Annual Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment Report
Unit Name: English
Department
Degree Programs: B.A.
in English; M.A. in English; M.F.A. in Creative Writing;
and Ph.D. in English
Prepared by Dr. Renée
Schatteman on August 7, 2005
Academic Year:
2004-2005
Number of graduates
from each degree program in 2004-2005:
Fall 2004 Spring 2005
B.A.: 19 49
M.A.: 11 7
M.F.A.: 1 0
Ph.D.: 1 3
Number of students in
each program major:
Fall
2004 Spring 2005
B.A.: 528 524
M.A.: 72 77
M.F.A.: 27 27
Ph.D.: 99 95
|
III. Changes to
Procedures or Curriculum Based on Assessment |
|
|
II. Achievement
of Departmental Objectives for Students A. Undergraduate-- |
|
1. Assessment Procedures –
Undergraduate Program
As stated in the English department’s Undergraduate Assessment Plan, during 2004-2005 undergraduate students were assessed for their achievement of learning outcomes, beyond classroom grading, through three methods: assessment of the senior exit portfolios, assessment of the senior seminars, and assessment of student work in the lower division studies.
Senior Exit Portfolios: While the senior exit portfolios have been required
of students since the fall of 2002, data has been collected on portfolios in
the Literature, Creative Writing, and Secondary English concentrations only
since the spring of 2004. The procedure used for this data collection was that
faculty members reviewed the portfolios and completed two assessment forms, one
that went to the student and one to the department. The student assessment
forms rate the student’s work, using a 5-point scale and assessed how well the
work satisfied the expectations of the portfolio. The departmental assessment
form also used a 5-point scale and rated how effectively the student work
demonstrated the learning outcomes of the student’s particular concentration.
At the end of each semester, the portfolio scores were tabulated and the mean
score was calculated for each criterion. In the summer of 2005, the directors
of each of these concentrations analyzed the data from the previous four
semesters (Spring 2004, Summer 2004, Fall 2004, and Spring 2005) and made the
suggestions for procedural and programmatic change that are outlined below.
The portfolio assessment procedures for the Rhetoric
and Advanced Composition and Technical and Professional writing (RCTP)
concentration developed at a different rate compared to the other
concentrations. Faculty members in this concentration began using electronic
portfolios of student work for program assessment as early as 2001, and they
have already made specific curricular changes over the past four years based
upon the general trends displayed in the portfolios. Because the portfolios
have always been done electronically, specific data from the assessments are
not available, but starting in 2004-2005, this concentration will use
electronic versions of the assessment forms to track the specific results of
the student portfolios.
Senior Seminars:
During the fall of 2004 and the spring of 2005, instructors who taught the
senior seminar (capstone course) in the four concentrations completed an
assessment form on each student, using a 5-point scale to rate how effectively
the student work demonstrated the learning outcomes associated with the senior
seminar of the student’s particular concentration. The results of these assessments forms were also calculated to
determine the mean score for each category, and the directors from each
concentration analyzed this data during the summer of 2005.
Lower Division Studies:
·
English 1101, 1102, 1103 – Freshman Composition
Program
·
English 2110, 2120, 2130, 2140, 2150 – Sophomore
Literature Survey and Introduction to Literary Studies and to Rhetoric for
the English Major
With the
exception of two or three sections of freshman composition (usually the English
1103), all sections each semester were taught by graduate teaching assistants
from the English Department. As part of their assistantship, instructors
were required to submit a teaching portfolio each spring semester that
reflected the courses and their teaching for the previous year. Part of
this portfolio was an assessment procedure whereby each instructor evaluated
the success of students regarding each learning outcome for the course(s) they
taught. (See Appendix V.) Each year the Director of Lower Division
Studies collected hundreds of assessments for these courses as instructors
filled out a chart for each class they taught (approximately 300 sections per
year). Instructors recorded the kinds of activities connected to each
learning outcome, the way that they measured that outcome, and the percentage
of students in their classes who met the goals of that outcome. Most
assignments were written products at various stages from brainstorming to
drafting to revision. They included many different genre, and were
measured mostly by rubrics, tests, and responses/grades from instructors and
peers. The percentages are intended to be a reflection of students who
received grades of A through C on that outcome.
