discussion of a recommendation regarding the COMPASS exit exam. Ted crafted a recommendation consolidation discussion points of the previous day. Leslie suggested that ACE consider ramifications carefully first and not vote today. Discussion of points for exploration and data gathering took place surrounding the following aspects:
Some ACE members administer LS, some work with LS students and programs but have no control over them; some members have no information about LS and the situation. So, members need more information prior to arriving at decisions that may impact their institutions. Question Can schools provide data to show that the students who get a C or higher in ENGL 0099 AND pass the exit exam are ready for 1101 regardless of their COMPASS score? o Leslie offered the following: Students who pass 0099 don t do as well in ENGL 1101 and POLS 1101 as the students who score a minimum 430 on the SAT and go straight into 1101 s (at schools that have the 430 as their cut score). This is general system- wide and study/data ongoing. i. Follow up question: What would be needed to make case that the C or higher and exit essay could predict success in 1101? 1. Leslie indicated this is difficult to say because essays don t always predict success accurately. 2. Barbara Murray noted that a very small portion who pass the class and essay don t pass COMPASS at Dalton. 3. Curtis Ricker asked, But then, wouldn t be simpler to write an exemption for those who don t pass the COMPASS? 4. At Dalton if a student makes an A or B in the course and fails the test then they get to take it again. At GGC the students have two tests on the way in the door and two tests on the way out but they don t have to take the second if they pass the first. 5. Leslie The only test that sits out there separately from the essay and the class grade is the COMPASS, and this can matter because some people grade essays as motivational tools. There is a need to see that the exit essay grade and the passing grade in the class are not connected or influencing each other. (That people are not using grades as motivational tool.) 6. Curtis noted that in some schools the grades are institutional so the GPA grades in the classes can be essentially meaningless. Ted Wadley noted, some instructors do give higher grades as motivational *because* the grades are institutional. Two different perspectives. Clearly more discussion is needed on this, so this will be handed off for further discussion in subcommittees and put forth for more discussion. Area F Accuracy Carmine Palumbo led a discussion on Area F. He handed out meeting minutes from the 2004 ACE meeting when Area F was decided upon and the BoR Area F guidelines. In 2004, ACE decided to require a World Literature class for all English majors. Discussion also focused on the foreign language (FL) requirement. This is one of the more difficult requirements in the Area F guidelines FL courses at the intermediate level if not otherwise satisfied. The question was posed: What happens with the students who have to take 1000- level FLs? Students taking a new foreign language at the college level (not filling CPC) can count the 1001 in Area F if they choose to do so. Some schools do allow this others do not. Are the guidelines for Area F still considered accurate? The committee believes so.
Split into Subcommittees: Freshman English, Sophomore English, Major Programs, Assessment. Subcommittees were informed that reports would be delivered after discussion of bylaws. Committees met and the reconvened for discussion of Bylaws and reports. Bylaws Discussion opened with brief review of the bylaws led by Ted Wadley. At the chairs of the RAC meetings in October, Dr. Marci Middleton tasked chairs with checking to see if bylaws are up- to- date and if committees have contingency plans if a chair not available. ACE has a contingency plan: chair, chair- elect, and past chair. In ACE, if the chair is not available, the next contact is the chair- elect. Members were in agreement that the bylaws are still applicable. Based on emphasis in system on outcomes- based education and the shift to stronger assessment, discussion was held regarding a change of title for the Testing subcommittee to Assessment subcommittee. Assessment is believed to better capture the focus of the committee moving forward. Rebecca Burnett and others pointed out that by shifting the focus to assessment, we afford ourselves an opportunity to explore outcomes and potential advances to strengthen programs. Data may be shared across institutions. Leslie Caldwell noted that more schools have been applying for exemptions from the Regents Exam. The name change reflects that shift as well. Mark Nunes moved that we change Testing to Assessment. Joyce Jenkins seconded and the motion passed to change the subcommittee title from Testing subcommittee to Assessment subcommittee. Curtis Ricker noted that ACE has a committee that has not been meeting graduate programs. A fair number of the committee members have graduate programs. Mark Nunes posed the question: Do those of schools with grad programs think it would be beneficial? Member agreed it would be and so the committee will be revived. Rebecca Burnett recommended that in the meantime, those with questions regarding grad programs should post to the listerve. Subcommittee Reports Freshman English: Jon Hershey was elected the new chair of the subcommittee. Issues discussed: How to assess the writing in and across first- year courses now that the Regents exam is no longer system- wide; How much research should be required in the first- year composition classes; How to ensure academic honesty in the ENGL 1101 and 1102 classes, particularly as schools develop more online courses. Whole committee discussion: How to maintain academic honesty. Ted W noted that GPC has many online courses, and Curtis R noted that the system has entire degrees online now. Ted W GPC has proctored exams but one move suggested by administration has been to eliminate proctoring to accommodate more online students. Bill Rice noted that Kennesaw is moving the other direction and has actually created a proctoring center/system to handle this increased demand. West Georgia has a developed proctoring system as well. Use of technology such as webcams was discussed. The matter will be further discussed and people will offer suggestions on the listserve. Sophomore English: April Gentry was elected the committee chair. The committee discussed:
