ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR

Expanded Statement of Institutional Purpose Linkage:
Institutional Mission/Goal(s) Reference:
Texas A&M International University, a Member of The Texas A&M University System, is committed to the preparation of students for leadership roles in their chosen profession and in an increasingly complex, culturally diverse state, national, and global society… Through instruction, faculty and student research, and public service, Texas A&M International University is a strategic point of delivery for well-defined programs and services that improve the quality of life for citizens of the border region, the State of Texas, and national and international communities.

Administrative or Educational Support Unit Mission Statement:
The primary mission of the Writing Center at Texas A&M International University is to support the instructional goals of the faculty by providing free individual and small-group tutoring sessions, peer review sessions, and writing workshops to students.... In order to develop more confident and competent writers, tutors guide students in the development, revision, and editing of their papers.... The goal of tutoring is to develop increasingly independent writers.

Intended Administrative Objectives:

1.  75-hour contract students’ passing rate on the University Writing Assessment will improve as a result of their use of Writing Center services. 

2.  Student use of Writing Center services will increase. 

3.  Student satisfaction with Writing Center services will increase.

ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR

Intended Administrative or Educational Support Objective:

1. 75-hour contract students’ passing rate on the University Writing Assessment will improve as a result of their use of Writing Center services.

First Means of Assessment for Objective Identified Above:

1a. Means of Unit Assessment & Criteria for Success:  Use UWA results report to compare passing rates of 75-hour contract students who took the UWA from Sept. 2002-Aug. 2003 with those of 75-hour contract students who took the UWA from Sept. 2003-Aug. 2004. Goal: increase the passing rate of 75-hour contract students by 5% (from 34.78% to 39.78%).

1a. Summary of Assessment Data Collected: 75-hour contract students who took the UWA from Sept. 2002-Aug. 2003 had a 34.78% passing rate. Of 46 contract students, 16 passed—6/16 or 37.5% passed in Dec. 2002 (Support Document 1); 5/16 or 31.2% passed in Apr. 2003 (Support Document 2); 5/14 or 35.7% passed in Aug. 2003 (Support Document 3).

75-hour contract students who took the UWA from Sept. 2003-Aug. 2004 had a 51.52% passing rate. Of 33 contract students, 17 passed—4/10 or 40.0% passed in Dec. 2003 (Support Document 4); 6/8 or 75.0% passed in Apr. 2004 (Support Document 5); 1/3 or 33.3% passed in July 2004 (Support Document 6); and 6/12 or 50% passed in Aug. 2004 (Support Document 6).

Goal: The passing rate for 2003-04 was 16.74% higher than for 2002-03; as a result, the goal of increasing the passing rate by 5% was met.

1a. Use of Results to Improve Unit Services:
During Spring 2004, of the 31 students who signed a new contract or were expected to finish a Fall 2003 contract, only 8 finished and took the UWA in May 2004; however, as noted above, 75% of those students passed. As a result, when students signed Summer 2004 contracts, Mr. Koch emphasized even more the need to make a strong commitment to doing the work, being conscientious about attending regularly, and expecting to take each essay through several drafts before receiving a passing grade. By the beginning of SSII, 17 students signed contracts with the intention of testing on August 7^th. Twelve eventually tested and half (6) passed. At the conclusion of the semester, Mr. Koch asked students to evaluate the requirements of the 75-hour contract. Based on student feedback, several changes were made to the contract prior to the start of the Fall 2004 semester, among them eliminating the journal; increasing the number of essays from 6 to 8; setting deadlines for the completion of essays; and adding 4 progress reports and 8 exercises which focus on sentence variety, verb forms, and prepositions. As of September 6^th, fifteen students signed contracts for Fall 2004.

ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR

Intended Administrative or Educational Support Objective:

2. Student use of Writing Center services will increase.

First Means of Assessment for Objective Identified Above:

During Spring 2003 (1/6/03-5/9/03—17 weeks) 3,225 students came to the Writing Center for writing-related service, and 930 of those students received tutor assistance (Support Document 7). The ratio of visits to students enrolled at TAMIU was 3,225 : 3,736 or 0.863. On average, 189.71 visits/week were made to the Writing Center for writing-related service during the Spring 2003 semester, and of those 54.71 students/week received tutor assistance.