Teaching
Assistants/instructors taught fewer of the sophomore courses; however, a
committee of graduate students and the Lower Division Director developed
learning outcomes for each course during the summer of 2004. Graduate
students then used these learning outcomes as a pilot during the 2004-05
academic year. These learning outcomes will be submitted for acceptance
to the Lower Division Committee and then to the faculty during the Fall
Semester, 2005.
Assessment
Procedures: Graduate Program
The Graduate Assessment Plan, which was submitted in
the fall of 2004, presented the Learning Outcomes for the M.A., M.F.A., and
Ph.D. programs and outlined methods for
evaluating student achievement of the learning outcomes, beyond
classroom grading and the M.A./ Ph.D. examinations. Starting in the spring of
2005, graduating Ph.D. students were also assessed on the work of their
dissertation. The Graduate Director facilitated this assessment at the
student’s dissertation defense, and the form was completed by faculty members
on the student’s committee. The
dissertation assessment form used a 5-point scale and rated how effectively the
student work demonstrated the graduate learning outcomes. In the summer of 2005, the Graduate Director
analyzed the resulting data in order to make suggestions for procedural and
programmatic change. The Graduate Assessment Plan anticipated a similar
assessment of M.A. theses, but this did not apply in 2004-2005 because the
department did not currently require a defense of a masters’ thesis;
consequently, a thesis committee did not convene to assess the student’s work
in terms of the leaning outcomes.
II. Achievement of Departmental Student Learning Objectives – Undergraduate Program
The data from the departmental assessment forms of the
senior exit portfolios from the past four semesters (found in Appendix I)
reveal that students demonstrated mastery across the board in three categories:
Knowledge of Literature; Reading Comprehension; and Reading Interpretation. The
mean (average) score in all three of these categories was at least a 4.0 on a
scale of 5 (5 being the highest). Six categories on this form (Knowledge of
Rhetoric and Writing; Knowledge of Language; Knowledge of Critical Theory;
Communication Skills; Research Skills; and Creative Writing skills) reflect a
variety of scores across semesters, with mean scores ranging from a 3.2 to a
4.5. The inconsistency of student performance may be due to areas of weakness
(especially in research and documentation and in knowledge of critical theory)
or to inconsistency in the ways faculty members are interpreting particular
categories when are reading the portfolios, especially the categories
concerning creative writing skills, knowledge of rhetoric and writing, and
knowledge of language.
The scores of the student assessment forms from the past four semesters were much more consistent across the board, with only an occasional mean score below 4.0. The lowest mark on the student assessment forms was a 3.2, given for consistency. This category addresses the documentation of research, a clearly identified weakness in the department’s students.
· Creative Writing Concentration
The department and student assessment forms for the senior exit portfolios in this concentration from the past four semesters (found in Appendix II) are very similar to each other, with four of six common criteria. Interestingly enough, the mean scores for the common categories on the two forms are not consistent, meaning that faculty members in some instances are giving one score on the departmental form and a different score on the student form. In addition, the individual scores occasionally reflect a wide range of faculty responses, with some portfolios earning an “Excellent” score on a specific category from one reader but a “Poor” rating for the same category from the second reader. This suggests a need for more discussion among Creative Writing faculty on the use of the assessment tools and the meaning of each criterion.
There are not many clear patterns that can be detected from an analysis of the data from the senior portfolios in Creative Writing since the majority of mean scores fall between a range of 3.2 – 3.9. One trend that does emerge however is that the scores related to knowledge (Knowledge of Literary Composition and Aesthetics; Familiarity with Appropriate Literary Examples; and Knowledge of Vocabulary Concerning Genre) are slightly higher than the scores related to skills (Authentic and Engaging Writing; Grammatically/Syntactically Sound Writing; and Variety of Effective Techniques), as evidenced by the fact that seven of the nine mean scores of 4.0 or higher were awarded to knowledge rather than skills. One possible explanation for this related to a reality of Creative Writing instruction. The skills involved in this concentration in some ways depend more upon talent than upon training. Also, unlike the other concentrations in the English department, students are not be expected to gain complete mastery of the skills related to creative writing; rather, during the course of their program, they are introduced to techniques that they will gradually learn to integrate into their work as writers.
