• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

1 Program Review Self Study English Department 2004-05

2

Table of Contents

I. Departmental/Unit Mission and Goals 5 A. General description of department that provides an overview 5 and context for the rest of the self-study B. List programmatic goals 6 C. Centrality/Essentiality – present an assessment of the centrality 7 and/or essentiality of your unit to the university’s mission or to the extent to which the unit is essential to the expected operations of a comprehensive university. 1. Describe how each of the relevant six strategic goals for 7 the university are being promoted within the department D. Describe departmental governance system (provide 11 organizational chart for department, if appropriate) II. Description of programs 12 A. Describe currency of curricula in discipline 16 B. Describe process for reviewing curriculum and making 18 alterations C. Effectiveness of instruction 18 1. Innovative instructional methods 18 2. Describe the information technologies faculty regularly 19 and actively utilize in the classroom 2 D. Required measures of quantity for academic programs 19 for the last five years. 1. FTES 19 2. Number of graduates from each department based 20 degree program E. Required measures of efficiency for each department for the last 22 five years 1. Average class size 22 F. Planning and assessment of programs 22 1. Describe and provide results of how students are assessed as 22 they enter the program 2. Describe and provide results of how students are assessed as 23 they exit the major/program 3. Describe faculty involvement in assessment 25 4. Describe faculty involvement in program planning 25 5. Describe and provide evidence of how programs are 26 assessed in department and how these assessments results are used to change or adapt program/major curriculum, faculty, or resources III. Faculty 27 A. Faculty profile 27 B. Faculty professional records for the past five years 28 C. Departmental teaching effectiveness – report a five-year history 28 of the “teaching effectiveness” department means as reported on 3

SEOIs, indexed to the university mean on a quarter-by-quarter basis D. Scholarship per T/TT FTEF – Report scholarly activities per 25 tenured and tenure-track FTEF E. Service per T/TT FTEF – 30 1. Report the number of department faculty memberships on 30 university, college, department, Center for Teaching and Learning, State-level committees per tenured and tenure- track FTEF in the preceding calendar year. 2. Report the number of department faculty leadership 30 positions in professional organizations per tenured-and- tenure-track FTEF for the preceding calendar year. F. Faculty Awards for Distinction 30 IV. Students – For five years 31 A. Numbers of majors/program 31 B. Numbers served in general education, education, supporting 31 courses C. Student accomplishments (include SOURCE, McNair Scholars, 32 career placement information, etc.) D. Advising services for students 32 E. Other student services 32

V. Library and technological resources 33 A. Describe program’s general and specific requirements for 33 library resources in order to meet its educational and research objectives. Indicate ways in which the present library resources satisfy and do not satisfy these needs B. Describe information literacy proficiencies expected of students 34 at the end of major coursework. 1. What instruction in information literacy is provided? 34 2. How are these proficiencies assessed? 34

VI. Reflections 34 A. What has gone well in the department? What accomplishments 34 have occurred in the past five years? B. What challenges exist? What has the department done to meet 35 these challenges?

VII. Future directions 37 A. Describe ways the department or unit might increase quality, 37 quantity, and/or efficiency. Provide evidence that supports the promise for outstanding performance. B. Based upon the self-study what future directions should the 38 department pursue? What resources would the department need to pursue these future directions? 4

VII. Appendices (See Notebook Tabs) A. Writing Program Goals and Outcomes B. Major/Minor Handbook C. Graduate Program Goals D. Department Policies and Procedures Manual E. Proposed Professional Writing Specialization Curriculum F. Washington State English/Language Arts Endorsement Competencies G. M.A. English: TESOL Curriculum H. Literary Backgrounds Courses: ENG 105 and ENG 247 Outcomes I. Senior Colloquium Outcomes Assessments: Form and Results J. Template Checklist for Composition Syllabi K. Lists of B.A. and M.A. Graduates for 1999-2004 L. Institutional Survey data on Graduate Student Experiences and Satisfaction (2000) M. Developmental English Data

VIII. Exhibits: (Available in English Department Conference Room) A. Manastash Literary Magazine Sample Copies B. Washington English Journal Sample Copies C. Sample Senior Portfolios D. Sample Graduate Theses, Projects, Superior Papers (Literature, TESOL) E. Faculty Vitae 5

Program Review Self Study English Department Central Washington University 1999-2004

I. Department Mission and Goals

A. General description of department that provides an overview and context for the rest of the self-study

In accordance with the university's motto Docendo Discimus, through teaching we learn, the department is committed to improving our students' and our own writing, reading, reasoning, and communication skills in an inclusive, enriching environment of teaching and learning. As teachers and students working together, we develop reasoning skills and literary awareness within the larger goal of fostering human, social, and cultural understanding. We promote interpretive abilities which enable us, by developing and applying our knowledge of the powers and possibilities of the language, to recognize and share insights regarding the characteristics and significance of our individual and cultural expressions. We participate in collaborative research with our students and provide opportunities for community-based civic engagement projects and internships to promote their successful and productive interactions with the worlds of work. As teachers of future teachers, we combine our immediate aims of developing critical literacy, language competence and literary awareness with current training and practice in research-supported pedagogies. We also help prepare general majors for careers requiring oral and written communication skills, such as law, publishing, library and information science, and journalism.

Our ability to function and thrive in civil, diverse communities requires that we communicate effectively across personal, social, political, religious, national, and cultural boundaries. That communication is made possible through language, identification, and empathy. By developing shared vocabularies of words, images, and symbols, we can learn to identify and empathize with each other through the imaginative experience of literature. Because our most important decisions cannot be made on the basis of fact alone, we must learn to reason with each other in shared discourse. To insure that we continue to learn, we must make certain that creativity is free to find new forms of expression and vision. We must acknowledge the role of art in sustaining a sense of human purpose and possibility. And we must recognize that language—the language of creative vision and imaginative reasoning--is the only alternative to violence and war.

We are committed, as well, to disciplinary, community, and professional enhancement. Our scholarly and artistic projects contribute to the body of ideas and expressions which constitute our disciplinary knowledge base. As 6

part of a regional education center, we provide classes and sponsor literary, artistic, and cultural events that feature our faculty and guest lecturers and artists. Our graduate programs in literature and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages provide professional development for students seeking careers as writers, scholars, and educators. We also support, strongly and directly, the development of excellence in K-12 education by serving as advisors, consultants, and directors for projects designed to enhance the quality and effectiveness of public school education.

Within a friendly, supportive atmosphere, we strive for excellence in our teaching, our curriculum, our professional and artistic productivity, and our work both inside and outside the university. We feel that our subject matter--language, literature, and pedagogy--is absolutely central to the culture at large; conveying knowledge about this subject, therefore, is at once deeply important and exhilarating, connecting us at once to the long tradition of study in the humanities and to the rapidly changing world of the new millennium.

B. List programmatic goals

The twelve goals below articulate our shared commitments across all programs. These help us prioritize the governance and planning work of the department as a whole. Each program, in addition, has specific curricular goals that delimit and inform course outcomes. These are reflected in Appendices A, B, and C.

1. Our composition curriculum will provide high quality, successful learning opportunities in rhetorical strategies and critical literacy. 2. Our course contributions to the Literary Backgrounds requirement in the CWU general education program will introduce reading and interpretive strategies and encourage imaginative exploration honoring the commonality and diversity of human experience across time and culture. 3. Our major programs will provide learning opportunities in literary, linguistic, visual, and creative awareness requiring students to engage responsibly with and compose a wide range of texts while developing their repertoire of skills in interpreting, analyzing, writing, and evaluating texts and non-print media. 4. Our creative writing program will guide and support student writers as they practice composing in different genres and as they produce the annual literary magazine, Manastash. (See Exhibit A. for sample print copies.) 5. Our teaching programs will provide training and practice for both pre- service and inservice teachers in research-supported pedagogies. We will insure that all English Teaching majors meet the expectations for the preparation and endorsement of English/Language Arts teachers established by NCTE/NCATE and the competencies identified in the Washington State Administrative Codes. 6. Our graduate programs will provide opportunities for students to extend 7

and enrich their exploration of the disciplines of literature and language, specifically to strengthen their preparation for doctoral study, for careers in teaching writing and literature, and for teaching English to speakers of other languages. 7. We will establish and maintain recruitment, advising and achievement recognition activities that will increase the quality, diversity and number of majors and the probability of their continuation and success in our programs. 8. We are committed to diversity as an enriching fact of life. We promote it in our faculty and student body and in the programs of study which incorporate a broad range of perspectives. Our goal is to prepare students to live and work creatively and compassionately in a global society, and for us to do the same. 9. We will work to involve ourselves through research, performance, presentations, workshops, participation and leadership in professional organizations, and collaboration with colleagues and with our students to contribute to disciplinary knowledge and to enrich the learning environment. 10. We will seek opportunities to extend our expertise and resources to off-campus organizations and communities. 11. We will increase our literary and global knowledge as we participate in the international community, seeking, creating, and sponsoring opportunities for academic interaction with teachers and learners both here and abroad. 12. We will work together--fully and functionally--as a department in which trust and openness are expected and maintained, through which can evolve the kinds of superior work of which we are capable, and out of which will emerge our best, our most generous and participatory selves.

