Academic Year Assessed

2018 - 2019

Program(s) Assessed

English major, all options (Literature, Writing, Teaching)

What Was Done

For FY 2018-19 all students were evaluated for Core Learning Outcome.

    • Writing majors were evaluated based on:

      • #2 Writing: be able to critically interpret, analyze, and synthesize texts, culture, and/or communication.

      • #4 Research/Creative Scholarship:  Students demonstrate proficiency with current research and/or creative activity technologies and resources and with integrating these materials in their writing.

    • Literature majors were evaluated based on:

      • #4 Research/Creative Scholarship:  Students demonstrate proficiency with current research and/or creative activity technologies and resources and with integrating these materials in their writing.

      • #5 Language:  Students understand the cultural history of the English language, and language’s role in the formation of literature and culture

    • Education majors were evaluated based on:

      • #4 Research/Creative Scholarship:  Students demonstrate proficiency with current research and/or creative activity technologies and resources and with integrating these materials in their writing.

      • #5 Language:  Students understand the cultural history of the English language, and language’s role in the formation of literature and culture.

  • In addition, some students were also evaluated according to option specific criteria.
    • Writing majors were evaluated based on option specific criteria:
      • #2 Students demonstrate knowledge of the role of textual genres and modalities, including reflective/personal, research/scholarly, imaginative/literary, and business/professional, in a writing portfolio that helps them apply for writing-centered careers and opportunities.
    • Education majors were evaluated based on option specific criteria:
      • #2 Students understand how to plan instruction based upon knowledge of the English Language Arts and curriculum goals.
    • Data Collected:
      • A random sample was selected of three final papers from each of the option-specific capstone courses: LIT 494RH for Literature, WRIT 494RH for Writing, and ENGL 461RH for English Education. The selected papers were then evaluated for each of the criteria given above.

What Was Learned

The papers collected from all three capstone courses (literature, education, and writing courses) again demonstrated sustained proficiency according to the assessment categories. While the papers varied from a low 3 (developing proficiency acceptable) to a high 5 (exceeds expectations), the papers collectively averaged almost exclusively to a 4 (fully proficient). While skills differed slightly from paper to paper—and quite often even within the same paper—they overall demonstrated the core competencies required for our majors. We will again follow our precedent of reporting on each sub-disciplinary area separately to reflect the increasing autonomy of each sub-discipline. We also made some overall assessments, especially regarding the need to update and revise our entire assessment project. Our primary recommendation is that we completely overhaul our assessment plan during AY 2019-20 (or perhaps preferably AY 2020-2021).

    • 3A. Literature

      • Overall, the three literature papers demonstrated that our literature majors continue to demonstrate strong competency in the required “proficiency with current research and/or creative activity technologies and resources and with integrating these materials in their writing.” Each of the papers was carefully focused and cogently argued using sufficient theoretical material and research to effectively establish its central contentions. While the theoretical sophistication was probably closer to a 4 (fully proficient) than a 5 (exceptional) none of the papers dipped into a 3 (developing proficiency) level at any point. They were very solid if not quite extraordinary papers. Where the papers perhaps stood out most was in their ability to develop a sustained argument for the entirety of a seminar length paper. All three papers remained focused on their central thesis arguments and continued to elaborate them throughout each paper. They were argumentative papers in the best sense. In addition, the papers were also beautifully written. The prose was elegant, and the grammar sophisticated. To some degree this elevated writing ability may be connected to these students’ increased exposure to the high quality of literary writing itself. These students have begun to develop some of the eloquence of the writers they study.

      • As regards to demonstrating a solid understanding of “the cultural history of the English language, and language’s role in the formation of literature and culture,” however, the papers demonstrated little to no engagement with this competency. I suspect, however, that this is not the result of students’ poor performance but rather that this is no longer a significant focus of the department curriculum overall. Instead of suggesting that this area be more effectively covered in general coursework and the capstone course in particular our recommendation is that the criteria simply be dropped or reworded to better reflect current practices

    • 3 B. Education

      • Representative samples of writing in ENGL 461, the capstone course, demonstrated consistently high proficiency, ranging between a 4 (fully proficient) and 5 (exceeds proficiency). In particular, the papers excelled at integrating “current research and/or creative activity technologies and resources” into their writing. In fact, the greatest overall strength of these papers is their effective use of research. Of the three options, the education papers stood out above the others for their use of research. They both had extensive bibliographies and consistently incorporated these sources into their own writing. And they also incorporated much more than just academic library research. Some employed direct observation and interviewing, while another did an effective critical analysis of literary texts. Collectively, they demonstrated that the authors shared a broad and comprehensive view of different kinds of research in addition to being well researched, these papers were also clearly focused, deliberately argumentative, and simply insightful and perceptive. All three not only engaged “current” topics of great interest in the field of education, but they also did so in fresh and original ways. These papers were very engaging, and the authors demonstrated a real personal commitment to their subjects.