· Secondary English Concentration
The data from the departmental assessment forms of the
senior exit portfolios from the past four semesters (found in Appendix III)
reveal that students demonstrated mastery across the board in three categories:
Knowledge of Figures, Genres, Periods, and Terms; Reading Comprehension Skills;
and Reading Interpretation Skills with a mean score in all three categories was
at least a 4.0 on a scale of 5 (5 being the highest). Students performed the
weakest on the category addressing Knowledge of Criticism and Theory. Also,
evaluators gave the ranking of “can’t determine” in three areas on many of the
portfolios: Knowledge of Language and Linguistics; Knowledge of Criticism and
Theory; and Reflectiveness and Revision. This indicates an inability to assess
these areas because the portfolios do not include work relevant to them.
The scores of the student assessment forms from the past four semesters were much more consistent across the board, with only two out of twelve mean scores falling below a 4.0.
· Rhetoric and Composition Concentration
Faculty evaluation of the
portfolios for 2001 and 2002 revealed that students were writing reasonably
well but were using literature papers almost exclusively as exemplars of their
work. Faculty members in this concentration decided that more
"content," that is the history and theory of rhetoric, needed to be
added to existing courses and a new introductory course (Engl. 2150) should be
required of all students with an RCTP concentration. They also encouraged each
other to use the portfolios system as part of the regular class work in all
classes. As a result, in 2003 and 2004 they have seen a greater variety of
genres uploaded, essays on the history of rhetoric and composition theory, but
also reports, brochures, manuals, online help files, websites, and so on.
Senior Seminars:
There are only two sets of scores for the senior
seminar in this concentration (Appendix I), and they do not demonstrate any
clear patterns. Further data is needed to adequately assess the success of this
senior seminar.
· Creative Writing Concentration
With only two sets of scores submitted for the senior seminar (Appendix II), it is difficult to draw conclusions about how effectively students are demonstrating the learning outcomes in this course. In general, the scores reflect a range of responses as wide as those found in the senior portfolio data. One problem with the assessment form for the senior seminar is that it assesses the students’ ability to use a variety of literary techniques, but in this course students are largely given the independence to work with the techniques that best suit their own purposes. The expectation that students will demonstrate multiple techniques is more applicable to the introductory creative writing courses where students are introduced to many different approaches and asked to produce work that reflects this variety.
· Secondary English Concentration
It is difficult to draw conclusions about this data (Appendix III) since it reflects student work in only one senior seminar. Even so, trends that emerged from the portfolios for this concentration seem to be repeated in the senior seminar. Students were the least successful in their demonstration of knowledge of criticism and theory. Also, faculty members were frequently unable to determine a score for criteria related to the Ability to Reflect Upon and Revise Teaching Approaches and the Ability to Engage in Substantial Revision of a Major Project. This suggests that the curriculum of the senior seminar may not adequately provide opportunities for demonstrating competence in these areas.
· Rhetoric and Composition Concentration
It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about this data (Appendix IV) since it reflects student work in only one senior seminar. However, the mean scores do suggest that students are not as consistently successful in demonstrating knowledge of the language of and history of Rhetoric and the knowledge of rhetorical theory as they are in demonstrating skills related to Rhetoric and Composition. The only skills category that received a relatively low score is the category that addresses students’ ability to write using a variety of writing technologies. This is likely because the senior seminar is made up of two sets of students: those who have taken more professional writing courses and therefore have considerable experience in various technologies and those who have taken a more academic track in the concentration and therefore have a less nuanced understanding of multiple writing technologies.
Lower
Division Studies:
With regard
to the freshman composition learning outcomes, the percentages reflect that
students are highly competent with the writing process and are learning about
academic conventions of writing at a very successful level. The success
rate for the products they produce are less impressive, but we have seen a rise
in these percentages over the past year (from an average of 82% last year to an
average of 88% this year, for example, on the learning outcome concerning
product in English 1101 - #8) The primary problem with the way we assessed
the learning outcomes this year is that the instructors tended to report
percentages that reflected the overall course grade rather than the specific
outcome.
Achievement of Departmental Student Learning
Objectives – Graduate Program
Graduate Dissertations:
The department began to assess dissertation defenses
in the spring of 2005 when three dissertations were defended, one in
Literature, one in Creative Writing, and one in Rhetoric and Advanced
Composition (found in Appendix VI). These dissertations were determined to be
excellent in all categories, with the exception of the Rhetoric and Advanced
Composition dissertation, which received a “good” rating in the category
evaluating the oral defense. This data seems to indicate that the graduate
students are successfully achieving the graduate learning outcomes, but it is
difficult to draw conclusions about the program from such a small sample.
