ࡱ > ~ = bjbjqq . e e 5 + ? ? ? ? ? S S S 8 T S 6 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 $ C7 9 5 ? 5 ? ? 5 ? ? 5 5 1 4 <)֠ S l2 |5 5 0 6 2 g: p L g: 4 4 g: ? 4 t 5 5 ( 6 g: : ASSESSMENT REPORTENGLISH MAJOR
Academic Year 2010-2011 (Submitted November 2011)
Brief Summary of Assessment Plan
The assessment plan for the English major includes the following Goals and Outcomes:
Goal #1: Knowledge of Literary Works
Outcomes:
Students should be able to
Identify major authors and literary works within the Anglo-American tradition
Identify major authors and literary works within other literary traditions
Position literary works within cultural and intellectual history
Compare and contrast literary works within cultural and intellectual contexts
Goal #2: Literary Analysis
Outcomes:
Students should be able to
Classify literary works by genre
Identify the elements of literature
3. Read critically and creatively
4. Interpret literary works from an individual perspective
Goal #3: Major theories of language/literature studies
Outcomes:
Students should be able to
Explain major theories of language and literature
Differentiate among major theories
Apply critical theory to literary works
Goal #4: Communication
Outcomes:
Students should be able to
Write in genres typical of the field
Exhibit accuracy in writing conventions
Contribute to oral discussions
Use appropriate technologies
Goal #5: Research Methods
Outcomes:
Students should be able to
Locate appropriate resources
Evaluate the usefulness/credibility of resources
Synthesize information from various sources
Integrate research with literary analysis
The English faculty chose items from all five of the goals above to assess for 2010-2011: Goal #1 (Outcomes 1-4), Goal #2 (Outcomes 1-4), Goal #3 (Outcomes 1-3), Goal #4 (Outcomes 1-2), and Goal #5 (Outcomes 1-4). The Outcomes under Goal #3 are being assessed for the first time this year. The other goals and outcomes have been assessed in previous years. Please note that the Outcomes assessed in Goal #5 apply to the location and appropriateness of resources, the application of literary knowledge and interpretation to writing, and the use of resources in students papers.
Assessment Methods
The Goals mentioned above were assessed in the following manner:
Goal #1 (Outcomes 1-4)
The English faculty chose to administer the ETS Major Field Examination: Literature in English to English majors nearing graduation. Four seniors took the online version of the examination under controlled circumstances in the Testing Center in April 2011. The course ENG-L495 Senior Seminar, a required capstone seminar for seniors, served as the starting point for identifying students, informing them about the examination, and scheduling test times. Students took the examination in a two-hour period using the ETS guidelines and were proctored by Testing Center and faculty personnel. Students were scheduled where possible in groups, but those students who could not attend the scheduled times were allowed to schedule individually as per the guidelines of the ETS examination online. Students received their total score and subscores immediately upon completion of the exam. They also received information on national percentiles for individual scores. The statistical reports included in a later section of this report contain information for the one cohort that was completed in 2011 (four students). Note that the cohort was sufficiently small that ETS was unable to provide statistics on the eight institutional assessment indicators.
The ETS Major Field Examination: Literature in English contains 150 multiple-choice questions covering major works of poetry, prose, and drama in British and American literature. Some questions require the student to read a passage or a complete short work and answer questions on genre, elements of literature, literary history, and interpretation. A small portion of the examination covers works of literature from outside the Anglo-American tradition. The examination provides subscores in the following four areas: Literature 1900 and Earlier, Literature 1901 and Later, Literary Analysis, and Literary History and Identification.
This examination is a nationally prepared examination which provides comparisons to students and departments across the United States. It is intended to assess student knowledge at the undergraduate level, and, unlike the Graduate Record Examination, is not meant as an entry examination for graduate school.
The CTLA at Indiana University Kokomo subsidized the examination. The Coordinator of English ordered, scheduled, and administered the examination and analyzed the results.
Our benchmark for our majors is to meet or exceed the individual national mean and median for all departments using the examination and for the department as a whole to meet or exceed the national institutional means and medians for the total score and the four subscores.