C. Centrality/Essentiality: Describe how each of the relevant six strategic goals for the university is being promoted within the department.

The English department participates in all aspects of university achievement and fosters excellence through its reflective, research-based, student-centered and inclusive practice. We provide for an outstanding academic and student life on the Ellensburg campus (Strategic Goal 1) by monitoring, instructing, and mentoring over 1800 students per academic quarter, accounting for over 25% of the FTE generated by the College of Arts and Humanities. Our mentoring and support of student excellence extends from admission to graduation in that we provide individualized developmental coursework based on appropriate diagnostic information; we participate in state and regional initiatives related to writing expectations at the intermediate and graduate level; and we organize and support extracurricular events on campus that extend aesthetic and cultural understanding across the university and larger community including sponsorship of performances, readings by visiting writers, the Classic Film Series, and forums on topics related to the way we imagine and conduct ourselves as members of a world community such as the challenging and critically reflective “Symposium on Terror and Torture in the American Mind” and the President’s Symposium on Globalism (2003). We 8 serve as residence hall mentors, advise student groups, and organize events such as the Black Student Union Poetry Slam. Members of our department have been instrumental in creating and offering innovative learning opportunities that cross disciplinary boundaries and continental borders. Finally, we provide high quality, informed, current programs of study in literature, language, pedagogy and professional writing, as well as rational, accessible advising programs for graduate students, majors and composition students through our program coordinators. (For descriptions of coordinator responsibilities, see Appendix D., Department Policies and Procedures Manual). Our students consistently report their appreciation for our class sizes, our accessibility, and our commitment to their success.

We provide for an outstanding academic and student life at the university centers (Strategic Goal 2) in that we work with center program faculty to assess and support student writing and reading competence. English faculty at the Lynnwood Center and the SeaTac Center provide discipline-specific writing instruction as well as individualized tutoring. We have designed and taught courses via distance education and on-line formats, and we are contributing to the development of the new B.A.S. degree through the design of elective upper division courses to be made available at the Centers. We are also in the process of developing online access to tutoring support which will be available to students at all centers.

Through our active participation in initiatives related to education, we have enhanced the visibility of and knowledge about the university and its programs, developing a diversified funding base to support our academic and student programs (Strategic Goal 3). One of our most innovative ways of encouraging prospective student interest is the frequent participation by faculty in programs designed to celebrate writing skill and accomplishment, including the NCTE Program to Recognize Excellence in Student Literary Magazines, the PTSA Student Writing Contests, Washington Poets Association Student and Adult Writing Contests, NCTE Achievement Awards in Writing, Washington PRIDE Foundation Student Scholarships, Washington PRIDE Foundation Grants, Allied Arts Regional Poetry Contest, and the NCTE Promising Young Writers Program. We are also collaborating with other departments in the College of Arts and Humanities and with our college fundraiser to nurture visibility and support of our excellent arts programs by conceptualizing a Center of Achievement in the Arts, which should become a base for grant and foundation support. Our faculty have recently been recipients of grants from the National Writing Project, the Fulbright-Hays foundation, the East-West Center’s AsiaEd Program, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

The English Department actively works to build mutually beneficial partnerships with industry, professional groups, institutions, and the communities surrounding our campus locations (Strategic Goal 4) both in 9 the context of our disciplinary expertise and beyond. Department faculty serve on key organizations and boards related to environmental issues, arts advocacy, civic and community enterprises, and education, including the Larson Gallery Guild Board of Directors, the Educational Service District #105 Board of Directors, the Hospital Board, and APOYO, which provides services to the Hispanic community ranging from operating a food bank to providing court-related translation and client advocacy.

As key partners in CWU’s major GEAR UP grant, the English department has organized opportunities for our teachers in training to develop and teach workshops for students in schools with large populations of Hispanic, low income, migrant, and ESL students. The partnership not only serves the larger purposes of the grant but also orients our students to the diverse populations they will encounter in their classes. Our students are regularly lauded by principals and program administrators for their teaching. In prior years, our methods students set up a GED instructional program for the HEP program on campus, preparing students for their reading and writing tests. Those HEP students who persisted in the program passed the GED exams and went on to college. The highest GED scores in reading and writing in the state were attained by the HEP students working with our majors.

Currently, our technical writing courses serve the public interest in that they permit students opportunities to be involved with agencies and institutions, writing proposals, brochures, and other public documents. We hope to build on these opportunities as our new Writing Specialization gains momentum. Practicum experiences and industry liaisons will be created to serve the needs of the students. We also work with area institutions on literary projects, sponsoring visiting writers and participating in literary events such as the recent regional celebration of the work of Raymond Carver.

We have helped to strengthen the university’s position as a leader in the field of education (Strategic Goal 5) in that our faculty participate in national education associations and scholarly and public dialogues related to the teaching of literacy, literature, linguistics, and pedagogy. A third of our tenure-line faculty are members of the Center for Teaching and Learning, the coordinating body through which we align our research-based practice with state requirements, NCATE accreditation, state evaluation and assessment efforts, and the education reform process. Our colleagues present at national and regional conferences and are asked frequently to consult with state and regional agencies related to educational reform and best practices.) Our faculty also take prospective and practicing teachers to regional and national meetings including the Washington Middle School Association, National Council of Teachers of English, Washington Council of Teachers of English, and the National Writing Project meetings. 10

We celebrate in particular the work of the Central Washington Writing Project, an affiliate of the National Writing Project, which has influenced the success of teachers and districts throughout the state and has rightly earned a national reputation for excellence in the areas of multiculturalism and educational uses of technology. We have also been the site of publication for and have lent faculty expertise to the editorship of the Washington English Journal (see Exhibit B.), a regional NCTE affiliate journal featuring articles related to the teaching of English/Language Arts. CWWP takes teachers to the NCTE and NWP Annual meetings, thus expanding their staff development and voices in national conversations about teaching and learning. CWWP teachers have also have attended technology institutes at Marshall University and presented innovative curricula at the Washington State Educational Reserach Association, the Northwest Cultural Museum, and at OSPI meetings.

Our department was the co-recipient of a grant with philosophy and history to take K-12 teachers to Cambodia and Vietnam for curricular research. This Fulbright Hays grant will mentor and support middle and high school teachers as they return to their school districts to infuse Southeast Asian studies into their social studies and language arts curricula. In addition, the department was a participating partner in the East-West Center's AsiaEd program, which took teachers to China and Southeast Asia to revise courses and support the Asian Studies curriculum infusion projects.

We work directly and specifically to create and sustain productive, civil, and pleasant workplaces (Strategic Goal 6) and will present evidence of our effort through multiple assessment measures including the productivity data included in this report and the student program evaluations conducted through ENG 489: Senior Colloquium (I.). We maintain a current and regular presence as members and leaders of key university committees including the Faculty Senate committees on Curriculum, Assessment, Technology, Faculty Development, Academic Affairs, General Education, and Budget, as well as campus initiatives like the President’s Diversity Council. The department environment itself has undergone, to the extent allowable, a welcome and long overdue redecorating effort. Gone is the orange vinyl that, as one student commented in program evaluations, made “the department feel like a drivers’ license bureau.” Many such adjustments, facilitated by the creative and enterprising office staff, have made our workplace more welcoming and pleasant for all.

