English Assessment Report Summaries

2011-2012

The English faculty this year chose to assess items from all five of the stated Goals: Goal 1 (outcomes 1-4) dealing with knowledge of literary works and authors from both the Anglo-American tradition and works from other world traditions, Goal #2 (Outcomes 1-4) dealing with literary analysis, Goal #3 (Outcomes 1-3) dealing with major theories of language and literature, Goal 4 (outcomes 1-2) dealing with classifying works by genre and identifying the elements of literature, and Goal 5 (Outcomes 1-4) dealing with the location and use of appropriate research resources.

In order to assess Outcome 1, the faculty administered the Educational Testing Service Major Field Examination: Literature in English to English majors nearing graduation. Eleven seniors took the examination.  The students as a cohort scored below the national average for all seniors taking the examination nationally.  Furthermore, the examination provides subscores in four areas which will allow faculty to make adjustments in curriculum or major requirements in response to these scores. This year, students scored below the national average on all four subscores but showed an increase on Subscore four.

To analyze Goal 4 and Goal 5, English faculty collected portfolios containing three papers from ten graduating seniors enrolled in the ENG-L495 Senior Seminar.  Students supplied a paper reflecting primary literary analysis, one reflecting the combination of primary and secondary sources in literary analysis, and a third reflecting the use of literary theory to conduct literary analysis.  These portfolios were evaluated by the English faculty. The student mean on the portfolios was 2.75 (on a scale of 1-3 with 3 being the highest), a slight decrease from last year’s mean of 2.83.

To assess Goal 3, we examined grades from ENG-L371 Critical Practices, a required course for English majors. Four of the five majors in the course completed the assignments satisfactorily. To assess Goal 2, we examined papers and grades for English majors from ENG-L202. Eight of the nine majors satisfactorily completed the course.

Link to Full Report

2010-2011

The English faculty this year chose to assess items from all five of the stated Goals: Goal 1 (outcomes 1-4) dealing with knowledge of literary works and authors from both the Anglo-American tradition and works from other world traditions, Goal #2 (Outcomes 1-4) dealing with literary analysis, Goal #3 (Outcomes 1-3) dealing with major theories of language and literature, Goal 4 (outcomes 1-2) dealing with classifying works by genre and identifying the elements of literature, and Goal 5 (Outcomes 1-4) dealing with the location and use of appropriate research resources.

In order to assess Outcome 1, the faculty administered the Educational Testing Service Major Field Examination: Literature in English to English majors nearing graduation.  Four seniors took the examination.  The students as a cohort scored at the 48th percentile for all seniors taking the examination nationally.  Furthermore, the examination provides subscores in four areas which will allow faculty to make adjustments in curriculum or major requirements in response to these scores. Students scored at the 54% percentile for subscore 1, the 31st percentile for subscore 2, the 63rd percentile for subscore 3, and the 18th percentile for subscore 4. ETS cautions that a cohort of fewer than five students may provide unreliable comparisons to the national averages.

To analyze Outcome 4 and Outcome 5, English faculty collected portfolios containing three papers from ten graduating seniors enrolled in the ENG-L495 Senior Seminar.  Students supplied a paper reflecting primary literary analysis, one reflecting the combination of primary and secondary sources in literary analysis, and a third reflecting the use of literary theory to conduct literary analysis.  These portfolios were evaluated by the English faculty. The student mean on the portfolios was 2.83 (on a scale of 1-3 with 3 being the highest).

This year the faculty also recorded grades for ENG-L371 Critical Practices and ENG-L202 Literary Interpretation. Sample papers were also collected from all English majors in L202.  The grades in the two courses were as follows:

L202: one A, one A-, three B+’s, two B’s and one FN

L371: two A’s, two A-‘s, one B+, two B’s, two B-‘s, one C, and one C-

This year’s assessment represented an improvement in the overall portfolio score and improvements in the scores on the total ETS examination and in three of the four subscore areas.

Link to English Full Assessment Report 2011

2009-2010

The English faculty this year chose to assess items from four of the stated Goals: Goal 1 (outcomes 1-4) dealing with knowledge of literary works and authors from both the Anglo-American tradition and works from other world traditions; Goal 2 (Outcomes 1-4) dealing with classification of genres, identification of elements, critical reading, and interpretation; Goal 4 (outcomes 1-2) dealing with writing about literature; and Goal 5 (Outcomes 1-4) dealing with the location and use of appropriate research resources.

In order to assess Outcome 1, the faculty administered the Educational Testing Service Major Field Examination: Literature in English to English majors nearing graduation.  Five seniors took the examination.  The students as a cohort scored below the national average  for all seniors taking the examination nationally.  Furthermore, the examination provides subscores in four areas which will allow faculty to make adjustments in curriculum or major requirements in response to these scores. This year, students scored below the national average on all four subscores.

To analyze Outcome 4 and Outcome 5, English faculty collected portfolios containing three papers from five graduating seniors enrolled in the ENG-L495 Senior Seminar.  Students supplied a paper reflecting primary literary analysis, one reflecting the combination of primary and secondary sources in literary analysis, and a third reflecting the use of literary theory to conduct literary analysis.  These portfolios were evaluated by the English faculty. The student mean on the portfolios was 2.57 (on a scale of 1-3 with 3 being the highest), an improvement from last year’s mean of 2.34.