Goal #3 (Outcomes 1-3)
Goal #3 assesses students understanding of language theory and literary theory and their ability to apply critical theory to literary works. This year is the first year that we have assessed this goal. These outcomes were assessed by looking at examinations and papers created in ENG-L371 Critical Practices. All English majors take L371 as a required course in the major, usually in the spring of their junior or senior years. Assessment is done by the faculty member teaching the course in the form of individual grades on the papers and examinations and the overall course grade. This year eleven English majors enrolled in ENG-L371.
Their course grades included two As, two A-s, one B+, two Bs, two B-s, one C, and one C-. Based on the assessment of the course instructor, all of the students showed the ability to understand critical theory and to apply it to literary analysis.
Goal #4 (Outcomes 1-2)
Goal #5 (Outcomes 1-4)
To assess both Goal # 4 and Goal #5 listed above, the department continued to use its previous assessment tool of requiring all English majors in ENG-L495 Senior Seminar to provide a portfolio of three papers from their previous English courses: a literary interpretation, a research paper incorporating sources and using the MLA documentation system, and a third paper from ENG-L371 Critical Practices. These papers provide evidence of students ability to write in genres typical of the field, exhibit accuracy in writing conventions, locate appropriate sources, evaluate the credibility and usefulness of sources, synthesize information, and integrate research with literary analysis. These papers also provide information about applying critical theory to literary works. This final goal is also assessed through Goal #3 (see above). The English faculty developed a rubric by which to assess the six areas expressed in the outcomes above. All six resident English faculty members read all of the portfolios and assigned each area a score of Good, Fair, and Inadequate (a score of 1-3 with 3 being the highest). Each portfolios scores were averaged to arrive at a total score for the portfolio.
Goal #2 (Outcomes 1-4)
These outcomes were assessed by looking at examinations and papers created in ENG-L202 Literary Interpretation. All English majors take L202 as a required introduction to the major, preferably in their freshman or sophomore years. Assessment is done by the faculty member teaching the course in the form of individual grades on the papers and examinations and the overall course grade. One sample paper from the course is collected for each English major. This year eight English majors enrolled in ENG-L202.
Their course grades included one A, one A-, three B+s, two Bs, and one FN. Papers were collected from all of the students. Based on the assessment of the course instructor, all of the collected papers showed good ability to write short (2-3 pp.) papers of literary interpretation. The student receiving the FN completed a satisfactory paper in the course, but stopped attending and did not complete the course.
Description of Assessment Results
Results for the ETS Major Field Test: Literature in English
Official scores for the four students who took the exam and who are within the closed cohort are attached. These scores occur within a range of 120-200 and were based on seniors taking the exam nationally from August 2005 to June 2011. Table 1 below shows the percentile results for our four students (all seniors) based on the national data:
Table 1. Individual scores and percentiles
16468%15855%15141%14732%
Tables 2 and 3 below show the mean and median scores for individual student scores (aggregated):
Table 2. Individual scoresmeans and medians
IU Kokomo meanNational meanIU Kokomo medianNational median155154.4154.5155
These individual scores represent an increase of 4 points in the IU Kokomo mean and 6.5 points in the IUK median over AY 2009-2010. These scores place IU Kokomo in the 48th percentile nationally in terms of individual student mean scores, an increase from last years score in the 40th percentile. This years scores meet the departmental goal of having a departmental mean score that equals or exceeds the national average. These individual scores do not meet our benchmark for Goal #1 that 60% of our students score at or above the national average (50% of our students scored above the national average). This is, however, an increase over last years 20% of students who met the benchmark. The department has met its benchmark in three of the last five years.
In addition to comparisons of individual student scores to national individual student scores, the following tables provide information about the overall institutional scores nationally for the total scores and the four subscores.
Table 3. Institutional mean score (total score)
IU Kokomo meanNational Institutional Percentile15548%
Table 4. Institutional scores (four subscores)
IU Kokomo meansNational Institutional PercentileSubscore 1: 5654%Subscore 2: 5231%Subscore 3: 5963% Subscore 4: 4518%
Please see the previous discussion for the identification of the four subscore areas. These scores represent increases in three of the four subscores. Subscore 1 increased from 54 to 56 and from 45th percentile to 54th. Subscore 2 increased from 46 to 52 and from 30th percentile to 31st. Subscore 3 increased from 51 to 59 and from 51st percentile to 59th. Subscore 4 decreased from 48 to 45 and from the 30th percentile to the 18th. As has been true in previous years, subscore 4 (Literary History and Identification) was our lowest-scoring area as a whole this year.
