COLORADO MESA UNIVERSITY
Program Outcomes and Assessment Plan
Program Name: English B.A.
Date:12-10-14 (updated 4/10/16)
Program Outcomes / Courses/Educational StrategiesIndicate if outcome is Beginning(B), Developing(D) or Advanced(A) / Assessment Method(s) / Time of Data Collection/
Person Responsible / Results of Assessment / Actions Taken
Outcome #1 Express themselves effectively in a variety of forms. / Throughout curriculum, but especially in ENGL 254, 255, 261, 262 (developing level for those introductory surveys), 421 (A), 494 (A) and creative writing courses such as ENGL 250 (D), 381(A), 382 (A), 383 (A), 384 (A). / What: Oral presentation at the end of ENGL 494 and the formal paper version on the same topic in ENGL 494. In ENGL 254, data will be collected from short literary analysis papers.
How: ENGL 494 students will be assessed for communicative performance on their scholarly writing and on the oral presentation of the same scholarship. ENGL 254 students will be asked to demonstrate the ability to communicate clearly and concisely on a lower-division assignment of a less complex nature, both in writing and in an oral presentation of the assignment. / Who:The professors teaching the ENGL 494 and ENGL 254 courses.
When:Fall 2013 / Results: Students in upper-division courses outperformed lower-division students by about 2.5 points in delivery and 2.1 points in language usage in oral performances.
Key Findings: In the key areas of language use and delivery on the rubric, students in ENGL 494 vastly outperformed their less experienced peers in ENGL 254.
Conclusions:We got the hoped for and expected result, but also have a sense that we can do more in this area as students move through the curriculum. Particularly in the area of organization, students in the upper-division are not performing as well as might be hoped. / Action:Plans have been made to collect further information from other courses in the curriculum (such as ENGL 355) to confirm these findings. We will have further data points as well from the new Essential Learning outcome data from ENGL 111. In addition, we will have a departmental norming session for the rubric, as some doubt exists as to whether we are applying the criteria in the same way.
The assessment committee is also discussing the possibility of dividing outcome 1 and treating oral communication and writing as separate outcomes.
Re-evaluation Date:Spring 2018
Outcome #2 State and support interpretive claims about a variety of texts. / All our literature courses develop this outcome, notably 254, 255, 261 and 262 at a developing level, with the upper-division literature courses and ENGL 421 (a theory course) doing so at an advanced level. / What:Examination of student literary analysis assignments from ENGL 254 and ENGL 421.
How:A common rubric for describing central claims and providing evidence for those claims will be used to collect and compare results between the lower and upper-division course. / Who:The professors of ENGL 254 and ENGL 421.
When:Spring 2013 / Results:Using the read and think critically portions of the Seminar in Literature project rubric, student abilities in reading and thinking critically were compared between the introductory literature survey and the senior seminar class.
Key Findings:On the 4-point scale, students in the upper-division course outperformed the lower-division students by about .5 points in reading critically and .7 points in thinking critically.
Conclusions:That’s an encouraging amount of growth, though the scores on the top end (2.7 and 2.9) could be higher. / Action:We have made a curricular change in the lower division (the addition of ENGL 210) that we are hoping provides a better foundation for interpretive writing that will help students throughout the curriculum. When those students reach Senior age, we will collect data and see whether the curricular change is helping with performance on the graduation end.
Re-evaluation Date:Fall 2016
Outcome #3 Identify the salient features of literary texts from a broad range of English and American literary periods. / All of our literature and creative writing courses do this at a level commensurate with their numbering. / What: MFAT in English
How: Students will be required to take the test as a graduation requirement / Who: LLMC Administrative Assistant will remind students to take the test.
When: After students have completed at least 90 credit hours. / Results:In the categories tested, students performed in ranges from the 30th to the 60th percentile.
Key Findings: N/A
Conclusions:We have long had a conflicted relationship with this test. We like the national norming, but cannot imagine crafting our curriculum and teaching in ways that would improve our performance on it. / Action:Construct an assessment that more closely reflects what we expect students to know about the salient features of English and American Literature and then test pilot it.
Re-evaluation Date:Fall 2016
Outcome #4 Employ knowledge of literary traditions to produce imaginative writing. / 250 (B), 380, 381,382,383, 384, 388 (D), 492 (A) / What:Final portfolio/projects in creative writing courses
How: Data will be collected and evaluated based on a departmental rubric. / Who:Professors of English 250 and 492.
When:Spring 2015 / Results:N/A
Key Findings:The departmental assessment rubric for creative writing includes a category that asks whether the work “is shaped by deliberate artistic concerns,” with works in the highest-scoring category demonstrating “control and deliberate utilization of conventions and traditions” of the writers’ chosen genres. On a 4 point scale, students in ENGL 492 averaged 3.67 in this category. Students in ENGL 250 averaged 2.56.
Conclusions:Clearly, our curriculum and instructional methods are successful in helping students both understand and use a variety of literary traditions across genres. / Action:.We are proud there is a significant split between our 200 level students and our 400 level students; however, we believe it could be higher. At this point we just want to confirm these results by repeating a similar assessment next time.
Re-evaluation Date:Spring 2017
Outcome #5 Use research to assist in problem-solving. / All our literature courses do this, notably 254, 255, 261 and 262 at a developing level, with the upper-division literature courses doing so at an advanced level. / What: The quality of research performed on students’ ENGL 494 seminar papers will be assessed, as will the research done on less advanced research projects done in the lower division literature surveys.
How: Data will be collected and evaluated based on the current departmental senior seminar rubric. / Who:Teachers of select lower-division surveys and ENGL 494.
When:Fall 2015 / Results:
Key Findings:Because lower-division assignments don’t correlate exactly with Senior Seminar papers, the comparisons are more indirect than in some other categories. The rubric for ENGL 494 states the highest level of research thinking as follows: “Student carefully analyzed the information collected and drew appropriate and inventive conclusions supported by evidence. Over two-thirds of students were able to perform at that high level. However, from the collection of research work (a short annotated bibliography) taken from ENGL 254, students’ ability to critique the strengths and weaknesses of their sources (let alone incorporate them into an argument), was satisfactory for their level, but much lower: only 4 of 16 students performed at the highest levels.
Conclusions:Broadly defined, our students seem to grow significantly in their ability to incorporate the ideas of others into their thinking. / Action:We need to create a new rubric to assess research skills (hopefully one that could be used more effectively at the 200 level and 400 level). Furthermore, we are also aware that CMU is considering adopting an information literacy SLO. If that happens, we will likely rewrite this outcome and our rubric.
Re-evaluation Date:Spring 2018
Outcome #6 Demonstrate knowledge of the history or structure of the English language. / ENGL 440 and ENGL 451 / What:Students will demonstrate this sort of linguistic knowledge via a common final exam question.
How:The construction of the exam question is in process (see next column). / Who:Teachers of ENGL 440 and 451
When:Spring 2016 (We are making a new hire in this area and want to be sure and include them in the process.) / Who:
When: / Action: Unfortunately, assessing this SLO was delayed because our search for a new hire was not successful. However, we think we may have to rewrite this SLO to focus more on language mechanics and linguistic structures. Our plan is to rewrite this SLO and create a multiple choice test that we can use to assess it throughout the curriculum.
Re-evaluation Date:Fall 2017
Template adapted from Long Beach City College and Indiana State University Assessment Plans