Finally, though it is not reperesented specifically in the Strategic Goals, CWU is clearly committed to diversity and internationalism, and the English department has contributed consistently and productively to those ends. Three of our faculty have served as members of the President’s Diversity Council, three serve as mentors and advisors to ethnic student groups, and four are directly involved in interdisciplinary studies program development involving cross-cultural studies. 11

In the past five years, our international exchange faculty visitors have included Antal Bokay and Agnes Suryani of Hungary, Tongle Zhang and Shule Zhong of China, Tetsushi Takemori and Hidemi Masamura of Japan, and Barriera Winters of Brazil. In that same time period, our faculty members have taught in Hungary, Greece, Mexico, Chile, China, Japan, Russia, Great Britain, Ireland, Georgia, Uzbekistan, and India. In all cases, writing has emerged—new work, work in translation, collaborative projects—which have enriched the classes and extra-curricular opportunities our students and public audiences have enjoyed. Three of our faculty members have participated in East-West Center Institutes on Infusing Chinese Studies into the Undergraduate Curriculum and Infusing Southeast Asia Culture into the Undergraduate Curriculum.

Beyond formal exchanges and institutes, our faculty are regularly called upon to contribute their expertise in international settings. One has earned honorary degrees from two Chinese Universities, three have visited and collaborated on literary projects with Japanese professors, and five have given scholarly papers, lectures or presentations at international universities. This commitment to global participation and cultural competence is evident in our program goals as well as in the contributions cited within other areas of centrality and essentiality.

D. Describe departmental governance system. (See Appendix D., Department Policy and Procedures Manual for full presentation of department governance.)

The department is governed by the Chair in collaboration with elected program coordinators and an elected personnel committee. Personnel committee members act on behalf of the department faculty on all personnel procedures related to annual performance reviews, reappointment, promotion, tenure, and merit. They also serve as or assign mentors for new faculty members. Program coordinators oversee the general education, undergraduate, teacher education, and graduate curricula. They consult with the chair on matters of schedule planning and program assessment. Issues emerge from the program committees and the personnel committee for placement on department meeting agendas by the department chair. We have found that this structure promotes effectiveness, accountability, and maximum involvement in decision-making. 12

Department Chair

Department Secretary Personnel Committee

General Education English Education Coordinator Graduate Coordinator Undergraduate Coordinator Coordinator

General Education Committee English Education Committee Graduate Committee Undergraduate Committee

II. Description of Programs

Undergraduate Programs

(See Appendix B. Major/Minor Handbook for full description of undergraduate program outcomes, rationale, and expectations.)

During the period of review, the department offered three undergraduate majors, one in English, one in English Teaching, and one inLanguage Arts Teaching. Recently, the state competencies for endorsement were revised requiring the integration of the English and Language Arts Teaching majors into one program which is currently under review by the university curriculum committee. Requirements for all programs are outcomes-based. Program outcomes are organized into seven areas of competence or “strands,” and multiple courses satisfy the outcomes for each strand. The Major/Minor Handbook is distributed in an introductory course, English 303: Principles of English Studies, and students self-monitor their progress toward completion of the outcomes in that handbook. The culminating experience for all three major programs has been the Senior Colloquium, ENG 489, in which students participate in a peer revision process to compile a portfolio of writings which illustrate their competence in the program strands. The revised program for English/Language Arts teaching will require a separate portfolio colloquium in which students will complete an e-portfolio using LiveText software.

The English Major is designed to promote intellectual and critical engagement, an aptitude for delight through aesthetic awareness, a facility with various forms of written expression, and an appreciation of the diversity and universality of human experience. Those ends are achieved by developing a knowledge of literary traditions and forms, by practicing ways of reading that engage us with literary experiences through various perspectives, and by practicing forms of expression that both reflect literary understanding and that build an appreciation of the art and craft of writing. 13

Critical thinking skills are thus nurtured in the rich environment of the literary imagination as students identify and analyze interpretive problems, articulate and explore the basis of their responses, position themselves in critical dialogues on questions at issue, identify assumptions and evidence, consider historical, cultural, and social contexts, and draw implications and conclusions in an atmosphere of shared discourse. In pursuit of literary and aesthetic competence, students will practice these tools and techniques of literary study as they read closely the works of great writers, acquire knowledge of literary traditions, read and compose using the conventions of various genres, explore community and cultural connections and disconnections, and analyze linguistic elements and functions. Through these lenses, readers and writers develop sensitivity to the possibilities of language, an awareness of the ways meaning is shared imaginatively, emotionally and intellectually; and an aptitude for continuing their explorations of meaning beyond their college experience and throughout their lives.

Note: The department has approved a proposed new writing specialization which will focus on the analysis and practice of various genres of writing and allow students to concentrate their study in creative writing or professional writing..

See Appendix E. Proposed Writing Specialization for detailed presentation.

Teacher Education Contributions

The English/Language Arts Teaching Major shares the strands and outcomes of the English Major and adds to them the specific pedagogical competencies defined by the department, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, and the Washington State Administrative Codes (See Appendix F.).

Certification-Only students have already earned bachelor’s degrees and enroll in our programs to complete pedagogy and other classes that address required teaching competencies in English/Language Arts. These students must demonstrate all of the competencies required of students in our English/Language Arts major program.

Graduate Programs

The department offers two options for the Master of Arts degree: Literature and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.

The Literature program offers a rigorous, individualized program of advanced study of literatures in English. Students choose from an array of courses and 14 select a thesis/project or exam option. Although allowed flexibility in their course of study, students are required to include graduate classes in British, American, and World literature, as well as literary and critical theory. Those choosing the thesis/project option complete a research thesis, a pedagogical project, or a creative writing project and are required to pass an oral defense over the subject matter of the thesis/project and over a reading list compiled with a three-member faculty committee. Students choosing the exam option take eight credits of additional coursework and are required to pass a written examination administered by a three-member faculty committee over an individualized reading list of the material covered in the student's course work. Students enter our literature program for a variety of reasons: to further their understanding of literature, to strengthen their teaching competence, or to prepare for doctoral work.

The TESOL program has recently undergone a significant, research-based revision to address issues of scholarly currency, to focus and integrate instruction, and to strengthen the required practicum experiences. The program fosters the awareness, understanding, and skills necessary for effective Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. It prepares educators to work with adult language learners both in the United States and abroad through study in the areas of language, pedagogy and culture. Graduates of this program are qualified to work in American colleges and universities, private ESL institutes, and programs and schools abroad that provide instruction in English. (See Appendix G.)

General Education Contributions

Unlike many comprehensive regional universities, our entire department faculty is involved in planning and delivering the general education curriculum. We see this as one of the strengths CWU has to offer prospective students in that it demonstrates our commitment to serve all university students. In this context, we want to acknowledge the contributions to the general education program of our highly capable adjunct instructors, who bring professionalism, intellect and vitality to their courses.

All of us see the general education program as the context in which critical thinking skills are developed. Our composition curriculum and our writing requirements in the literary backgrounds courses include outcomes that reflect current research on critical thinking and rhetorical competence. Students practice identifying and analyzing questions at issue, exploring their own assumptions and biases, discovering alternate perspectives, critiquing the assumptions and biases of other writers, identifying and evaluating evidence, considering context(s), and drawing justifiable conclusions. (See Appendix A: Writing Program Goals and Outcomes.) 15

General Education Writing Requirements

The English department is responsible for two core courses in writing required of all graduates, ENG 101 and ENG 102, as well as a developmental curriculum that offers a clear and appropriate transition for students who lack sufficient language experience to succeed in the college level courses. These courses are informed by a specific and research-based set of outcomes that incorporate critical literacy, rhetorical strategies, and writing process competence. (See Appendix A: Writing Program Outcomes)

A first set of outcomes address knowledge, skills and processes that relate to writing and collaboration in general. A second set identifies the competencies assigned to ENG 100T, the transition course. The third and fourth sets specify the skills and abilities which will be monitored and assessed in the college composition courses.

Two years ago, the English department assumed curricular (not budget) authority for the developmental writing and critical literacy curriculum. Previously, the program consisted of several courses taught through the Academic Skills Center. The curriculum was revised and updated both in terms of content and pedagogy, dramatically improving both efficiency and effectiveness, in that students gain faster access to and experience greater success in ENG 101. See Appendix M. for relevant data.