Results for the Portfolio Evaluations:
Results from the four student portfolios from our assessment are listed below:
Table 7. Portfolio Evaluation Results (from highest to lowest on a 3-point scale)
StudentPortfolio AverageStudent #12.95Student #22.90Student #32.76Student #42.70
This years portfolios clearly showed papers that more intentionally worked with literary theory, probably as a result of students completing the requirement of ENG-L371 Critical Practices, which only became a requirement in fall 2006. The portfolio results showed that all of the students were performing in the Good range (see rubric below), higher than last year. The mean score for all portfolios was 2.83, higher than the previous years mean of 2.57.
English Major Assessment Rubric (Goals 4 and 5)
Circle the evaluation that best describes the overall portfolio.
Goal 4.1
Write in genres typical of the fieldGoal 4.2 Exhibit accuracy in writing conventionsGoal 5.1
Locate appropriate resourcesGoal 5.2
Evaluate the usefulness/credibility of resourcesGoal 5.3 Synthesize information from various sourcesGoal 5.4
Integrate research with literary analysisGoodGoodGoodGoodGoodGood
FairFairFairFairFairFair
InadequateInadequateInadequateInadequateInadequateInadequate
Using Assessment for Program Improvement
As indicated in the ETS results (both total scores and subscores), this years smaller cohort of students performed at a higher level on the ETS examination than last years students. This years cohort also represented an increase in the scores on the portfolio assessment. Students have posted strong scores in four of the last five assessment cycles. The exam also provides valuable individual information to students because they receive their scores immediately after completing the test, along with information about national norms for individual scores. The faculty will also be able to use this information to focus more on literary history.
Our results from the portfolio evaluation indicate that, while faculty are providing students with a wide range of experiences with resources, we might benefit from targeting the integration and documentation of resources that are central to the field and making certain that particular courses within the curriculum include explicit instruction and exercises pertaining to these abilities. Next years goals include adding Goal #4.4 for assessment and establishing a benchmark for the portfolios. April 2012 will also require a new three-year assessment plan to continue for 2012-2014.
Dissemination of Results
This report has been distributed to resident English faculty, the Chair of Humanities, the Dean of Arts and Sciences, and the Assessment Committee. The complete assessment report is posted on the Arts and Sciences website, and a summary paragraph with a link to the complete report is posted on the CTLA website. Students receive scores on the ETS examination immediately after completing the test. Students may also access the assessment report at the SOAS website.
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 6
7 9 K P Q R t `
d
+ E ] u 7 9 , 0 l m o e x Ⱥ hri h# h h$C hHz hBO 5hHz h\ h hQ h_ h hC- h hBO h hQv h h\ 5 hh 5 h_ 5 hnf hQv 5B*CJ, aJ, ph hC 5h hQv 5 8 R S t j D
E
`
o
: ; s ^gdQv
& F gdQv ^gdQv
& F gdQv gdQv gdC- 5 B `
/
L
}
, m o gdC-
& F gdQv
& F gdQv ^gdQv gdQv
& F gdQv o h i v w s u T# U# l# k%