Link to English Full Assessment Report 2010

2008-2009

The English faculty this year chose to assess items from three of the stated Goals: Goal 1 (outcomes 1-4) dealing with knowledge of literary works and authors from both the Anglo-American tradition and works from other world traditions, Goal 4 (outcomes 1-2) dealing with classifying works by genre and identifying the elements of literature, and Goal 5 (Outcomes 1-4) dealing with the location and use of appropriate research resources.

In order to assess Outcome 1, the faculty administered the Educational Testing Service Major Field Examination: Literature in English to English majors nearing graduation.  Ten seniors took the examination.  The students as a cohort scored above the national average (70th percentile) for all seniors taking the examination nationally.  Furthermore, the examination provides subscores in four areas which will allow faculty to make adjustments in curriculum or major requirements in response to these scores. Students scored at or above the national average on three of the four subscores.

To analyze Outcome 4 and Outcome 5, English faculty collected portfolios containing three papers from ten graduating seniors enrolled in the ENG-L495 Senior Seminar.  Students supplied a paper reflecting primary literary analysis, one reflecting the combination of primary and secondary sources in literary analysis, and a third reflecting the use of literary theory to conduct literary analysis.  These portfolios were evaluated by the English faculty. The student mean on the portfolios was 2.34 (on a scale of 1-3 with 3 being the highest.

Link to English Full Assessment Report 2009

2007-2008

 The English faculty this year chose to assess items from three of the stated Goals: Goal 1 (outcomes 1-4) dealing with knowledge of literary works and authors from both the Anglo-American tradition and works from other world traditions, Goal 4 (outcomes 1-2) dealing with classifying works by genre and identifying the elements of literature, and Goal 5 (Outcomes 1-4) dealing with the location and use of appropriate research resources.

In order to assess Outcome 1, the faculty administered the Educational Testing Service Major Field Examination: Literature in English to English majors nearing graduation. Nine seniors took the examination. The students as a cohort scored above the national average (65 th percentile) for all seniors taking the examination nationally. Furthermore, the examination provides subscores in four areas which will allow faculty to make adjustments in curriculum or major requirements in response to these scores. Students scored at or above the national average on all four of the subscores.

To analyze Outcome 4 and Outcome 5, English faculty collected portfolios containing three papers from seven graduating seniors enrolled in the ENG-L495 Senior Seminar. Students supplied a paper reflecting primary literary analysis, one reflecting the combination of primary and secondary sources in literary analysis, and a third reflecting the use of literary theory to conduct literary analysis. These portfolios were evaluated by the English faculty. The student mean on the portfolios was 2.8 (on a scale of 1-3 with 3 being the highest.

Link to English Full Assessment Report 2008

2006-2007

The English faculty this year chose to assess items from three of the stated Goals: Goal 1 (outcomes 1-4) dealing with knowledge of literary works and authors from both the Anglo-American tradition and works from other world traditions, Goal 4 (outcomes 1-2) dealing with classifying works by genre and identifying the elements of literature, and Goal 5 (Outcomes 1-4) dealing with the location and use of appropriate research resources.

In order to assess Outcome 1, the faculty administered the Educational Testing Service Major Field Examination: Literature in English to English majors nearing graduation. Fifteen seniors took examination. The students as a cohort scored above the national average for all seniors nationally taking the examination. The examination will be administered for at least two more years in order to determine its relevance and reliability in assessing the faculty’s goals. Furthermore, the examination provides subscores in four areas which will allow faculty to make adjustments in curriculum or major requirements in response to these scores.

To analyze Outcome 4 and Outcome 5, English faculty collected portfolios containing three papers from eight graduating seniors enrolled in the ENG-L495 Senior Seminar. Students supplied a paper reflecting primary literary analysis, one reflecting the combination of primary and secondary sources in literary analysis, and a third reflecting the use of literary theory to conduct literary analysis. These portfolios were evaluated by the English faculty. The English faculty continues to refine the process of evaluating these portfolios.

2005-2006

The English faculty this year chose to assess items from two of the stated Goals: Goal 1 (outcomes 1-4) dealing with knowledge of literary works and authors from both the Anglo-American tradition and works from other world traditions and Goal 5 (Outcomes 1-2) dealing with the location and use of appropriate research resources.

In order to assess Outcome 1, the faculty administered the Educational Testing Service Major Field Examination: Literature in English to English majors nearing graduation. Fourteen seniors took the initial online administration of the examination. The students as a cohort scored near the national average for all seniors nationally taking the examination. The examination will be administered for at least two more years in order to determine its relevance and reliability in assessing the faculty’s goals. Furthermore, the examination provides subscores in four areas which will allow faculty to make adjustments in curriculum or major requirements in response to these scores.

As an initial step in analyzing Outcome 5, English faculty compiled information concerning what research requirements exist in current courses. The survey identified a wide range of resources--indexes, journals, reference works, and websites—that are employed in our courses. The results of this survey will become the basis for identifying which resources should be introduced to students and where. A complete list is included in the full assessment report.