Literary Backgrounds Courses

The English department also offers two courses that meet the Literary Backgrounds requirement in the General Education Program, ENG 105, Introduction to the Literary Imagination, and ENG 247, Multicultural Literature. We see these courses as very important to the university experience and to the students’ sense of their preparedness as informed citizens of and participants in a global society. In no other required course do students bring together their intellectual, imaginative, aesthetic, and emotional competence. Rarely will they have the opportunity to observe as directly their preconceived cultural, aesthetic, political and social perspectives in light of alternatives. As they embrace, and/or resist literary experiences and perspectives, they come to understand themselves and their world in complex, intellectually and imaginatively rich ways. Both courses provide opportunities for students to read and respond orally and in writing to works that vary in time, place, culture, and genre.

Service Course Contributions: Technical Writing

Our technical writing course focuses on the ability to address the specific requirements of rhetorical situations in science, business, technology, and public writing and communication. Students learn that within disciplines and 16

professions, rhetorical conventions evolve for reasons, and that to meet the requirements of writing expectations within specific situations is to address the needs of an identifiable audience. Thus they learn not just how to match forms, but how to create and manage communication across rhetorical boundaries, how to present information—both textual and visual—in effective formats, and how to work collaboratively to solve problems and reach agreements. Students work with real-world audiences, often applying their learning to address the communications needs of on and off-campus organizations in exercises that promote public service and civic engagement.

The English department offers between ten and fourteen sections of technical writing per year to students in Family and Consumer Sciences, Business, Computer Science, Industrial Engineering Technology, Education, and the sciences for a total of 250 to 350 students served annually.

A. Currency of Curricula in Discipline

Department course listings, book orders and syllabi may be the best evidence of our department’s continuous development as a community of scholars. In part through our informal interactions and certainly through the annual Performance Review process, we are made aware of our colleagues’ innovations and discoveries and are thus inspired to seek fuller knowledge and broader understanding of texts, theories, strategies, and teaching practices. Recent focuses include Post-Colonial studies of both texts and films, memoirs of World War II by authors of several cultures, postmodern fiction, linguistic approaches to literature, and literary investigations into the relationship of reason and emotion.

English department faculty maintain currency by participating in a variety of disciplinary conversations through the publication and presentation of scholarship and research; creative productivity and public performance of creative works; participation in institutes, grant-funded projects, workshops and inservice opportunities; membership and leadership in professional associations; service as consultants to and judges of scholarly and creative events and contests; and subscribing to, editing, or reviewing professional publications. These forms of professional involvement enrich and inform our students’ classroom success and our own regular discussions of curricular effectiveness and innovation.

It is the responsibility of English department program coordinators and their committees to monitor and manage program quality, currency, and success. All of our programs go through regular updating based on our attentiveness to and participation in discussions of relevant research on the multifocal discipline of English studies. Examples follow. 17

1. A department retreat on the scope and sequence of our literature curriculum last year was precipitated by assessment information, recent reading, and an ongoing faculty discussion on the changing nature and expanding commitments of English studies. The retreat, the focus of which was a proposed revision in the structure, numbering system, and rationale for the undergraduate majors, elicited broad and specific discussion both during the retreat and in a series of whole group and sub-group e-mail dialogues during the winter and spring. The original proposal is undergoing modification and will be reconsidered; however, the documented discussions themselves presented a model of scholarly dialogue that measures our offerings and intentions against some of the most recent and progressive research in our field. 2. The curricula of ENG 101, ENG 102 and 105 were reviewed and revised in the past two years. The composition committee adopted a new text for ENG 101 that strengthened the critical literacy and rhetorical basis for the outcomes. In the case of 102, the course changes responded both to research on cognition and information literacy and to the assessments of teachers and students about the course’s challenges. The outcomes for ENG 105 were made more specific to strengthen its connection to the critical literacy and global awareness goals of the general education program. 3. Department members regularly attend and contribute to sessions on pedagogy, literature, and language at national conferences including the Modern Language Association, the Conference on Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, and the Conference on College Composition and Communication. New ideas are contributed, through the department’s program committee system, to ongoing monitoring and revision of our program curricula. 4. The local site of the National Writing Project, the Central Washington Writing Project, has earned national attention for its teacher-research model, its attentiveness to technological innovation and diversity, and its extensive influence on writing competence in a region beset by the most challenging of factors facing public education, including a high incidence of poverty, large migrant populations, and language barriers. The project is based on the concept that best practice is 18

always research-based, and its successes have influenced the evolution of our own undergraduate major in English/Language Arts Teaching. 5. We meet as a faculty on a quarterly basis to discuss scholarly materials on an issue of general interest, including, for example, how we teach writing and poetry, or how we can best incorporate technology into teaching for effectiveness and efficiency.

B. Describe Process for Reviewing Curriculum and Making Changes

The process for reviewing the curriculum is ongoing and responsive to our practice of program assessment and peer review. Program committees, as described in section I.D. of this document, are responsible for reviewing assessment data and discussing proposals for improving programs. Changes are not undertaken lightly or in response to situations that could be regarded as transitional or temporary. In response to problems observed or opportunities introduced, the committees fully discuss the implications of change prior to forwarding a recommendation or proposal in the form of a motion to the department chair for inclusion on a department meeting agenda.

Necessary background information is provided with department agendas a week prior to meeting dates for review and informal discussion. Proposals for change are discussed at one or more meetings, and a vote is taken at the subsequent meeting. Program coordinators and the department chair collaborate to complete the processes and procedures required for implementing the change.

C. Effectiveness of instruction

1. Innovative instructional methods

Faculty in the English department regularly use the following instructional methods:

 Inquiry-based and guided discussion  Lecture/presentation  Collaborative learning, research, and presentation  Peer-review  Field and practicum experiences  Film and video presentations  Workshops utilizing campus computer labs  Online presentation  Interactive television 19

2. Describe the information technologies faculty regularly and actively utilize in the classroom

Information technologies used infrequently include interactive television and online course delivery. Increasing numbers of faculty are taking advantage of the campus Blackboard course management system which allows faculty to post course material (syllabus, assignments, grading rubrics, PowerPoint lectures, sample student work, announcements, links to websites), offer online reading quizzes, provide threaded discussion boards and email communications, conduct online peer-editing groups, have students submit papers in digital format, and post evaluated papers with comments and grades.

In recent years, the availability of technology has increased, but not sufficiently to respond to the level of interest. The media- equipped “smart classrooms” in our building are in high demand, and access is augmented by a portable “smart-cart” equipped with computer and digital projector. We also have access to two classrooms equipped with big-screen televisions. Our department- managed media room is shared by all faculty and is in constant use. Limitations to our use of technology include not only insufficiency of equipment but also the recent application of room- assignment software which, as a result of our mediated class sizes, frequently locates our classes outside of our own building where even our department-owned equipment cannot be accessed.

D. Required measures of quantity for academic programs for the last five years. 1. FTES

Academic Years 1998-1999 through 2003-2004 FTES 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Lower Division 223.2 242.2 246.2 318.5 359.8 373.4 Upper Division 148.7 136.5 96.0 98.4 99.6 117.6 Graduate 17.2 16.1 17.7 18.1 19.2 18.7 Overall Average 389.2 394.8 359.8 435.1 478.6 509.7 Total English Credits Department Attempted 17,254 17,524 15,928 19,307 21,250 22,655 20

1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Lower Division 1,044.6 1,081.4 1,121.8 1,256.2 1,309.6 1,327.2 Upper Division 621.6 572.6 529.8 540.8 557.8 631.2 Graduate 47.0 44.9 45.6 49.6 64.1 60.0 Overall Average 1,713.2 1,698.8 1,697.2 1,846.6 1,931.5 2,018.4 College of Total Arts and Credits Humanities Attempted 76,389 75,775 75,689 82,351 85,956 89,927

1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Lower Division 3,239.6 3,352.6 3,392.4 3,645.1 3,858.6 4,021.7 Upper Division 3,866.6 3,731.8 3,571.7 3,689.5 3,906.2 4,254.9 Graduate 360.8 366.4 323.9 336.9 341.1 372.8 Overall Average 7,467.0 7,450.8 7,288.0 7,671.5 8,105.9 8,649.4 Central Total Washington Credits University Attempted 330,601 329,789 323,105 340,165 359,648 383,631