During Summer 2003 (5/12/03-8/9/03—13 weeks) 1,785 visits were made by students to the Writing Center for writing-related service, and 436 of those students received tutor assistance (Support Document 7). The ratio of visits to students enrolled at TAMIU was 1,785 : 3,835 or 0.465. On average, 137.31 visits/week were made to the Writing Center for writing-related service during the Summer 2003 semester, and 33.54 of those students/week received tutor assistance.

During the 2002-03 academic year an average of 201.72 students/week came to the Writing Center for writing-related service and 50.96 of those students/week received tutor assistance.

During Fall 2003 (8/25/03-12/13/03—16 weeks) 6,170 students came to the Writing Center for writing-related service, and 1,700 of those students received tutor assistance (Support Document 7). The ratio of visits to students enrolled at TAMIU was 6,170 : 4,078 or 1.513. On average, 385.6 visits/week were made to the Writing Center for writing-related service during the Fall 2003 semester, and of those 106.25 students/week received tutor assistance.

During Spring 2004 (1/20/04-5/15/04—17 weeks) 3,364 students came to the Writing Center for writing-related service, and 1,622 of those students received tutor assistance (Support Document 7). The ratio of visits to students enrolled at TAMIU was 3,364 : 4,100 or 0.82. On average, 197.88 visits/week were made to the Writing Center for writing-related service during the Spring 2004 semester, and of those 95.41 students/week received tutor assistance.

During Summer 2004 (6/7/04-8/14/04—10 weeks) 1,550 students came to the Writing Center for writing-related service, and of those, 880 students received tutor assistance (Support Document 7). The ratio of visits to students enrolled at TAMIU was 1,550 : 3,755 or 0.413. On average, 155 visits/week were made to the Writing Center for some type of writing-related service during the Summer 2004 semester, and of those 88 students/week received tutor assistance.

During the 2003-04 academic year an average of 257.77 students/week came to the Writing Center for writing-related service and of those 97.72 students/week received tutor assistance.

Goals: During Fall 2002, 266.81 students/week came to the Writing Center for writing-related services compared to 385.6 students/week during Fall 2003, for an increase of 118.79 students/week or 44.52%. In addition, during Fall 2002, 61.12 students/week received tutor assistance compared to 106.25 students/week during Fall 2003, for an increase of 45.13 students/week or 73.84%. Both goals were met.

During Spring 2003, 189.71 students/week came to the Writing Center for writing-related services compared to 197.88 students/week during Spring 2004, for an increase of 8.17 students/week or 4.31%. In addition, during Spring 2003, 54.71 students/week received tutor assistance compared to 95.41 students/week during Spring 2004, for an increase of 40.70 students/week or 74.39%. The first goal was not met (4.31%, not 5%), but the second goal was met.

During Summer 2003, 137.31 students/week came to the Writing Center for writing-related services compared to 155 students/week during Summer 2004, for an increase of 17.69 students/week or 12.88%. In addition, during Summer 2003, 33.54 students/week received tutor assistance compared to 88 students/week during Summer 2004, for an increase of 54.46 students/week or 162.34%. Both goals were met.

2a. Use of Results to Improve Unit Services:
Aug. – Sept. 2003: In order to encourage students to take advantage of Writing Center services, Ms. Cantú and Mr. Koch visited 20 classes (primarily freshman comp and GENU classes) at the beginning of the Fall 2003 semester to inform students about Writing Center services available to them. Mr. Koch visited 10 classes at the beginning of the Spring 2004 semester to inform students about Writing Center services. While advising students regarding UWA holds, Directors and the Staff Assistant informed them about Writing Center services and encouraged them to take advantage of these services.At the beginning of Spring 2004, the WC Director spoke to two groups of approximately 50 adjunct faculty in all disciplines and encouraged them to direct their students to the WC and to contact the Director about giving their classes an orientation regarding WC services.

Second Means of Assessment for Objective Identified Above:
2b. Means of Unit Assessment & Criteria for Success:
Keep records of student requests for tutor assistance through the website, by fax, and on the Helpline during 2003-04 and compare to the number of student requests for those same services during 2002-03.

Goal: Increase the number of student requests for tutor assistance through the website, by fax, and on the Helpline by 10%.

2b. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:

During the 2002-2003 academic year, we had 16 total requests for assistance: 4 through the website or by e-mail, 3 by fax, and 9 on the Helpline (Support Document 8).

During Fall 2003, we had 3 requests for assistance through the website or by e-mail, 4 requests by fax, and 6 requests on the Helpline (Support Document 8).

