ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR THE UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR IN ENGLISH
Graduate
Program
Department of English
March 2004
I.
LEARNING
OUTCOMES
Learning Outcomes for the Undergraduate English program were written in the spring of 2003 and included in the Undergraduate Studies booklet for 2003-2004. The outcomes were revised in the spring of 2004 so that the learning outcomes for the four different concentrations in the English program.
II.
ASSESSMENT
METHODS
The procedure for assessing achievement of our
learning outcomes, beyond classroom grading, currently utilizes three methods.
These are as follows:
Portfolio: All majors are
required to assemble a portfolio composed of material from the work in the
major. These portfolios are submitted during a student’s final semester. While
the requirements for the concentration differ for each of the four
concentrations, they are alike in asking students to submit a representative
sampling of writings from English classes taken at the sophomore, junior, and
senior level and to write a reflective essay analyzing the content and the
progress of their work. Each portfolio is read by two faculty members who are
affiliated with the student’s particular concentration. If the portfolio is
deemed to be inadequate, the student is asked to revise the work. A student is
not able to graduate from the program without completing a successful portfolio.
(See portfolio requirements and
portfolio forms)
Faculty members reviewing the portfolios will complete
two assessment sheets, one intended to go to the student and one intended for
programmatic review. The student assessment sheet will rate the student’s work,
using a 5-point scale and assessing how well the work satisfied the expectations
of the portfolio. The program assessment sheet will also use a 5-point scale and
will rate how effectively the student work demonstrated the Learning Outcomes of
the student’s particular concentration. (See
student
assessment sheets and program assessment sheets for the four concentrations.)
Senior
Seminar/ Capstone Course: A different
senior seminar is offered for each of the four concentrations, and all English
majors are expected to take the course associated with their concentration
during their senior year. (See attached syllabi for the Senior Seminars in the
four concentrations.) The syllabi for the senior seminars differ according to
concentration, but they have in common the following course goals:
·
Students
in the capstone course will gain an understanding of the profession of their
particular concentration (the types of writing used in the profession, the
expectations of the profession, the organizations and journals associated with
the concentration).
·
Students
in the capstone course will conduct advanced research and complete of a major
project that demonstrates the ability to read carefully, think critically,
organize coherently, and write effectively. (In the literature concentration,
this project will consist of a potentially publishable paper on a literary
topic; in the creative writing concentration it will consist of a substantial
piece or collection of pieces of original work; in the secondary English
concentration, it will consist of a unit plan and a scholarly essay on a topic
concerning English education; and the rhetoric and composition concentration,
it will consists of a potentially publishable paper on a topic concerning
rhetoric or composition.)
·
Students
in the capstone will share the results of their research with their peers and
will undergo a substantial revision process on the writing for their course
project.
Students in the senior seminar will be assessed on the
work done for the course. The faculty member will also complete a Senior
Seminar Departmental Assessment Form for each student in the class. This
program evaluation sheet will use 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. (See attached Senior Seminar
Program Assessment Sheet for each of the four concentrations.)
First Year
Writing: The Lower Division Committee
has developed learning outcomes for English 1101, 1102, and 1103 and
distributed them via the web and orientation to Graduate Teaching Assistants to
include on their syllabi. (See Learning Outcomes for First Year
Writing.) Seminars on the multiple pedagogies, activities and assignments that
teach these outcomes are offered to GTAs each year.
The Lower Division Committee has also developed a
rubric to use in evaluating papers and encourages GTAs to either use this
rubric or to come up with another thoughtful, consistent way to evaluate papers
and communicate these standards to students. (See attached rubric.) GTAs are also given the College of Arts and
Sciences writing standards to guide them in their assessment work. All GTAs are
observed at least once a year by a member of lower division studies. In
addition, all GTAs submit a teaching portfolio every year; it includes syllabi
and a learning outcomes rubric that explains some of the learning outcomes,
provides percentages of students meeting the outcomes, and offers examples of
students work. (See instructions for the Teaching Portfolio.) Finally, every GTA meets with a Lower Division Committee member to
discuss his/her teaching. While these meetings are non-evaluative, they
may provide a possible method for collecting assessment data in the future that
are not demonstrable in the portfolios.
III.
ANALYSIS
OF DATA AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
Each year, starting with the fall of 2004, data
accumulated from the Portfolio Assessment process (scores from both the student
assessment sheets and the program assessment sheet) is reviewed by faculty
members responsible for undergraduate instruction in the particular
concentrations. These faculty members use the scores to determine if the
learning outcomes are being successfully satisfied by our majors. If the data
do not indicated an acceptable level of attainment of a learning outcome, the
materials are examined in depth to attempt to assess whether this result is a
function of our methods of assessment, or a legitimate deficiency. Results are reported
to the full faculty who are responsible for developing modifications to the
program, where the data clearly indicate failure in meeting the learning outcomes.
A similar process will occur with the Senior Seminar
Assessment Process, though it will be initiated in the spring of 2005. A group
of faculty members responsible for undergraduate instruction in the particular
concentrations will determine if the learning outcomes for the Senior Seminar
are being adequately fulfilled. Results will be reported to the full faculty
who will be responsible for developing modifications to the program, where the
data clearly indicate failure in meeting the learning outcomes for the course.
Finally, the results of the assessment tools used in
the First Year Writing courses (the rubrics for evaluating student papers, the
teaching observations, and the teaching portfolios) are evaluated every spring
to make revisions to the curriculum for 1101, 1102, and 1103.
IV.
ASSESSMENT PLAN
The first action of the assessment plan is to present
the revised learning outcomes and assessment sheets to the full faculty at a
meeting in the spring of 2004. The main purpose of this presentation is to
inform faculty members about the various parts of the assessment cycle
(Learning Outcomes, Assessment Tools, and a process for Programmatic Review),
to ask for any revisions to the language of the documents, and to invite an
endorsement of the plan.
The next step is to systematize and normalize the
assessment process for the Portfolio and the Senior Seminar in all four
concentrations. The English department has been requiring student portfolios since
the spring of 2002. The portfolios have always been used to provide feedback to
the individual student, but only the Rhetoric and Composition concentration has
explicitly used portfolio results to initiate programmatic change. It is
anticipated that faculty will need time to adjust to the process and that
revisions in the learning outcomes and in the course descriptions may be
necessitated along the way.
A third part of the assessment plan is to develop
learning outcomes, assessment tools, and a process for programmatic review for the
four concentrations in the graduate program. Faculty members associated with
graduate instruction in the four concentrations will be asked to create drafts
of these documents by the fall of 2004 so that they can be presented for
discussion at a fall faculty meeting.
A fourth step in the assessment plan is to develop of
the gateway courses (English 2140 and English 2150) by designing learning
outcomes, assessment tools, and a process for programmatic review. As a result
of decisions made during the departmental review, these courses are slated for
reconsideration over the next two years, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. Whatever
decisions are made about the gateway courses should take assessment issues into
consideration.
A final component of the assessment plan is to
schedule a review of the current learning outcomes in the spring of 2007 to
comply with the expectation that learning outcomes are assessed at least once
every three years.