Senior Exit Portfolios:
·
Literature Concentration
Faculty members in the literature concentration do not
feel it is necessary to make any changes to the Learning Outcomes at this time;
rather, they want to make adjustments to the portfolio requirements that are
distributed to students. The requirements will be changed to ask students to
submit 4-6 essays in their portfolios, including one essay that reflects their
understanding of critical theory and another that demonstrates their ability to
incorporate research in their writing and to document their sources according
to MLA format.
This concentration will also make efforts to clarify the assessment forms so that faculty members can have a common understanding of the various categories when reading the work. This will be done through a norming session scheduled for the fall 2005 semester and through more clearly defined instructions sheets that will accompany the portfolios when they are handed out.
As a result of this review of the portfolio data, the literature concentration is setting a goal for the 2005-2006 year of having students achieve at least a 4.0 in all categories related to skills (communication, research, and creative writing) on the departmental assessment form.
· Creative Writing Concentration
Creative Writing faculty members will meet during
the fall of 2005 for a number of important purposes related to the assessment
of portfolios: to review the learning outcomes for the concentration, to reach
consensus on the meaning of the various assessment categories, and to discuss
the levels of proficiency that can be required of their students if complete
mastery of skills is not to be expected. The main goal of this meeting will be
to develop a clearer sense of what students can be expected to know and to do
in their writing by the end of their program; this meeting may result in
changes to the learning outcomes and/or to the procedures that will be
instituted for the 2006-2007 school year.
· Secondary English Concentration
The departmental assessment form for the portfolio in this concentration will be altered in two ways in order to better assess students’ ability to demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes. Firstly, the category that evaluates students’ knowledge of Criticism and Theory will be changed to a skills category that determines students’ ability to understand and incorporate literary criticism. (The emphasis on Literary Theory will be dropped since students in this concentration are not required to take courses in this area.) Secondly, the category that considers students’ ability to reflect upon and revise teaching approaches as necessary will be changed to the ability to reflect upon reflect upon teaching since the senior portfolios do not provide an opportunity to demonstrate revision of teaching practices.
These adjustments to the assessment form will be discussed at the first meeting of the Secondary English concentration in the fall of 2005. This meeting will also provide an opportunity to clarify the learning outcomes for this concentration and to reduce the number of “can’t determine” scores for the portfolio and the senior seminar by making sure that the assessment forms adequately represent the intentions of the concentration and the senior seminar course.
· Rhetoric and Composition Concentration
Current assessments of the
portfolios have led to the recommendation that at least one paper per class be
uploaded by each student in the concentration so that faculty can gather data
about what is being done in each class, and which classes are being taken.
Faculty members also need to broaden
the list of genre descriptors to include an even wider array of genres. They
also need to encourage students to do more with their biographies, which seem
half hearted at best, which is unfortunate given that the portfolios are public
and the biography is the first thing the public sees. Another observation to
come out of the portfolio assessment is that the research papers seem
"thin" as regards works cited; students are relying too heavily on
only a few sources. These issues will
be addressed at a fall 2005 meeting of this concentration.
· All Four Concentrations
In past semesters, students received an instruction
packet that included portfolio requirements for all four concentrations.
Starting in the fall of 2005, the portfolio instructions will be divided into
four different packets instead so that students will only receive material
related to their own concentrations. A copy of the student assessment form for
the senior exit portfolio will be attached to the portfolio instructions for
each concentration so that students can better anticipate how their work will
be evaluated. Additionally, all the instruction packets will state that late
portfolios will not be accepted since this has caused problems in the
assessment process in past semesters.
Another change to assessment procedures is that all
assessment materials (Learning Outcomes, Departmental Assessment Plan,
Department Assessment Report, and Assessment
Forms) will be placed on the English department’s common file so that
faculty members can access these materials from their own computers rather than
relying upon office staff to make them available.
Senior
Seminars:
·
Literature Concentration
No
programmatic or procedural changes concerning the senior seminar in this
concentration will be made at this point because of the need for further data.
Once additional data can be collected from seminars taught in 2005-2006, a more
thorough assessment of this course can be made. Of particular importance will
be students’ scores in research and documentation since these areas emerged as
weaknesses in the portfolio assessment process.