2. Degrees Conferred, Academic Years 1998-1999 through 2003-2004

Degree Majors 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- Total Level 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Bachelor's English 14 22 18 11 11 20 96 English 11 12 13 7 12 9 64 Teaching Language Arts 3 3 2 2 2 12 Total English 28 37 31 20 25 31 172 Bachelor's Degrees 21

Total CAH 275 294 272 291 265 308 1705 Bachelor's Degrees English as 10.2% 12.6% 11.4% 6.9% 9.4% 10.1% 10.1% Percent of CAH Bachelor's Degrees Total CWU 1,982 2,077 1,866 1,963 1,859 2,167 11914 Bachelor's Degrees English as 1.4% 1.8% 1.7% 1.0% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% Percent of CWU Bachelor's Degrees

Degree Major 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- Total Level 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Master's English 2 6 5 8 3 6 30 English 3 5 1 1 5 2 17 TESL/TEFL English 1 1 Teaching Total English 5 12 6 9 8 8 48 Master's Degrees

Total CAH 21 34 25 35 35 31 181 Master's Degrees English as 23.8% 35.3% 24.0% 25.7% 22.9% 25.8% 26.5% Percent of CAH Master's Degrees Total CWU 178 219 162 226 211 183 1179 Master's Degrees English as % 2.8% 5.5% 3.7% 4.0% 3.8% 4.4% 4.1% of CWU Master's Degrees 22

E.. Required measures of efficiency for each department for the last five years

1. Average class size

1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Lower Division 24.1 23.7 24.1 24.9 24.9 25.2 Upper Division 18.5 16.5 15.4 18.5 19.5 20.9 English Overall Department Average 21.7 20.7 21.2 23.1 23.6 24.1

1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Lower Division 26.6 26.5 26.4 29.0 29.1 30.0 Upper College of Division 15.7 15.2 14.5 15.9 16.5 17.8 Arts & Overall Humanities Average 20.9 21.0 20.8 23.1 23.6 24.6

1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Lower Division 31.5 32.3 31.9 34.8 34.6 35.6 Upper Central Division 20.3 19.6 19.1 21.3 22.3 22.9 Washington Overall University Average 24.1 24.1 23.6 26.2 27.0 27.6

F. Planning and assessment of programs

1. Describe and provide results of how students are assessed as they enter the program

Undergraduate Programs: Student entrance into the undergraduate programs is permitted with successful completion of the general education English and literary backgrounds requirements. Two courses, ENG 302, Poetry and Poetics, and ENG 303, Principles of 23

English Studies, serve as prerequisites and gateway courses to all other upper division courses. ENG 303 focuses on strategies for reading and writing about literature as an introduction to the evolving and inclusive field of English Studies. ENG 302 was more recently (1995) established as a prerequisite in response to assessment information from students who felt that the instruction in 302 would be helpful for many other classes in the curriculum to strengthen their confidence and capabilities in relation to close reading and understanding of poetic elements. In both courses, assessments of student skill levels are conducted and, when necessary, recommendations for remediation are offered. Students whose writing and interpretive skills are not adequate do not progress in the major beyond these courses. Together, the two courses provide critical contexts for disciplinary knowledge and specific strategies for and methods of reading and analysis.

Graduate Programs: Student entrance into the MA English: Literature graduate program is based on application portfolios including a Statement of Purpose, a 5-10 page writing sample, transcripts of undergraduate and graduate coursework, cumulative Grade Point Averages, recommendations from past instructors, and scores on the Graduate Record Examination. For entrance into the MA English: TESOL program, non-native English speakers must take the TOEFL and achieve a minimum score of 580 paper-based (237 computer-based) or have a baccalaureate degree from an accredited U.S. university. Native English speakers must take the GRE.

Composition Program: Student entrance into the composition program is based on standardized test scores. The SAT, ACT and COMPASS scores used for admission to ENG 101 have been correlated with probability of achieving a “C” or better grade as an indicator of competence in the course outcomes. Students whose scores do not permit entrance to ENG 101 are admitted when they complete a course of individualized study in prerequisite skills through ENG 100T (transitional English). Students whose scores are marginal have one opportunity to re-take the COMPASS test on campus.

Our faculty have also been involved in local and state efforts to design and implement assessments of composition skills at the intermediate point in and conclusion of their college careers. Over the past five years, sample student papers have been read and assessed in multiple disciplines according to rubrics developed by teams of readers from writing programs, discipline areas, and professional fields.

2. Describe and provide results of how students are assessed as they exit the major/program 24

Undergraduate Programs: In the ENG 303, Principles of English Studies course, students are provided with copies of the Major Minor Handbook (Appendix B.) The handbook includes program descriptions and rationales, processes and procedures, outcomes, rubrics, and writing samples which exemplify the exit standards.

Upon completion of the course of study, students enroll in ENG 489: Senior Colloquium, in which they work with peers to assemble and revise a set of representative written works into a portfolio that demonstrates their achievement. Portfolios are assessed using rubrics for prose and poetry published in the Major/Minor Handbook. All portfolios which meet the standards are published and bound. Students receive copies and second copies are retained by the department.

Program exit assessment consists of portfolio quality, in combination with student self-assessments of the degree to which the program outcomes were addressed in their coursework. (See Appendix I: Senior Colloquium Outcomes Assessment Results.)

Note: Beginning in the fall of 2005, students in the English/Language Arts teaching endorsement program will begin submitting online portfolios of their work using LiveText software. We hope to institute a process of involving practitioners from the field in the assessment of the e-portfolio content. In addition to the local assessment of their e- portfolios, students will be required to pass both the pedagogy and the content area Praxis II exams to receive a Washington State teaching endorsement. They will also undergo a performance review during their student teaching experience which will be measured using a newly developed tool for observing and evaluating the success of pre- service teachers in terms of student learning.

Graduate Programs: To complete the M.A. English: Literature, graduate students are assessed through their completion of thesis/project or exam requirements. Those choosing the thesis/project option are required to complete a research thesis, a pedagogical project, or a creative writing project and pass an oral defense over the subject matter of the thesis/project and over a reading list compiled with the student's committee. The oral defense is conducted by three members of the English faculty and observed by an outside member chosen by the Office of Graduate Studies. Students choosing the non- thesis option take eight credits of additional coursework and are required to pass a written examination administered by three members of the English faculty over an individualized reading list of the material covered in the student's course work. 25

.

To complete the M.A. English: TESOL, students also select thesis or non-thesis options. Students writing theses are assessed in an oral defense by three department faculty members and an outside observer appointed by the Office of Graduate Studies. Non-thesis students complete additional practicum experiences and approved coursework.

3. Describe faculty involvement in assessment

Faculty involvement in major assessment has changed over time. When the senior colloquium and portfolio assessment program was initiated, faculty met annually to conduct a holistic grading session of randomly-selected student papers from 300-level courses to “recalibrate” our grading in relation to our approved rubrics. Faculty also volunteered to mentor individual students in the colloquium and to collaborate on portfolio assessment. These elements of assessment proved too complicated and time-intensive to sustain, though the faculty found both activities valuable. Now, the responsibility for portfolio assessment is shared by colloquium students whose familiarity with the rubrics equips them to review each other’s work for adherence to the standards with direct guidance from the Undergraduate Program Coordinator. Faculty continue to reference the handbook rubrics in their assessments of class papers and to mediate readings and revisions of portfolio papers when their assistance is requested by the coordinator or an individual student.

Faculty members of the General Education Committee are involved in composition program assessment. This group conducts observations of and subsequent in-class interview assessments of all composition sections taught by teaching assistants to enrich and augment the results of Student Evaluations of Instruction (SEOI’s). They also review the syllabi of all faculty teaching composition for adherence to the department curriculum and to professional expectations for course planning and organization as referenced in our Policies and Procedures Manual. (See Appendix J: Template Checklist for Composition Syllabi.)

4 Describe faculty involvement in program planning

As is evident in the department Policies and Procedures Manual and in section II.B. of this document, all faculty are involved in program planning through their participation on the department’s program committees. Review of program assessment data and recommendations for change emerge from the committees through 26

their coordinators to the department chair who, in collaboration with the coordinators, shapes department meeting agendas.