      • As regards to demonstrating a solid understanding of “the cultural history of the English language, and language’s role in the formation of literature and culture,” these papers are mixed. They do engage questions of language more consistently than Literature or Writing majors do, but it is not clear whether this was an accident of the particular subject of one paper—biliteracy—or whether this is an actual central concern of the Education sub-discipline per se. Consequently, our recommendation regarding this is less strong than with the Literature major. While we recommended that the Literature option simply drop this category, we recommend that the Education professors decide more deliberately whether they want to drop this criterion or simply move it to being an option specific competency

    • 3C. Writing

      • In reviewing the sample set, I see ample evidence that WRIT 494 students are able to “critically interpret, analyze, and synthesize” a wide range of cultural and theoretical material. One analysis of fan fiction, in particular, wove a very critical analysis of the interrelationship between intertextual revision, gender identity and politics, and popular culture. The insights were perceptive and the level of critical analysis sophisticated, citing a wide range of theoretical material and research. While the other two papers were perhaps a little more descriptive than analytical, they nonetheless developed thorough descriptions of their respective subject matters and cited sufficient research materials to support their conclusions. One strength of the papers in particular was their engagement with and integration of “current research and/or creative activity technologies and resources’” All three papers engaged very current topics and methodologies ranging from critical regionalism and forensic linguistics and fan fiction. Their treatments of these subjects were fresh and inventive. While the comprehensiveness of their analyses varied substantially from a 3 to a 5, the students’ decisions to engage current research in the field was consistently effective. Perhaps the larger lesson to be learned here is that the students are pursuing the right projects, but that they could be encouraged to more fully develop those projects with a more comprehensive engagement with their respective themes and methodologies. Finally, the papers collectively demonstrated a broad “knowledge of the role of textual genres and modalities, including reflective/personal, research/scholarly, imaginative/literary, and business/professional.” Overall, the papers engaged truly a significant range of textual modalities, ranging from the personal/autobiographical to the critical/analytical, and there was even substantial engagement with different modalities within individual papers. As we have noted in past assessments, one of the true strengths of the writing program is the broad engagement with a wide range of writing modalities. These papers clearly confirm that this continues to be not only one of the program’s principal successes but even perhaps one of its central defining features.

      • As in past assessments there appears to be a need to restructure the department assessment process especially with respect to the writing option. As currently stated, one of the explicit assessment criteria is to evaluate a portfolio of papers by writing majors, but this is not our current practice. Consequently, either the process needs to change to evaluate a portfolio or the assessment plan should be reworded to simply an analysis of individual papers. This is one more reason why reconfiguring the entire assessment plan should be considered.

How We Responded

Based on our evaluations the assessment committee will make the following recommendations to the department. 

    • Recommendation #1: The entire assessment plan should be updated and revised. There are several reasons for this. First of all, the plan is awkward and ad hoc. Some years we evaluate one category while others we evaluate three. Each of the majors had different numbers of subcategories. We have five core criteria based on a four-year rotation. It would be more coherent to have a less baroque system in general. There is both overlap between criteria and most likely gaps not fully represented. Second, the criteria themselves do not accurately reflect the ways in which the three English options have evolved and should be restructured to reflect our current practices and objectives. The faculty for each sub major should collectively redesign and/or reaffirm the specific competencies now expected by that subdiscipline. Our recommendation is that the assessment committee should consult closely with the faculty from each of the subdisciplines to revise the department assessment plan. While the assessment plan is ready to be revised now (AY2019-20), our recommendation would be to put this off for a year (until AY2020-21) because Robert Bennett (who has been chairing this committee for several years) is on sabbatical this year and his institutional memory may be helpful in this assessment reform.

    • Recommendation #2: In particular, it is also our recommendation that criterion #5 about the history of the language be dropped as it is no longer as relevant as the other four. This competency was not well represented in the papers in large part because it is no longer emphasized as much in the curriculum. This decision, however, should ultimately be made as part of the overall assessment revision.

    • Recommendation #3: The Writing option should decide whether they want to evaluate an entire writing portfolio or just the individual capstone papers.