Download 2015-2016 Assessment Report

2015-2016 Annual Program Assessment Report
College: Humanities
Department: English
Program: Graduate and Undergraduate
Assessment Liaison: Scott Andrews
1.
A. _______ Measured Student Work.
B. _________ Analyzed Results of Measurement.
C. ___XX___ Applied Results of Analysis to Program Review/Curriculum/Revision.
2.
Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s):
Graduate
The Graduate Committee reviewed the results of its 2014-2015 assessment. The Committee was happy with the results.
Since this assessment was given at the end of the program, members discussed the possibility of instituting an
assessment at the beginning so they could more accurately deduce if the results were produced by what students are
learning during the MA. One possibility was to take a random sampling of papers from the beginning of the program
and assess with the same rubric, but the problem was raised that the Graduate Program does not have an
“introductory” class and students don’t take the course sequences in the same order. No consensus was reached on this
issue.
Most of the discussion focused on how the Graduate Program might make the assessment of this SLO yield more
specific information on the viability of the SLO. Members considered including the paper prompts in the future
assessment process, to see if possibly the prompt was somehow effecting the students’ execution of the SLO.
SLO #1 and its rubric were changed to provide more specific information. Through the assessment process it was
discovered that students were demonstrating their knowledge of theory either through an application of a particular
theorist or theoretical model to the examination of a primary texts or through the explanation of a theoretical model
that helped contextualize an argument they were making in their essay. In both cases, the use of theory furthered their
argument or the general thesis of their paper. Members discussed ways to refine the SLO and the rubric to focus more
succinctly on this type of “demonstration.” (Note: the revised SLO and the rubric are attached.)
Undergraduate
Last year’s report indicated that the Department’s SLO #4 was problematic and that the Department should consider revising
it. The Literature Committee met in March to discuss such a change. However, upon further consideration I have decided that
the problem with assessing that SLO lay more with the essays that were selected and the type of assignments that generated
them – a procedural problem also existed with their collection. For this process, essays should not be assessed by the professor
who assigned them, but half of the essays last year were taken from a class taught by one of the professors doing the
assessment.
SLO #4 states, “Students will analyze British and American cultural, historical, and literary texts.” This seems
straightforward; but assessment of the student work (from the American literature course) was made difficult by the
assignment that generated the essays. Students were asked not to analyze those texts directly but to apply some idea
from American texts from the 1700s and 1800s to some current situation or controversy. This led to some strained
application of concepts or misunderstandings (or the erasure) of the historical context of the original text. Ideally, the
assessment of this SLO would be done with essays asking students to more directly demonstrate the ability named in
the SLO; instead, the assignment used asked students to demonstrate an ability that would follow on the heels of that
analysis. That is, the professors doing the assessment were required to infer the student’s analysis.
I believe this example demonstrates a flaw in the Department’s assessment process. The Literature courses have not
used imbedded assessment (assignments created to explicitly address an SLO). The Creative Writing Program has used
imbedded assessment assignments, and I believe Creative Writing has generally had more productive experiences with
assessment than has the Literature Program. I recommend that the next direct assessment in Literature be conducted
with imbedded assignments.
As for the change in SLO #4: The Literature Committee recommended that it be changed by eliminating the
designations of “American and British.” That is, the SLO would concern the analysis of “cultural, historical, and literary
texts” regardless of their national origins. However, I do not believe the national designation in the SLO produced the
problems with assessment; I have described the true nature of those problems above. While there are arguments for
and against the national designations in the SLO, such changes may be best made with a rethinking of all of the
Literature SLOs, and that will be discussed with the Department faculty members this semester.
3. Preview of future assessment activities
Graduate
[To be updated]
Undergraduate
This academic year’s direct assessment will involve the Basic Skills assessment of the Stretch Program courses. I intend
to conduct two types of indirect assessment this semester: a survey of students in the Department’s Senior Seminars
and a study of the syllabuses for senior-level Literature courses.
The students will be surveyed about their experiences as English majors and minors: Are they satisfied? Do they feel
they have acquired the skills described by the Department SLOs? Do they have recommended changes in the
curriculum? Since the Department has been involved in assessment, it has not requested such input from students, and
the literature on assessment recommends the involvement of students.
The senior-level courses will be examined relative to diversity. SLO #5 states, “Students will analyze culturally diverse
texts.” On the surface, this seems to be addressed in the curriculum by the requirement that students take at least one
course from the category designated as “Literatures of Cultural Diversity.” Examining the syllabuses for senior-level
Literature courses (which are not included in the Cultural Diversity category) can indicate the diversity of the readings
being in offered in Literature courses in general. Examining the course readings can suggest the degree to which
students are encountering cultural diversity and how broadly SLO #5 is being reinforced.
Common Graduate SLO Rubric
Outcome: Common Graduate SLO #1
Students will demonstrate (through application and/or explanation) knowledge of creative, cultural, linguistic, literary,
performative and/or rhetorical theories.
5: Excellent
Student work
insightfully
explains or
applies theory
and accurately
uses
terminologies
appropriate to
option-specific
discourse.
Consistent use of
conventions
appropriate to
the medium.
4:More than
satisfactory
Student work
competently
explains or
applies theory
and uses most
terminologies
appropriate to
option-specific
discourse.
In general, use of
conventions
appropriate to
the medium.
3: satisfactory
Student work
appropriately
explains or
applies theory
and shows
awareness of
terminologies
appropriate to
option-specific
discourse, but
occasionally
misuses them.
Uneven use of
conventions
appropriate to
the medium.
2: Less than
satisfactory
Student work
inappropriately
or inaccurately
applies theory in
a way that
demonstrates a
novice level
awareness of
terminologies
appropriate to
option-specific
discourse.
Inappropriate use
of conventions
appropriate to
the medium.
1: Not
demonstrated
Student work
does not apply
theory.
Inappropriate use
or no use of
conventions
appropriate to
the medium.