5. Describe and provide evidence of how programs are assessed in the department and how these assessment results are used to change or adapt program/major curriculum, faculty, or resources

Department program assessment measures include our annual Faculty Performance Review, in which professional portfolios are reviewed for evidence of excellence in teaching, scholarship and service; the undergraduate program outcome survey data which is reviewed for adherence to and success in achieving program commitments; the Office of Graduate Studies, Research and Continuing Education Institutional Survey data on graduate student experiences and satisfaction (2000) (See Appendix L.); and Alumni Office Surveys of student satisfaction. (Data on the most recent Alumni Office survey should soon be available.)

In addition, the department chair reviews SEOI data for all classes. In cases where the collected data indicates a pattern of concern with the practices of a particular faculty member, either the chair or the assigned mentor meets with the faculty member in question to contextualize the problem and when helpful, to develop an improvement plan. In cases where the collected data indicates a pattern of concern for a program as a whole, the department chair meets with the appropriate coordinator to discuss a process for identifying remedies.

The department Personnel Committee evaluates Performance Review portfolios for all faculty at least every three years. In years during which funds for salary adjustment or merit are available, the Performance Review and the salary adjustment processes are combined. The Performance Review process is also considered as a form of post-tenure review. In the case that tenured faculty members choose not to participate in the merit procedure, they are required to submit Performance Review portfolios at least every three years. As is specified in the Policy and Procedures Manual (Appendix D.), faculty undergoing review for reappointment, tenure or promotion submit as a component of their portfolios a narrative statement describing their own professional growth, as well as areas of concern. They are encouraged to reflect on particular successes, emerging interests, and perceived problems and to develop a plan of action for building on strengths and remediating concerns. We feel that this is a proactive approach to assessing teaching which stresses that success requires ongoing development and adjustment to new circumstances and situations. 27

Department program committees have access to and in some cases conduct the program assessment measures referenced by the department. Recommendations for change come from those committees, and minutes for committee meetings track changes. Recent examples of changes based on program exit data include the following:

 Students reported in the Program Outcomes Surveys and in the Colloquium Interview Evaluations that they lacked confidence in their grammar knowledge; as a result, ENG 320: English Grammar, and ENG 304: English Linguistics were changed from options to core program requirements for both undergraduate major programs.  Students reported in the Senior Colloquium Interviews a desire for an English major option that shifts the reading/writing balance from literature to composing; the result of our discussions in response to student needs is the proposed Writing Specialization (Appendix E).  In a 2004 survey, graduate students reported dissatisfaction with the “backloading” of program requirements which delayed degree completion, as well as a disconnect between course coverage and comprehensive exam reading lists; the graduate committee recommended changes to program requirements that were recently approved by the department.

III. Faculty

A. Faculty profile

Professors:

Laila Abdalla, English Medieval and Renaissance Literature Liahna Armstrong, American Literature, Popular Culture, Film Patsy Callaghan, Rhetoric, World Literature, English Education Toni Culjak, American, World and Multicultural Literature Bobby Cummings, Rhetoric, Teacher Education, Writing on Computers George Drake, British Literature, English Novel Loretta Gray, TESL/TEFL, Linguistics Charles Xingzhong Li, Linguistics, TESOL, Linguistic Approaches to Literature Terry Martin, English Education, Women's Literature Steven Olson, American Literature, Film Paulus Pimomo, British Literature, Post Colonial Studies Joseph Powell, Creative Writing, Modern Poetry 28

Sura Rath, Douglas Honors College Director, Literary and Critical Theory, Literature of the South Gerald J. Stacy, English Renaissance Literature, Humanities Christine A. Sutphin, Victorian Literature, British Novel, Women's Literature

Assistant Professors: Christopher Schedler: American Literature, Ethnic Literatures Katharine Whitcomb: Creative Writing Karen Gookin, General Education, Cornerstone Writing Program Judy Kleck, General Education, Creative Non-fiction Virginia Mack, General Education, Assistant Director, Douglas Honors College

Active Emeritus (Phased Retirement) Professors: Robert M. Benton, American Literature, Technical Writing Philip B. Garrison, Non-fiction Prose, World Literature, Mythology Mark Halperin, Poetry, American Literature, Russian Literature John L. Vifian, Eighteenth-Century Literature, English Novel

B. Faculty professional records for the past five years

English faculty vitae are on file in the department office and available in the Program Review File online. (See Exhibit E.)

C. Departmental teaching effectiveness – report a five-year history of the “teaching effectiveness” department means as reported on SEOIs, indexed to the university mean on a quarter-by-quarter basis

English Form A, Quest. 29 Fall Winter Spring 1999-00 English 4.2 4.3 4.3 Arts & Humanities 4.3 4.3 4.3 CWU 4.3 4.3 4.3 2000-01 English 4.2 4.2 4.3 Arts & Humanities 4.3 4.2 4.3 CWU 4.3 4.3 4.3 2001-02 English 4.2 4.3 4.2 Arts & Humanities 4.3 4.3 4.3 CWU 4.3 4.3 4.3 2002-03 English 4.2 4.3 4.2 Arts & Humanities 4.4 4.4 4.3 CWU 4.3 4.3 4.3 29

2003-04 English 4.3 4.3 4.4 Arts & Humanities 4.3 4.3 4.4 CWU 4.4 4.3 4.4

D. Scholarship per T/TT FTEF – Report scholarly activities per tenured and tenure-track FTEF

The English department’s productivity in relation to scholarship and creative work is remarkable in its consistency and diversity, as is represented in the following table. Total department scholarly and creative accomplishments average over 100 per year.

99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 Peer reviewed articles and book chapters 7 6 6 3 6 published Articles under review 6 5 5 4 7 Book published as author or co-author 3 2 0 1 3 Book in progress, under contract 3 3 2 4 3 Article or creative work anthologized 1 1 1 1 2 Editing, associate editing or publishing a 2 1 2 3 2 national or regional journal Serving on the editorial board of a national 3 3 4 6 5 or regional journal Creative works published in national or 7 4 6 4 9 international venue Creative works published in regional or 2 6 2 4 1 local venue Attendance at professional conferences and 7 7 14 12 9 meetings (without presenting) Presentation at professional conferences 15 13 16 25 17 Manuscripts reviewed for journal or edited 14 8 8 2 3 volume Textbooks reviewed 2 3 3 15 9 Grant proposals reviewed for organization 1 1 1 6 1 or agency Courses or workshops attended for scholarly 17 13 14 22 12 development Intramural grants awarded 3 2 1 0 2 Extramural grants awarded 1 2 2 1 5 Book Reviews, published or in press 2 0 1 2 1 Encyclopedia Entries, published or in press 1 0 0 0 0 Prizes/Awards won for scholarly or creative 1 2 1 3 4 work Annual Total Contributions 108 92 85 118 101 30

E. Service per T/TT FTEF –

1. Report the number of department faculty memberships on university, college, department, Center for Teaching and Learning, State-level committees per tenured and tenure-track FTEF in the preceding calendar year. 2. Report the number of department faculty leadership positions in professional organizations per tenured-and-tenure-track FTEF for the preceding calendar year.

The English department faculty service record documents their prominent role in institutional governance, disciplinary participation and leadership, and state and institutional accountability efforts particularly in relation to writing and teacher education. The English department’s university and community service contributions average over 80 per year.

99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 University Committee Memberships 20 15 18 23 22 University Committee Chair Service 1 2 1 2 4 Department Committee Memberships 14 17 15 16 19 Department Committee Chair Service 5 5 5 5 5 CAH Committee Memberships 5 3 4 6 2 Center for Teaching and Learning 2 4 5 5 5 Committees State Level Committees or Task Forces 1 4 3 5 6 State Level Leadership Roles 1 3 4 4 5 National Committees or Task Forces 3 3 4 2 1 National Committee Leadership Roles 0 0 1 1 1 University Student Organization 0 0 1 1 1 Sponsorships Discipline-related Community Service 16 16 18 19 17 Professional Organization Memberships for 25 03-04 ONLY Faculty Leadership positions in 04 professional organizations for 03-04 ONLY Totals 68 72 80 89 88

F. Faculty Awards for Distinction

2000: Prof. Patsy Callaghan, Distinguished Professor for Service Prof. Terry Martin, Distinguished Professor for Teaching Prof. Patsy Callaghan, Phi Kappa Phi Distinguished Scholar 2002: Prof. Patsy Callaghan, CAH Distinguished Chair 2003: Prof. Terry Martin, Washington State CASE Professor of the Year 31

2004: Prof. Joseph Powell, Phi Kappa Phi Distinguished Scholar

IV. Students – For five years

For lists of student graduates in all programs see Appendix K.

