Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.