During Spring 2004, we had 3 requests for assistance through the website or by e-mail, 2 requests by fax, and 3 requests on the Helpline (Support Document 8).

During Summer 2004, we had 8 requests for assistance through the website or by e-mail, 0 requests by fax, and 1 request on the Helpline (Support Document 8).

During the 2003-2004 academic year, we had 30 total requests for assistance: 14 through the website or by e-mail, 6 by fax, and 10 on the Helpline (Support Document 8).

Goal: The goal was met since the number of student requests for tutor assistance through the website, by fax, and on the Helpline increased by 87.5%.

2b. Use of Results to Improve Unit Service:
During summer 2004 orientations for transfer students, graduate students, and first-time freshmen, Mr. Koch encouraged students to make use of the online, fax, and Helpline services and handed out pamphlets that contain information about these services. Similar presentations were made to ten GENU classes during the first three weeks of the Fall 2004 semester. 

Third Means of Assessment for Objective Identified Above:

2c. Means of Unit Assessment & Criteria for Success: Check hit counter on Writing Center website www.tamiu.edu/writingcenter and keep track of number of hits per month during the 2003-2004 academic year. Goal: Increase the number of hits per year by 10%.

2c. Summary of Assessment Data Collected: 
From the time the hit counter became operational in Fall 2002 until Aug. 31, 2003, 5,029 hits were recorded on the website. The number of hits recorded during 2003-2004 was 6,199. (Cumulative total: 11,228)

Goal: The goal was met because during 2003-04, 1,170 more visits were made to the Writing Center website than during 2002-03, an increase of 23.3%.

2c. Use of Results to Improve Unit Services: In order to increase the number of visits to the website during Spring 2004, the WC Staff Assistant updated the website by adding PowerPoint writing workshops, tutor photos and work schedules, the spring and summer writing workshop schedules, the UWA Preparation Guide, instructions for accessing UWA results, and the schedule of visiting writers. In addition, Cynthia Bernal, editor of the Writing Center newsletter, The Writer’s Forum, published a full-page article describing the services and information available on the website; this appeared in the May/June 2004 issue.

Fourth Means of Assessment for Objective Identified Above:

2d. Means of Unit Assessment & Criteria for Success: Keep records of attendance at writing workshops offered during the 2003-2004 academic year and compare to attendance at workshops during 2002-2003. Goal: Increase average attendance per workshop by 10%.

2d. Summary of Assessment Data Collected: 

During Fall 2002, 94 students attended 44 workshops (an average of 2.14 students/workshop), during Spring 2003, 158 students attended 41 workshops (an average of 3.85 students/workshop), and during Summer 2003, 160 students attended 29 workshops (an average of 5.52 students/workshop). During 2002-03 academic year, 412 students attended 114 workshops (an average of 3.61 students/workshop)

During Fall 2003, 128 students attended 38 workshops (an average of 3.37 students/workshop), during Spring 2004, 189 students attended 35 workshops (an average of 5.4 students/workshop), during Summer Session I 2004, 95 students attended 16 workshops (an average of 5.94 students/workshop), and during Summer Session II 2004, 154 students attended 19 workshops (an average of 8.1 students/workshop). During 2003-04 academic year, 566 students attended 108 workshops (an average of 5.24 students/workshop)

Goal: The goal was met because an average of 3.61 students attended each workshop during 2002-03 compared to an average of 5.24 students/workshop during 2003-04 (Support Document 9), an increase of 45.15%.

2d. Use of Results to Improve Unit Services:

New workshops on fragments, verb forms, and comma splices & run-ons were created and then presented for the first time during Spring 2004. Because of poor attendance at the 2:00 p.m. workshops during Fall 2003, no Spring 2004 workshops were scheduled for that time; instead, the number of 7:30 p.m. workshops were doubled, and the 11:00 a.m. workshops Mon. - Fri. and at 3:00 p.m. on Sunday were still offered. Tutors developed additional workshops on prepositions, using sources, and Chicago documentation style to be presented for the first time during Fall 2004. On May 27, 2004, we also contacted the Office of Public Information and the Print Shop to request assistance with creating and printing banners to be hung on the lamp posts around campus; these banners promote the writing workshops and provide contact information for students interested in attending. On July 5^th and again on July 26^th two banners were hung on lampposts—one in front of the library, the other near Canseco Hall—to promote the SSII workshops. Three new workshops—Prepositions II, Writing about Poetry, and Using Sources—were developed and added to the Fall 2004 workshop schedule.