·
Creative Writing
Concentration
·
Secondary English
Concentration
Two
changes will be made to the assessment form for this senior seminar. Firstly,
the category that evaluates students’ knowledge of Criticism and Theory will be
changed to a skills category that determines students’ ability to understand
and incorporate literary criticism. Secondly, another knowledge category will
be added that will read, “The student’s course work determines knowledge of the
pedagogical theory introduced during the seminar.” Changes will be made to the curriculum for this course to provide
students with more explicit opportunities to demonstrate their ability to
revise teaching approaches their ability to revise a major project. Students
engage in both tasks under the present curriculum, but they are not
specifically asked to demonstrate that work.
At the fall Secondary English committee meeting, possible curricular
changes will be discussed with the intention of incorporating these changes in
the senior seminar curriculum by the spring of 2006.
·
Rhetoric and Composition
Concentration
The
faculty of this concentration will meet in the fall of 2005-2006 to discuss
possible revisions to the program to ensure that students are achieving
adequate knowledge of the language of and history of Rhetoric and the knowledge
of rhetorical theory.
Lower Division Studies:
During the Fall Semester, 2005, we will be revising
the assessment form attached here and developing one similar for all sophomore
courses. The revision and development of the chart will make the
categories clearer and the percentages more specific to the learning
outcome. We will also enhance training for the assessment procedure so
that the results more accurately reflect each learning outcome.
Changes to Procedures or Curriculum
Based on Assessment –Graduate Program
The
Graduate Program is going to make a number of procedural changes to the
assessment of dissertations. Firstly, the rating of “can’t determine” on the assessment
form will be changed to “not applicable to this defense.” In addition, a
category for “overall evaluation” will be added to the bottom of the form.
Finally, the ratings will be changed from “Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, and
Inadequate” to “Outstanding, Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, and Inadequate” and a
description will be attached to the assessment form which explains what each of
the ratings mean in terms of publication potential and contribution to the
field.
A
weakness in the graduate program that became apparent through the assessment of
dissertations is that students frequently do not provide dissertation readers
enough time to read and edit their writing. During the spring of 2006, the
Graduate Director will meet with the Graduate Committee to consider ways to
concretize a schedule so that students are required to give ample time for
readers to respond to their writing before the defense date.
Finally,
in the fall of 2005, the Graduate Director will suggest to the department that
students writing a Masters Thesis should be required to participate in a thesis
defense. If this is approved, assessment forms will be used to evaluate theses
in terms of the graduate learning outcomes starting in the fall of 2006.
Appendix I: Literature Concentration
Departmental
Assessment Form:
Spring 04 Summer 04 Fall 04 Spring 05
Knowledge: Literature 4.3 4.4 4.0 4.3
Knowledge: Rhetoric and Writing 3.7 4.3 3.9 4.1
Knowledge: Language 4.0 4.6 3.9 4.5
Knowledge: Critical Theory 3.7 3.8 3.4 4.2
Knowledge: Reading Comprehension 4.5 4.5 4.1 4.3
Knowledge: Reading Interpretation 4.1 4.4 4.4 4.3
Skills: Communication 3.2 4.5 3.8 4.2
Skills: Research 3.6 4.2 3.2 4.2
Skills: Creative Writing 3.5 3.9 3.2 4.1
Student Assessment
Form:
Spring 04 Summer 04 Fall 04 Spring 05
Appearance 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.3
Organization 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.3
Comprehensiveness 4.6 4.2 3.9 4.6
Clarity 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.5
Content 4.3 4.5 4.1 4.6
Grammar/Syntax 4.0 3.8 4.3 4.2
Consistency 4.2 4.0 3.2 4.3
Overall Evaluation 4.4 4.2 3.9 4.3
Senior Seminar – Departmental Assessment Form:
Knowledge of the Literary Material of
Seminar 3.7 4.3
Knowledge of Language 4.0 4.3
