Name of Program

Division of Academic Affairs

Annual Assessment Report For Undergraduate & Graduate Degree Programs AY 2008-2009

Annual

Name of Program: Literature and Writing Studies (LTWR) College: COAS

Prepared by: Martha Stoddard Holmes, Grad Coordinator Date: May 21, 2009 Department Chair/Program Coordinator Email Address: [email protected] Extension: 8064 PART A (Required by May 21, 2009 – last day of Spring semester)

1) Please describe the student learning outcomes you focused on for assessment this year, the assessment activities you used to measure student learning in these areas, and the results of your assessments. Please also comment on the significance of your results.

This year’s assessment focused on the M.A. thesis. Students in LTWR write a wide range of theses, including critical analyses of literary texts, works of creative writing, and hybrid theses. We believed that developing an assessment instrument might tell us more about our students’ level of achievement, by the culminating experience, of particular skills our program values and nurtures (SLOs). The resulting information might guide programmatic decisions such as curriculum, advising, and hiring priorities, as well as potential recruitment and admissions activities.

Our initial plan was to do a comprehensive research on thesis assessment instrument by a team of four faculty, then to draft and test out thesis assessment instruments on a sample. This plan was revised upon the suggestion from PAC in early 2009 that only two faculty could be supported to do limited work for this year's assessment in the last three months of the year. Because of the delays receiving approval for it, we scaled back our goals for this year to focus only on researching and drafting instruments for assessing the two main types of M.A. theses in our programs, critical and creative.

After our revised plan was approved in March 2009, two faculty (Martha Stoddard Holmes and Mark Wallace) researched potential models of thesis rubrics that might be adapted for LTWR M.A. theses. We also read and discussed a relevant articlei and used some of its ideas to refine our goals for a thesis rubric. Specifically, after reviewing 4-5 thesis or dissertation rubrics and deciding that none was a good enough fit with our SLOs to use as a starting place, we were guided by Stevens and Levi’s four-stage process for developing rubricsii to draft performance outcomes for the creative writing and critical theses, break the outcomes into component parts, organize each into a draft rubric, and establish what levels of competency (i.e. A, B, C) would offer useful information about Page 1 of 4 5/24/08 Annual Report on Assessment of Degree Programs, AY 2008-09

our students’ learning and development. While we acknowledged that only two levels – acceptable or unacceptable – were sufficient for the purpose of thesis committee decisions about readiness for the defense or passing the defense, this would not provide us any information about our students beyond what we already have. A rubric that extended beyond a C level, however (barely acceptable for a graduate-level thesis, and a de facto “failure” in most graduate programs), was of no practical use. Accordingly, we drafted two three-level rubrics assessing six characteristics of, respectively, critical and creative M.A. theses.

2) How did your program utilize any resources provided for assessment this year? Please attach a budget with specifics.

We requested a stipend of $300 apiece for two faculty to research assessment instruments and draft rubrics. This covered two faculty-days of research, discussion, and writing labor.

3) As a result of your assessment findings, what changes at either the course- or program-level are being made and/or proposed in order to improve student learning? Please articulate how your assessment findings suggest the need for any proposed changes.

Because we did not have time to share our draft rubrics with the rest of the department or test them out on current theses, no changes are indicated this time.

PART B Planning for Assessment in 2009-2010 (Required by May 21, 2009)

4) Please identify one or two student learning outcomes that your program will focus on for assessment next year.

1) SLOs for the thesis

2) Overall SLOs for the LTWR M.A. (review, refine, establish measurable outcomes)

5) What specific assessment activities will you conduct next year in order to measure program student learning in these areas

Academic Programs/DB Page 2 of 4 Annual Report on Assessment of Degree Programs, AY 2008-09

1) We will continue to focus on thesis SLOs as follows:

a. share draft rubrics with LTWR graduate faculty and revise based on input b. test rubrics on a sample of M.A. theses c. refine rubrics accordingly and reflect on adjustments to curriculum and advising suggested by performance on outcomes identified by rubrics

2) In addition, we will continue to revise and refine our Graduate SLOs based on our external reviewer’s feedback and a draft matrix of learning outcomes throughout the required and elective curriculum. Seeing what learning outcomes already occur in the curriculum will inform our development of more specific and measurable SLOs.

6) What new or additional resources/support might your program need in order to conduct these assessment activities next year? (Please provide specific information regarding your needs and related costs)

1) We request a stipend of $350 apiece for four faculty (two creative writing, two literature) to review a sample of recent M.A. theses using the draft rubrics, including norming, assessment, discussion, refinement of rubrics, reporting/recommendations to department, for a total of $1,400 to support a year-long |process. We will adjust our plan to complete selected parts of the plan based on the budget approved. .

Academic Programs/DB Page 3 of 4 i Lovitts, Barbara. “How to Grade a Dissertation.” Academe Online (Nov-Dec 2005): http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/ND/Feat/lovi.htm, accessed 20 Jan. 2009. ii Stevens, Dannelle D. and Antonia Levi. Introduction to Rubrics: An Assessment Tool. Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2006.