A. Numbers of majors graduated per program

1999-2000 2000-01 2002-02 2002-03 2003-04 English 20 18 11 12 20 English 12 13 7 12 9 Teaching Language Arts 3 0 2 1 2 MA Literature 6 5 8 3 6 MA 6 1 1 5 2 TESL/TEFL

B. Numbers served in general education and certification-only supporting courses

Note: The data below records the number of students served in general education courses, in technical writing courses, and in our “Certification-Only” program which leads to a state teaching endorsement in English/Language Arts. The “Certification-Only” students are typically required to take our methods courses and from one to seven additional courses as necessary to meet the state-mandated competencies.

The following table indicates students served expressed in FTE in general education courses for the past five years. These figures show a 100% increase in students served in ENG 101 and 102 and a 65% increase in enrollments in ENG 105. Numbers for ENG 310, Technical Writing, are fairly stable despite the fact that sections offered at the CWU Centers, funded by the Provost’s office since 2003, are not included in the data. If enrollments for those sections are included, the numbers indicate increasing totals, an indication of developing need across all CWU Centers.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 ENG 101 58.5 64.3 66.6 94.7 114.5 127.0 ENG 102 63.9 69.3 70.1 110.2 119.8 127.2 ENG 105 59.6 73.7 64.7 66.6 64.2 65.1 ENG 247 11.7 6.3 8.1 9.2 10.8 12.7 ENG 310 27.1 29.1 25.3 20.5 18.6 24.5 ENG Cert 146.8 127.8 94.8 100.7 107.0 116.6 Only Total 367.7 370.4 329.6 401.9 434.9 473.2

The following table indicates numbers of “Certification-Only” students completing endorsement requirements. 32

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Total English 7 9 10 9 6 41 Lang. 5 1 1 7 Arts Total 12 10 10 9 7 48

C. Student accomplishments (include SOURCE, McNair Scholars, collaborative research, etc.)

The following table indicates faculty service to students through mentoring research and creative activity.

Student Research and Creativity Mentoring

99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 SOURCE presentations Mentored 0 0 0 0 1 McNair Scholars Mentored 1 0 0 0 1 Co-authored publications with students 1 1 0 1 2 Graduate Committee Service 15 5 7 10 9 Graduate Chair Service 5 3 3 6 9 Other undergraduate projects mentored 0 0 0 2 1 Student Publications Mentored 1 1 1 2 2 DHC student theses mentored 0 1 0 0 3 DHC lectures given 5 7 7 10 12 Other: 3 1 1 1 4

D. Advising services for students

Students are advised by program coordinators. This system allows us to keep accurate records of student progress and to feed into the scheduling process information about student needs that will help us decrease time to graduation. Students are also informally advised, however, by all faculty.

E. Other student services

Enrichment services to students: a. English Graduate Student Association: Organization of English graduate students which organizes activities and study sessions and which discusses and reports on issues of concern and requests to the Graduate Programs Coordinator. b. Creativity Awards: Sponsored by the Dean of the College of Arts and Humanities, one of these annual awards focuses on creative writing. 33

The awards program is organized and conducted by English department faculty. c. Scholars and Scribes Luncheon/Conference: A spring gathering at which students share work from their graduate theses or projects or from undergraduate portfolios. (1998-02) d. Travel funds to sponsor student presentation of research and creative work or for attending conferences. e. Field trips for performances. f. Department-sponsored readings by visiting or local faculty, student and professional writers.

V. Library and technological resources

A. Describe program’s general and specific requirements for library resources in order to meet its educational and research objectives. Indicate ways in which the present library resources satisfy and do not satisfy these needs.

The library is essential to the work of literature and language disciplines. It is to the humanities what the lab is to the sciences. Library resources must be kept current and materials must be accessible for our work to be of significance to the larger world.

1. Professors and their students access the CWU collection on CATTRAX from PCs for literature and language research. 2. Dr. Steve Olson is the department library representative. Dr. Olson collects and forwards faculty endorsements of publications to the library acquisitions department. He also works with Kirsten Erickson, Periodicals, to evaluate appropriate journals for new subscriptions, renewals of current acquisitions, or cancellation. 3. Individual professors cooperate with several professional librarians to prepare tours for students and offer individual help with research projects. 4. Professors use a variety of databases and world library catalogs as well as Inter-library Loan services with Inter-library Loan Director Becky Smith’s assistance. 5. Many upper division English classes require a research paper of students. Modern Language Association research and documentation policies and procedures are introduced in ENG 303: Principles of English Studies. In the general education curriculum, research and documentation practices are taught through ENG 102. 6. Instructors assign Reserve Reading at the library for courses. 7. Media services lends DVDs and videos appropriate to classroom instruction.

Over the last decade, budget cuts have diminished acquisition of new journals, books, reference materials, and microfilmed collections. The 34

English Department’s faculty commends the efforts of the library staff to as they continue to facilitate research under these circumstances-- particularly their responsiveness to specific requests, their acquisition of computerized databases that provide scholarly journal articles and primary sources, and the acquisition of supplementary materials by Friends of the Library. We endorse all efforts to support the library, in that it is essential to successful research by faculty and students in an institution that increasingly emphasizes research.

B. Information Literacy Proficiencies expected of students at the end of major coursework.

1. The English Department requires an introductory course of majors, English 303, and a capstone course, English 489, both requiring research skills for successful completion of the major. Proficiencies are assessed through the evaluation of source-supported analytical essays, not only for content but also for the sophistication of library research, analysis of sources, and documentation of materials. 2. The Graduate Programs both include introductory courses that focus on research strategies, materials, and documentation. Proficiencies are assessed via writing assigned within the course of study until, finally, their demonstration in the thesis. 3. The composition program retains a large responsibility for introducing the responsibilities and strategies which constitute information literacy. In ENG 101, students are introduced to the concept of research as participation in an academic conversation, the conventions for which include seeking out valid evidence, considering alternate views, and giving credit for ideas through appropriate documentation. In ENG 102, the study of information literacy includes strategies for researching questions at issue in order to establish and support particular positions. Introductions to library and internet resources are a part of course content. Criteria for final papers include attention to the quality and breadth of research and the correct use of documentation conventions.

VI. Reflections

A. What has gone well in the department? What accomplishments have occurred in the past five years?

1. Continued to hire promising, accomplished and productive faculty members who understand the full definition of the professoriate inclusive of teaching, scholarship and service. 2. Increased the number and quality of our graduate students sufficient to enable us to uncouple several of our graduate offerings from co-listings with undergraduate courses. This 35

will enable us to continue to clarify the separate missions and functions of our graduate programs, a recommendation cited in our recent NASC interim reports. 3. Increased and clarified our offerings at centers and improved communication with and assessment of CWU Center instructors. 4. Increased currency, effectiveness, and efficiency of developmental curriculum. (See Appendix M.) 5. Maintained and improved a high quality, diverse curriculum, inclusive of texts generally considered within and outside of the traditional "canons" of literature. 6. Created and supported extra-curricular events and activities through which students and faculty can interact as a part of their disciplinary orientation and scholarly involvement. 7. Participated positively and productively in Washington State education reform efforts. 8. Participated positively and productively in Statewide writing assessment efforts. 9. Encouraged faculty to pursue enrichment opportunities including professional leaves and exchanges, grants, and faculty development seminars, and travel to professional conferences and performances, within the department's capacity to accommodate the costs and scheduling changes such opportunities require. 10. Sponsored literary, artistic, and cultural events that featured our faculty and guest lecturers and artists.