Knowledge of Criticism and Theory 4.0 3.7
Adequate Reading Comprehension
Skills 4.2 4.3
Adequate Reading Interpretation
Skills 3.9 4.3
Effective Communication Skills 3.5 4.2
Ability to Conduct Detailed Research
And to Complete Substantial Project 3.4 4.2
Ability to Engage in a Substantial
Revision Process 3.3 4.3
Ability to Use Information Technology 3.3 ----
Appendix II:
Creative Writing Concentration
Departmental
Assessment Form:
Spring 04 Summer 04 Fall 04 Spring 05
Knowledge of Rhetorical Strategies
and Literature Aesthetics 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.0
Authentic and Engaging Writing 3.7 3.6 3.2 3.8
Grammatically/
Syntactically Sound Writing 3.8 3.4 3.4 4.0
Variety of Techniques 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.7
Evidence of Substantial Revisions 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.7
Student Assessment
Form:
Spring 04 Summer 04 Fall 04 Spring 05
Knowledge of Literary Composition
and Aesthetics 3.7 4.0 3.4 4.1
Familiarity with Appropriate
Literary Examples 3.7 4.0 4.1 4.2
Knowledge of Vocabulary
Concerning Genre 3.9 3.8 3.6 4.1
Authentic and Engaging Writing 3.8 3.9 3.3 3.9
Grammatically /Syntactically
Sound Writing 3.7 3.7 3.2 3.9
Evidence of a Variety of
Effective Techniques 3.7 4.1 3.4 3.9
Senior Seminar – Departmental Assessment Form:
Knowledge of Composition and
Aesthetics 3.8 3.9
Familiarity with Examples of the
Literary Genres 3.6 3.8
Knowledge of Vocabulary
Concerning Genres 3.6 3.9
Ability to Compose Substantial Writing
In Chosen Genre 4.2 ---
Original, Authentic, and
Engaging Writing 3.6 3.8
Grammatically/ Syntactically
Sound Writing 3.3 3.8
Uses a Variety of Literary
Techniques 3.4 3.8
Ability to Evaluate Strengths
And Weaknesses 3.6 3.9
Ability to Evaluate Critical Responses
And to Revise Work 3.4 3.9
Evidence of Effective Communication
Skills 3.5 ---
Departmental
Assessment Form:
Spring 04 Summer 04 Fall 04 Spring 05
Knowledge of Figures, Genres,
Periods, and Terms 4.3 --- 4.1 (*1) 4.4
Knowledge of Language and
Linguistics 4.1 --- 3.9 (*1) 4.3(*9)
Knowledge of Criticism and Theory 3.7 --- 3.2 (*4) 4.2
Reading Comprehension Skills 4.6 --- 4.0 4.6
Reading Interpretation Skills 4.4 --- 4.1 4.4
Effective Communication Skills 4.4 --- 4.1 4.8
Research Skills 4.4 --- 3.5 4.6
Knowledge of Literature, Language,
And Composition for Teaching 4.4 --- 3.7 4.3
Knowledge of the Profession 4.2 --- 3.7(*1) 4.4
Ability to Reflective Upon and Revise
Teaching Approaches 4.3 --- 4.4 (*1) 4.8(*9)
* = number of graders who scored “can’t determine” for this item
Student Assessment
Form:
Spring 04 Summer 04 Fall 04 Spring 05
Presentation of Materials 4.5 4.0 4.4 4.5
Quality of the Writing 4.5 4.3 3.9 4.5
Reflectiveness 4.4 3.6 4.4 4.3
Senior Seminar – Departmental Assessment Form:
Knowledge of the Literary, Language, and Composition
Suitable for Secondary Classroom 4.4
Knowledge of Language and Linguistics 4.3(*4)
Knowledge of Criticism and Theory 3.8(*11)
Knowledge of the Profession 4.6
Understanding of Pedagogical
Strategies and of Planning 4.5
Adequate Reading Comprehension Skills 4.6
Adequate Reading Interpretation Skills 4.6
Evidence of Effective Communication 4.3
Ability to Select Pedagogical Strategies
For a Given Text 4.5
Ability to Create Effective Lessons and
To Teach Materials to Peers 4.5
Ability to Create a Unit Plan 4.5
Ability to Reflect upon and Revise Teaching
Approaches 4.0(*8)
Ability to Conduct Advanced Research and
To Complete Substantial Project 4.5
Ability to Engage in Substantial Revision 4.0 (*11)
Appendix IV:
Rhetoric and Advanced Composition Concentration
Senior Seminar –
Departmental Assessment Form
Knowledge of the Language and History of Rhetoric 4.5
Knowledge of Rhetorical Theory 4.5
Knowledge of Rhetorical Practices and Genres 4.8
Ability to Produce Writing for a Range of Audiences and Purposes 4.9
Ability to Write Using a Variety of Writing Technologies 4.4
Ability to Employ Advanced Research Strategies and to
Document Research 4.9
Ability to Complete a Substantial, Formal Project 5.0
|
Instructor’s
Name |
|
|
1101 Learning Outcomes |
Activities/Assignment How Measured % of Students Achieved Goal |
|||
|
Engage in writing as a
process by using invention technique, gathering evidence, evaluating
audience, drafting, revising, editing, and proofreading |