ASSESSMENT REPORT

FOR

3. Student satisfaction with Writing Center services will increase.

First Means of Assessment for Objective Identified Above:

3a. Means of Unit Assessment & Criteria for Success:

Compare tutor evaluation forms completed by students during the 2002-2003 academic year with those completed by students during the 2003-2004 academic year. Calculate and compare ratings for tutor quality (excellent, very good, good, fair, poor) over both time periods. Goal: 90% of students who respond will continue to rate tutor quality as excellent or very good.

3a. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:

During the 2002-2003 academic year, tutors were evaluated by 1,449 students. On those evaluations 1,036 (71.5%) ranked the “quality of tutor” as “excellent,” and 326 (22.5%) ranked the “quality of tutor” as “very good” for a total of 93.93%. In addition, 84 (5.8%) ranked the “quality of tutor” as “good” and 3 (0.207%) as “fair” for a total of 5.997% (Support Document 10).

During Fall 2003, tutors were evaluated by 642 students. (NOTE: The evaluation form was modified during fall semester to include more detail. The item previously used for this means of assessment, “How would you rate the quality of your tutor?” was changed to “Rate the overall effectiveness of your tutor.”) On those evaluations 499 (77.73%) ranked the “overall effectiveness of your tutor” as “excellent,” and 115 (17.91%) as “very good” for a total of 95.64%. In addition, 28 ranked the “quality of tutor” as “good,” “fair,” or “poor” for a total of 4.36% (Support Document 10).

During Spring 2004, tutors were evaluated by 732 students. On those evaluations 628 (85.79%) ranked the “overall effectiveness of your tutor” as “excellent,” and 90 (12.29%) as “very good” for a total of 98.08%. In addition, 12 (1.64%) ranked the “overall effectiveness of your tutor” as “good” and 2 (0.27%) as “fair” for a total of 1.91% (Support Document 10).

During Summer 2004, tutors were evaluated by 1,045 students. On those evaluations 882 (85.05%) ranked the “overall effectiveness of your tutor” as “excellent,” and 133 (12.82%) as “very good” for a total of 97.87%. In addition, 19 (1.83%) ranked the “overall effectiveness of your tutor” as “good” and 3 (0.29%) as “fair” for a total of 2.12% (Support Document 10).

During the 2003-2004 academic year, tutors were evaluated by 2,419 students. On those evaluations 2,009 (83.05%) ranked the “overall effectiveness of your tutor” as “excellent,” and 338 (13.97%) as “very good” for a total of 97.02%. In addition, 64 (5.8%) ranked the “overall effectiveness of your tutor” as “good,” “fair” or “poor,” for a total of 2.65% (Support Document 10).

Goal: The goal was met since over 90% of students ranked the “quality of tutor” as “excellent” or “very good.”

3a. Use of Results to Improve Unit Services: As a result of modifying the evaluation forms, Directors gave tutors more specific feedback about their performance and specific areas in which they are strong or need improvement during their three-month, five-month, and twelve-month evaluations. In June 2004, Mr. Koch began regular tutor training that required that tutors write a variety of sentences using different techniques (i.e., coordinating and subordinating conjunctions, semicolons, appositives, participial phrases, etc.) to create sentence variety. In addition, training for new tutors has been improved by eliminating an outdated video, updating the Tutor Handbook, adding training for working with students with disabilities (through Student Counseling Services), and reading A Report on Failing Rising Junior Exams—2001-02.

Second Means of Assessment for Objective Identified Above:
3b. Means of Unit Assessment & Criteria for Success:

Compare student satisfaction with writing workshops during 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 by using evaluation forms completed by students. Four areas will be evaluated by totaling the responses to one question regarding (1) information presented, three questions regarding (2) method of presentation (PowerPoint), two questions regarding (3) presenters, and one question regarding (4) time. Goal: maintain satisfaction rate of at least 90%; student satisfaction is determined by calculating the percentage of students who responded, “yes, definitely” or “strongly agree” and “most of the time” or “agree” to evaluation form items. (NOTE: The different answers are possible because the evaluation form was modified during Fall 2003, and we began using the new form Spring 2004; “strongly agree” replaced “yes, definitely,” and “agree” replaced “most of the time.”)

3b. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:

During 2002-2003, 360 students attended and evaluated 101 workshops conducted by Writing Center tutors.

(1) When asked if the information presented was “thorough and complete with enough examples,” 331/358 (92.46%) marked, “yes, definitely,” and 23 (6.42%) marked “most of the time.” 

