Annual Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Report s1

Annual Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Report For 1999-2000

English Department

1. Assessment Procedures

The most prominent evaluation procedure the department relies on is the student evaluations, both statistical and verbal, done for every course every quarter. It is generally felt in the department that the student observations of whether they learned and whether they were intellectually stimulated in the particular section/course are reason ably accurate. It is also generally accepted that the study of the English language and of artistic texts produced in English, like advanced study of any of the arts, is a highly personalized discipline, particularly when exercised by college-age native speakers and that, consequently, the study of English literature and the cultures out of which it arises is not essentially quantifiable or amenable to statistical or precise analysis. The most productive and respected in the field, even as students, are unique not duplicative. This is true even though most professionals in the discipline of English can agree, in broad terms and in the vast majority of cases, on the relative proficiency and acuity of a student’s understanding of an English literary text and his or her written or oral response to that text.

The department also uses exit interviews and questionnaires of its graduating seniors concerning their experience in the major. In June of 1999, approximately a half dozen graduating seniors were interviewed. In June of 2000, 20 graduating seniors were interviewed.

Institutional Research does systematic studies of alumni concerning the satisfaction with and utility of their undergraduate major in the light of their present vocation.

However, no valid and reliable measures of college level learning outcomes for the field of English literature have been nationally recognized. The Graduate record Exam is a respected national test, but it is intended only for those who are contemplating a career in college teaching, a very small percentage of our undergraduate majors. Consequently, the department continues to have trouble arriving at a thoroughly trusted set of tools to be applied year after year to make comparisons that would show increasing or decreasing learning outcomes over time. Other forms of instructional evaluation used in the department include observation by teachers of student discussion quality in their courses, the reading of journals and papers at least weekly in most courses, faculty and peer critiquing in composition and creative writing classes, visitations by senior faculty to classes of all probationary faculty, and faculty observation in winter quarter of all new teaching assistants instructing composition classes.

2. Achievement of departmental objectives for students

The mission statement of the department specifies that “students 1) learn the history, forms, theory, and practice associated with the production and reading of written texts, especially those presenting artistic and imaginative evocations of human experience; and 2) develop an expertise for responding to such texts. These aims inevitably incorporate description of and debate about the cultural, social, economic, philosophical and political contexts implicit in the texts, thereby exposing students to a variety of such contexts, both historical and contemporary. They also mandate some knowledge about the nature and history of language, and the continual development and exercise among students of their ability to formulate and articulate their own engagement with life and literature.”

The primary indicator of achievement of these objectives is found in course grades, the evaluation by instructors of how well their students learned the materials and perspectives of the course and how well they articulated their underestanding. However, course grades are affected as much by the changing capacities and expectations of students as by the comparative level of performance over the years (aka grade inflation).

Examination of the responses of 20 graduating seniors indicate that 35% consider expanding their experience with a variety of texts and 45% consider improvement in their writing the most valuable effect of the major. These are the most consistent answers to questions about student satisfaction and learning achievements and they match comfortably with the department’s instructional objectives.

On the exit questionnaire, in response to the question “Are you glad you majored in English?”seven evaluated their experience with a 1 (the highest rating), six with a 2, four with a 3 and only one with a 4. No one indicated a 5. We may conclude then that seniors viewed their academic experience to be meaningful and useful. The figures from Institutional Research for the most recent classes (1992 and 1993) evaluated for their opinions of their education as an undergraduate from the perspective of five years out show that fully 92% believe their major was helpful (as opposed to not helpful) in the acquisition of job-related skills even though 55% of our graduates list themselves as having jobs in industry or business, with 29% in education. 96% say they were satisfied, with 45% extremely or very satisfied, concerning the relevance of their major to their career goals. 54% were very or extremely satisfied with their interaction with faculty and 88% were very or extremely satisfied with the quality of instruction they received; only 2% were not at all satisfied, the same number who said they probably would not enroll in college at all.

The graduate program seems best measured by the number of graduates who either continue to pursue their education at higher levels or in additional programs or who are now employed in teaching. During 1999- 2000, seven of our recent (1998 or later) doctoral graduates either were employed in college teaching for the first time or moved to better college teaching jobs. One of our 1999-2000 doctoral graduates continues to teach here, for personal reasons, as a Group II faculty member. And one of our ABD students was employed full-time teaching at another Ohio state university. Of our twelve June 2000 masters graduates , two are currently in large state university doctoral programs, one is pursuing a graduate degree in another field, and seven are employed in non-tenure-track college teaching positions.

3. Changes to procedures or curriculum based on assessment

The Undergraduate Committee continues to analyze the undergraduate curriculum. For the past several years, the department undergraduate major curriculum has required a theory course and a research tools course. Among 20 seniors 40% and 30% respectively thought the research writing and theory courses the best of their English classes.

Most students among the 20 surveyed wanted the theory and research writing courses earlier and some felt a less constrictive sequence of courses would be better, a direction the Undergraduate Committee has been formulating. Small classes remain a desired advantage of the English program and we have no plans to change that.

The Undergraduate Committee is in the middle stages of formulating a proposal outlining a substantially new curriculum for the English major. This proposal—which will be presented to the department faculty during 2001—has taken into account the needs expressed by undergraduates in exit interviews. It also integrates the faculty’s ideas to more strongly engage the enthusiasm of our majors as well as to bring our curriculum into line with current thinking in undergraduate English programs and with national trends in English curriculum reform.

Advising continues to be an area students decry. Fully 32% of the alumni who graduated in 1992 or 1993 now feel their advising was not at all satisfactory. The large influx of new faculty in recent years accentuates the problem. We had a special two-hour session on advising for new faculty this year and we have now devoted a special bulletin board to advising. Both abandoning individual advising and asking only a limited number of well-informed faculty to do all the advising have been considered but neither has yet been found to be advisable or practicable.

4. Changes in department’s assessment goals

The department is contemplating reducing the number of required “period” course of literary history so as to open up possibilities for more varied and focused courses that would still expose students to a variety of eras and styles of literature without requiring the same courses for all majors. This curricular renovation would retain the best of the old curriculum while, it is hoped, add to the engagement of students with even more of their major courses than now, since they would be able to invest more of their own choice in the total number of courses to be taken for the major.

Arthur P. Woolley Interim Chair December 11, 2000