Large and small group
discussions; paper drafts in sequence; presentations |
|
Gathered and responded to
at various stages of the writing process; rubrics |
95% |
|
Recognize and practice the
collaborative, social aspects of writing |
Small group discussions and
peer review activities |
|
Response papers |
90% |
|
Use language to explore and
examine contemporary multicultural, global, and international questions |
Small and large group
discussions of essays, movies, etc.; papers written |
|
Response papers and
research papers |
95% |
|
Demonstrate their use of
writing aids, such as handbooks, dictionaries, online tools |
Exercises; presentations;
research papers |
|
Quizzes; papers written |
90% |
|
Identify, summarize,
synthesize, and explain information from various sources |
Essays to evaluate;
comparison papers; analysis papers; research |
|
Rubric; response papers;
annotated bibliographies |
88% |
|
Use grammatical, stylistic,
and mechanical formats and conventions appropriate for a variety of audiences |
Handbook and MLA exercises;
peer group activities |
|
Rubrics; quizzes |
85% |
|
Assess and evaluate their
own and others’ work in written and oral formats |
Peer review; written
comments; presentations |
|
Rubrics; response papers |
95% |
|
Produce coherent,
organized, readable prose for a variety of rhetorical situations |
Formal papers – usually
about 4 per semester |
|
Rubric; responses;
conferences with instructor |
85% |
|
Instructor’s Name |
|
|
1102 Learning Outcomes |
Activities and Assignments How Measured % of Students Achieved Goal |
|||
|
Analyze, evaluate, and draw
inferences from various sources |
Reading research and
essays; |
|
Writing summaries and
annotated bibliographies; response papers |
90% |
|
Identify, select, and
analyze appropriate research methods, research questions, and evidence |
Library and internet
research; class discussions |
|
Annotated bibliographies;
papers |
90% |
|
Use various argumentative
strategies and genres for various rhetorical situations. |
Textbook exercises;
assigning papers from various argumentative stances and situations |
|
Rubrics; responses |
90% |
|
Integrate others’ ideas with their own |
Research exercises for quoting and paraphrasing; peer review |
|
Quizzes; rubrics |
88% |
|
Use grammatical, stylistic,
and mechanical formats and conventions appropriate for a variety of audiences |
Discussions, presentations;
textbook exercises; MLA examples; papers |
|
Quizzes; tests; paper
responses |
90% |
|
Produce well-reasoned,
logical argumentative essays with evidence appropriate to the rhetorical
situation |
Several papers during the
semester; annotated bibliography projects |
|
Rubrics; conferences and
responses |
88% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Literature Dissertation: Spring 05
Familiarity with Literary Figures, Genres, Periods, and
Movements Related to Dissertation Topic 5.0
Appropriate Scholarly Vocabulary that Demonstrates
Understanding of Critical and Technical Concepts 5.0
Understanding of Language as a Means of Discourse 5.0
Knowledge of Major Theoretical Approaches and
Application of this Knowledge 5.0
Effectively Communicates the Argument and
Results of Research 5.0
Reflects Advanced Graduate-level Research 5.0
Oral Defense Demonstrates Mastery of Topics
and Sound Defense of Project 5.0
Creative Writing Dissertation:
Familiarity with Representative Examples of Writing
By Major Figures in Poetry/Fiction 5.0
Understanding of the Literary History of English and American
Poetry/Fiction 5.0
Understanding of Language as a Means of Discourse 5.0
Understanding of Form and Theory of Poetry/Fiction 5.0
Ability to Draw Upon Knowledge of Composition and
Aesthetics in English Studies to Create Literary Works 5.0
Ability to Produce Writing that is Grammatically and
Syntactically Correct 5.0
Use of a Variety of Literary Techniques 5.0
Rhetoric and Composition Dissertation:
Familiarity with History of Rhetoric 5.0
Draws on a Range of Rhetorical Theorists from a
Variety of Periods 5.0
Mastery of Academic Writing 5.0
Effectively Communicates Argument and
Results of Research 5.0
Reflects Graduate-level Research and Appropriate
Documentation 5.0
Oral Defense Demonstrates Mastery of Topics Researched and
Sound Defense of the Project 4.0