(2) When asked if the PowerPoint presentation was well organized, interesting, and effective, 970/1,063 (91.25%) marked “yes, definitely,” and 77/1,063 (7.24%) marked “most of the time.”

(3) When asked if the tutors who presented the workshops were “knowledgeable” and created a “comfortable environment that motivated you to interact,” 672/721 (93.2%) marked “yes, definitely,” and 40/721 (5.55%) marked “most of the time.”

(4) When asked if they had enough time for the activity, 320/355 (90.14%) said, “yes, definitely,” and 31/355 (8.73%) marked “most of the time.”

During Fall 2003, 147 students attended and evaluated 42 workshops conducted by Writing Center tutors.

(1) When asked if the information presented was “thorough and complete with enough examples,” 126/141 (89.36%) marked, “yes, definitely,” and 13 (9.22%) marked “most of the time.” 

(2) When asked if the PowerPoint presentation was well organized, interesting, and effective, 353/419 (84.25%) marked “yes, definitely,” and 57/419 (13.6%) marked “most of the time.”

(3) When asked if the tutors who presented the workshops were “knowledgeable” and created a “comfortable environment that motivated you to interact,” 253/284 (89.08%) marked “yes, definitely,” and 31/284 (10.91%) marked “most of the time.”

(4) When asked if they had enough time for the activity, 120/141 (85.11%) said, “yes, definitely,” and 15/141 (10.64%) marked “most of the time.”

During Spring 2004, 177 students attended and evaluated 36 workshops conducted by Writing Center tutors.

(1) When asked if the information presented was “thorough and complete with enough examples,” 119/177 (67.2%) marked, “strongly agree,” and 49 (27.7%) marked “agree.” 

(2) When asked if the PowerPoint presentation was well organized, interesting, and effective, 374/531 (70.43%) marked “strongly agree,” and 145/531 (27.31%) marked “agree.”

(3) When asked if the tutors who presented the workshops were “knowledgeable” and created a “comfortable environment that motivated you to interact,” 250/351 (71.2%) marked “strongly agree,” and 92/351 (26.2%) marked “agree.”

(4) When asked if they had enough time for the activity, 120/176 (68.2%) said, “strongly agree,” and 51/176 (28.98%) marked “agree.”

During Summer 2004, 233 students attended and evaluated 35 workshops conducted by Writing Center tutors.

(1) When asked if the information presented was “thorough and complete with enough examples,” 160/231 (69.26%) marked, “strongly agree,” and 69/231 (29.87%) marked “agree.” 

(2) When asked if the PowerPoint presentation was well organized, interesting, and effective, 502/698 (71.92%) marked “strongly agree,” and 187/698 (26.79%) marked “agree.”

(3) When asked if the tutors who presented the workshops were “knowledgeable” and created a “comfortable environment that motivated you to interact,” 360/464 (77.59%) marked “strongly agree,” and 102/464 (21.98%) marked “agree.”

(4) When asked if they had enough time for the activity, 165/232 (71.12%) said, “strongly agree,” and 62/232 (26.72%) marked “agree.”

During 2003-2004, 557 students attended and evaluated 113 workshops conducted by Writing Center tutors.

(1) When asked if the information presented was “thorough and complete with enough examples,” 405/549 (73.77%) marked, “strongly agree,” and 131/549 (23.86%) marked “agree,” for a total of 97.63%.

(2) When asked if the PowerPoint presentation was well organized, interesting, and effective, 1,229/1,648 (74.58%) marked “strongly agree,” and 389/1,648 (23.60%) marked “agree,” for a total of 98.18%.

(3) When asked if the tutors who presented the workshops were “knowledgeable” and created a “comfortable environment that motivated you to interact,” 863/1,099 (78.53%) marked “strongly agree,” and 225/1,099 (20.47%) marked “agree,” for a total of 98.99%.

(4) When asked if they had enough time for the activity, 405/549 (73.77%) said, “strongly agree,” and 128/549 (23.32%) marked “agree,” for a total of 97.09%.

Goal: The goal was met since the satisfaction rate for all items on the evaluation form was over 90%.

3b. Use of Results to Improve Unit Service:

A scantron “Workshop Presentation Observation Form” was created to help students evaluate the quality of workshop content and tutors’ workshop delivery skills. Another new evaluation form to be used by the Director and Associate Director to evaluate the quality of tutors’ delivery of workshops was also created.