The 2000- level courses which are listed both as Area C options for non- majors and as requirements for majors. Discussion centered on the challenges posed for program assessment and pedagogical approach in these blended classes. The delivery of fully online sections of the 2000 level English courses, and whether they present any particular challenges. Which 2000- level English courses are required in Area F and which courses are Area C options at each institution. Whole committee discussion: Options in Area C result in split levels of majors and non- majors so assessments and demand can also be split and this poses challenges. (Assessing majors versus students in the Gen Ed.) The committee agrees that we should make a list of online courses and a list of what 2000- level surveys are offered and in which Areas across the system. This will help us identify trends, work towards assessment, and stay informed. Joyce Jenkins reminded committee members that in the shift from quarter to semester some schools did a diagnostic to see what students in the major s strengths and weaknesses were at the start of Area G and upon graduation. Some schools still do this. Some schools use the ETS proficiency, English field Test exams to gauge this. They administer it in a 2000- level required sophomore class and in the senior capstone. There is some interest in exploring this further and if schools that do this will post to the list, we will collect more information. Major Programs: Barbara Goodman was elected chair of the subcommittee. The committee discussed several topics, including: Transferring CORE and major credits, Evaluating students and the major program through portfolios and theses, and Implementing successful capstone courses. Barbara reported that much of this conversation was focused on how the various elements function within the program, as two of the institutions (ABAC and Gainesville) are in the midst of creating an English major. The discussion overlapped with aspects of the CORE with regard to transferability of courses and some institutions policies about transfer credit. The discussion also overlapped with regard to assessment and the multifaceted use of portfolios and capstone courses. Bill Rice elaborated on the structure of Kennesaw s capstone course, and Lillie Johnson pointed out that successful use these elements can enhance faculty members buy- in of the program beyond their particular areas of research. No recommendations were made; rather it was an informative exchange of various institutions policies and approaches especially with regard to the senior year and students final projects/courses. Assessment: Carmine Palumbo was elected chair of the subcommittee. Discussion began with discussion of the morning proposal regarding the COMPASS. Leslie has agreed to explore this at the system offices. ACE appreciates Leslie s willingness to liaison and provide more guidance as we explore this issue more thoroughly. One element for consideration: perhaps set some system standards for assessment of an essay if it is elevated it in some way. With further research, ACE might add that to the recommendation that Ted W put together and put the revised version forward. Also discussed was the ways in which this is a concern of several groups and divisions, so ACE needs to work with those other departments, divisions, and stakeholders. ACE does not want to impose ENGL standards and will on a separate committee or committees.
The subcommittee suggested a situation where the two committees, such as LS and ACE, might work together. One way might be a Web- X meeting for all interested parties to open a conversation and discussion. Other assessment issues: The committee noted there is a need to look at the current learning outcomes for Areas C and Area F learning outcomes. They are problematic when people look at them. The guidelines are not the same as outcomes. At the same time, members in the general discussion noted that we need to take care not to add too many outcomes as this can become difficult to accommodate and assess system- wide. There was general agreement that the outcomes need to be streamlined and refined. Carmine P will put some on the list for discussion. Carmine noted that these would not supersede outcomes in Area C already articulated by an institution. These are guidelines. Business Matters Ted W explained that the Executive Council met and discussed the possibilities for at large and chair elect. The EC nominated Elaine Whittaker (Georgia College & State Univ.) to be chair- elect. For the at large members, the EC nominated Marti Singer from GSU and Lillie Johnson from Augusta. Carmine P moved that the nominations be closed. Bill R seconded. The candidates were unanimously approved. Dates for the 2012 meeting were set: 26-27 January 2012. Jen Wunder assumed the office of chair. The meeting was adjourned.