' ' -' .' gdC- gd_ gd$C gdQv x > L M ~ G Q q e g h / 1 $ + , D U p O P | 2 h_ h_ B*ph h hC h$C hC h_ h;n h' h h$C hri h h;n h\ h hQ{H h hSw= hHz h# h_ C v w & * q t u v ! 9 N 6 8 1! ) ) ) ) y) z) ) ) ) ) ) ) | | | | | | p p p p $$If a$gd& B gd-_ } kd $$If l 0 4 T
t 0 6 4 4
l atyt ) ) ) ) ) ) ^ R R R R $$If a$gd kdt $$If l \ :,"
t 0 6 4 4
l a yt ) ) ) , , - - - - - . ^ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y gd-_ kd $$If l \ :,"
t 0 6 4 4
l a yt
+ + (+ ?+ }+ + + + + + + + + %, ', (, ,, H, e, o, q, u, {, ~, , , , , , - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . %. &. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. O. P. Q. þ hei hG hb 5 hb hb hb hh 5 h{R 5 hb 5h h{R 5 h{ 5 h~ 5h9]l h{ B*ph hC h=c h{ hZH h!H; h\ hgJ h9]l hb hgJ hgJ H* 8. . &. H. I. M. Q. s { kd $$If l 0 ," L L
t 0 6 4 4
l a ytG $$If a$gdG gd-_ Q. R. S. T. . . . . s s $$If a$gdG gd-_ { kd# $$If l 0 ," L L
t 0 6 4 4
l a ytG Q. R. T. ]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / / &/ '/ (/ )/ */ ,/ // 0/ / / / / / / / 0
0 ;0 =0 N0 P0 Q0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 a1 k1 l1 m1 n1 صصصذذصجصԬԥ hC hx h h" H*h! h! H*hC h! hb hb hb h T hei h" hv\% hb h{R hb 5 hv\% 5 hb 5hG hb 5 @. . . . x l $$If a$gdG $$If a$gd" { kd $$If l 0 ," L L
t 0 6 4 4
l a ytG . . . . x l $$If a$gdG $$If a$gdb { kd- $$If l 0 ," L L
t 0 6 4 4
l a ytG . . . / x l $$If a$gdG $$If a$gdb { kd $$If l 0 ," L L
t 0 6 4 4
l a ytG / / */ ./ { o $$If a$gdG $If gdb { kd7 $$If l 0 ," L L
t 0 6 4 4
l a ytG ./ // 0/ m1 p1 1 1 1 1 ;2 <2 D2 V2 w k k $$If a$gdG $a$gdx gd-_ { kd $$If l 0 ," L L
t 0 6 4 4
l a ytG n1 o1 p1 t1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 92 <2 C2 D2 U2 W2 `2 a2 b2 d2 f2 g2 h2 q2 r2 s2 u2 w2 x2 y2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 64 D4 d4 f4 ʹ h >) h b 5 hd hx hd hG hx 5hG hd 5 hd 5h b h hx hx h! h" h h-_ hx 5hx h-_ 5h hh >V2 W2 b2 g2 u u $$If a$gdG } kdA $$If l 0 ," L L
t 0 6 4 4
l a ytG g2 h2 s2 x2 u i $$If a$gdR $$If a$gdG } kd $$If l 0 ," L L
t 0 6 4 4
l a ytG x2 y2 2 2 u u $$If a$gdG } kdU $$If l 0 ," L L
t 0 6 4 4
l a ytG 2 2 2 2 u u $$If a$gdG } kd $$If l 0 ," L L
t 0 6 4 4
l a ytG 2 2 2 g4 h4 i4 j4 k4 l4 m4 4 4 4 4 | | w r r r r r r r r r gd b gdQv gd-_ } kdi $$If l 0 ," L L
t 0 6 4 4
l a ytG
f4 g4 h4 m4 4 4 6 6 '6 (6 G6 H6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 77 O7 n7 q7 r7 7 8 :9 C9 D9 H9 r9 9 : : : : : : : 9; Q; X; ; ; ; ; < ȽȵȒȆȞ~ h' hV hyza hM hd hh hC h~ h" h h hL* h hb 5h hQv 5hP8 h b OJ QJ h b h;A h b OJ QJ h b OJ QJ h?C h b 5OJ QJ h\ 5OJ QJ hQv 5 h hb 14 4 5 ?5 H5 e5 n5 5 5 5 6 $If gdI7
6 6
6 6 6 5 , , , $If gdI7 kd $$If l ֈ
7" ," F< F< F< F< F< F<
t 0 6 4 4
l B a ytI7 6 6 !6 &6 '6 $If gdI7 '6 (6 -6 26 76 5 , , , $If gdI7 kd
$$If l ֈ
7" ," F< F< F< F< F< <
t 0 6 4 4
l B a ytI7 76 <6 A6 F6 G6 $If gdI7 G6 H6 S6 ^6 i6 5 , , , $If gdI7 kd $$If l ֈ
7" ," F< F< F< F< F< <
t 0 6 4 4
l B a ytI7 i6 t6 6 6 6 $If gdI7 6 6 6 6 6 5 0 0 + gdC- gd b kdx $$If l ֈ
7" ," F< F< F< F< F< <
t 0 6 4 4
l B a ytI7 6 6 G9 H9 ; ; ; ; = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = $a$ gd gd;A gdwX gdQv gdC- gdb < < (< =< A< = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = hV mH nH uj h' Uh j h Uh b 5OJ QJ hzs h b hwX h' h hb , 1h / =!"#$% $$If t!v h5 5T#v #vT:V l
t 0 6 5 5Tatyt $$If t!v h5 5T#v #vT:V l
t 0 6 5 5Tatyt $$If t!v h5 5T#v #vT:V l
t 0 6 5 5Tatyt $$If t!v h5 5T#v #vT:V l
t 0 6 5 5Tatyt $$If !v h5 555#v :V l