B. What challenges exist? What has the department done to meet these challenges? 1. Keeping up with education reform and accreditation requirements related to teacher education; we have reviewed and revised our assessments for Washington State English/Language Arts Competencies. 2. Integrating visual rhetoric into teacher preparation program; we have designed and approved a new course which focuses on reading and viewing strategies in the context of critical theory. 3. Recruiting for and implementing the TESOL program; we are planning and implementing our advertising efforts. 4. Moving forward on the proposed Writing Specialization; new curriculum proposals have been submitted and are under consideration. 5. Providing for the needs of students with learning disabilities in literacy; the Director of DSS has been contacted and is willing to provide a discipline-specific orientation to effective teaching and learning strategies. 36

6. Addressing limitations on technology; we are working with the Director of Instructional Technology to oversee the continuing process of “smart classroom” upgrades. 7. Addressing negative pedagogical implications of room scheduling procedures; we are working with the Dean and Associate Dean of CAH to better understand and plan for the limitations and possibilities of facilities management, and to find ways to factor pedagogy and technology into the software’s room management capabilities. 8. Seeking more stable and predictable support for general education course instruction; we have discussed and will continue to work on better models for accurate annual predictions of general education course needs with the Associate Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies. 9. Working to promote a collegial environment in which diverse opinion and open dialogue are encouraged in the pursuit of program excellence; we have encouraged more specific discussion and debate of department issues through e-mail to encourage deeper and more reflective decision making than is possible through regularly scheduled department meetings. 10. Devising a plan to accommodate leaves and reassignments which insures that such opportunities are circulated among all eligible and interested faculty in an equitable way; a public record of leaves and leave eligibility will be posted in the department’s files on the server. 11. Bringing closure to our curriculum conversation regarding the undergraduate literature curriculum and its implications for the graduate curriculum; revised proposals will be considered in a timely fashion by the department committee system and the department as a whole. The best, most progressive approach to the field of English Studies is a current focus of ongoing national and international disciplinary conversations. Often, global awareness and inclusion as values are wrongly and destructively set against traditional curricula and pragmatic responses to teacher preparation assessment plans. We have to find a way to creatively and effectively balance new knowledge with current demands to best prepare our graduates.

VII. Future Directions

A. Describe ways the department or unit might increase quality, quantity, and/or efficiency. Provide evidence that supports the promise for outstanding performance. 37

1. In order to add coherence to our English/Language Arts program, we should: a. Collate our pedagogy outcomes with the Washington State English/Language Arts Competencies. b. Change the portfolio system for English/Language Arts students to LiveText e-portfolios. c. Systematize quarterly group advising meetings to insure integration with Professional Sequence course requirements. 2. In order to collect better data for improving our graduate and undergraduate programs, we need to a. Identify and systematize graduate program exit assessment measures. b. Track student accomplishments beyond graduation. 3. In order to maintain the consistency, currency and appropriateness of our standards, we need to review and, if necessary, revise the writing expectations across undergraduate, graduate, and general education course offerings. 4. To improve information dissemination and communication in our graduate programs, a graduate handbook and/or website parallel to the undergraduate resources should be created and maintained. 5. In response to undergraduate major evaluations, we should examine our assignments to encourage more variety in writing experiences and more opportunities for teaching majors to align assignments with lesson or unit planning. 6. To enrich our students’ extracurricular learning experiences, we could expand our recognition and rewards activities, seek to increase participation in SOURCE, and join a disciplinary Honor Society. 7. Understanding that one of the most effective factors in student learning is faculty availability, we should continue to create opportunities for all members of the department— faculty, students, and staff--to interact on disciplinary issues in informal situations.

B. Based upon the self-study, what future directions should the department pursue? What resources would the department need to pursue these future directions?

Accountability leads to improvement. Improvement increases interest. Interest increases need. This is a reality that all departments and, for that matter, all higher education institutions, face. However, accompanying the changing culture of accountability is the expectation, through performance-based 38 budgeting, that success will earn recognition and reward when efforts to reflect and improve are undertaken with the sincere and informed intention of improving student experience at Central and, thus, Central’s impact on the larger community. Our hope is that as we embrace those assumptions and adopt changes based on research, evidence and established need, we will be situated to use the resources generated by our success to implement program changes necessary to our continued pursuit of excellence.

The Challenges of Upper Division and Graduate Success

It is not an overstatement to say that the challenges faced by the discipline of English Studies are global. To quote our colleague Dr. Pimomo, “English, the language into which most of us were born, has become a diverse medium for not only self-expression, national longings, and creative imagination of peoples ‘native’ to English, but of the same things for other peoples around the world, in addition to its privileged global position as the conduit for cultural flows, the media, international dialog, the worldwide web and so forth.” Our challenge is to craft and share a curriculum that builds rhetorical, cultural and aesthetic competence which aligns our limited resources with the limitless need for mutual understanding. Each decision we make assigns precious resources to one or another form of praxis.

One of the most obvious challenges to the discipline of English Studies was described in the 2004 report from the National Endowment for the Humanities, “Reading at Risk,” which provides a snapshot of the role of literature in the lives of Americans. The report indicates that the percentage of adult Americans reading literature has dropped dramatically in the past two decades across genres, ethnic groups, and educational levels. The concurrent rise in participation in a variety of electronic media offers a strong message about our need to explore new modes of sharing literary experiences. More importantly, though, the report signals a need for departments of English to consider carefully and seriously their cultural and civic functions in our post- industrial society. Our department will commit time within our regular practice of reflection and development to considering the implications of this report and other research on the evolution of literary culture for our programs and practices.

While we have sufficient faculty expertise to bring the redesigned TESOL program and the new Writing Specialization to fruition, significant growth in any program will tax our faculty’s time, already a stretched commodity. As is clear in the data reflecting class size and enrollment growth, we will be hard pressed to accommodate the beneficial effects of conscientious strategic planning. This year’s dramatic growth in the graduate literature program has been cited as an institutional success, and our Dean has supported the budgetary and scheduling adjustments made necessary by that success. This experience illustrates that any area of success brings concomitant challenges. 39

As we create from the framework of the new Writing Specialization a program that fulfills its promise as part of an emerging center of excellence in the arts, we will need to identify sources of support to help us enrich our course offerings with visits by professional writers, increase opportunities for practicing the arts of publishing through an on-site small press, and create events that take advantage of our environmentally advantageous site such as summer institutes and community workshops. As we continue to define our participation in the proposed Film Studies Program, we will need to integrate the needs of our majors with the more specialized interests of those working with films as texts, possibly displacing some faculty time in general education courses, but at the same time generating new interest in our college and our university.

The Challenges of University Success: Increased Enrollments

During the low enrollment years, especially 2000-2001, the English department faculty increased their load in general education courses to 55- 66% of their totals. Because of the huge increase in enrollment since that time, many more sections of composition and introductory literature have been needed. The Provost and Dean have attempted to secure sufficient support for the increased need, resulting in a steadily increasing adjunct budget. The available support, though, has not been sufficient to rebalance individual faculty loads to permit more course sections and options for undergraduate majors and graduate students. If our major and graduate program enrollments continue to increase based on current trends and as a result of our success and enhanced recruiting efforts, we will need to provide for new students as well as continue staffing sufficient sections of general education courses.

Building External Connections

We have reimagined our efforts to build foundation support in light of both new curricular initiatives. The Writing Specialization will assist us in building connections to the private sector through the establishment of internships and practicum experiences; it could also attract contributions toward the visible and attention-drawing activities of a small press publication or institutes featuring celebrity writers. The TESOL graduate program will be of interest to industry seeking international collaboration in a moment of global recognition that English is and will be the language of commerce.

Our external connections are becoming stronger, as well, through our participation in education reform efforts. As a response to public pressure for high quality, accessible teacher training and professional development, we are committed to continuing our site-based inservice through the Leadership Team of the Central Washington Writing Project. This group is participating with the Curriculum Division of Educational Service District #105 to seek federal funding for instructional support. We hope, in the near future, to 40 develop opportunities for students to interact with K-12 students through interactive media.

Developing the Teaching/Learning Climate

Our department commits itself to the ongoing pursuit of excellence in teaching and learning. We will continue to work within our department, college and university to create a campus climate attractive to and supportive of students, faculty, and staff regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, learning ability, economic background, or institutional role. We will continue to seek student success through maintaining high standards, adhering to our professional responsibilities and ethics, supporting a range of learning styles, appropriately accommodating disabilities, respecting differences, and, most importantly, continuing to be learners ourselves.

Load more

  40

Copy Link