t 0 65 yt $$If !v h5 555#v :V l
t 0 65 yt $$If !v h5 L5L#v L:V l
t 0 65 LytG $$If !v h5 L5L#v L:V l
t 0 65 LytG $$If !v h5 L5L#v L:V l
t 0 65 LytG $$If !v h5 L5L#v L:V l
t 0 65 LytG $$If !v h5 L5L#v L:V l
t 0 65 LytG $$If !v h5 L5L#v L:V l
t 0 65 LytG $$If !v h5 L5L#v L:V l
t 0 65 LytG $$If !v h5 L5L#v L:V l
t 0 6 5 LytG $$If !v h5 L5L#v L:V l
t 0 6 5 LytG $$If !v h5 L5L#v L:V l
t 0 6 5 LytG $$If !v h5 L5L#v L:V l
t 0 6 5 LytG $$If !v h5 L5L#v L:V l
t 0 6 5 LytG $$If !v h5
5j5/55R5
#v
#vj#v/#v#vR#v
:V l
t 0 65 </ B ytI7 $$If !v h5
5j5/55R5
#v
#vj#v/#v#vR#v
:V l
t 0 65 </ B ytI7 $$If !v h5
5j5/55R5
#v
#vj#v/#v#vR#v
:V l
t 0 65 </ B ytI7 $$If !v h5
5j5/55R5
#v
#vj#v/#v#vR#v
:V l
t 0 65 </ B ytI7 ^ 0 0 2 0 @ P ` p 2 ( 0 @ P ` p 0 @ P ` p 0 @ P ` p 0 @ P ` p 0 @ P ` p 0 @ P ` p 8 X V ~ _HmH nH sH tH @ ` @ N o r m a l CJ _HaJ mH sH tH D A D D e f a u l t P a r a g r a p h F o n t R i@ R T a b l e N o r m a l 4
l 4 a ( k ( N o L i s t j j zs
T a b l e G r i d 7 :V 0 6 U 6 zs H y p e r l i n k >*B*ph 4 4 0 H e a d e r
H$ 6 !6 0 H e a d e r C h a r CJ aJ 4 @ 24 0 F o o t e r
H$ 6 A6 0 F o o t e r C h a r CJ aJ PK ! [Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi} ;~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭? PK ! ֧ 6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/} (h"O
= C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_ 6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/Se е PK ! ky theme/theme/themeManager.xml M
@}w7c(Ebˮ CAǠҟ7՛K
Y,
e.|,H ,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+&
8 PK ! P theme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-Mn iP@I}úama[إ4:l ЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@ /yH*)UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSe bORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`j zA V2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXd sjcs7f
W+Ն7` g ȘJj|h(KD-
dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E ??ZBΪmU/ ?~xY'y5g&/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K )fw 9:ĵ
x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI
u3KGnD 1NIBs
RuK>V.E L+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8z H
* :( W ☕
~JTe\O*tHGHY }KNP*ݾ˦ TѼ9/#A7qZ $*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP
1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g-
eW
)6-rC Sj
id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q% p%m&]caS l=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f
Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ .uχYC6OMf3or$5N HT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R 3U~7+#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vp IYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07% < ҍ PK !
ѐ ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM
0wooӺ&݈Э5
6?$Q
,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{ P8g/ ]QAsم(#L[ PK- ! [Content_Types].xmlPK- ! ֧ 6 + _rels/.relsPK- ! ky theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK- ! P theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK- !
ѐ ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK ]
5 * * * - x ' ) + Q. n1 f4 < = # $ % ) - 0 6 < F o .' ) ) ) ) ) . Q. . . . / ./ V2 g2 x2 2 2 4 6 6 '6 76 G6 i6 6 6 = ! " & ' ( * + , . / 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 : ; = > ? @ A B C D E $ & - ! 8 @ 0 (
B
S ? J S % % x& & & & & & & & ' ' v' ~' ' ' ' '
( ( S( [( ( (
) ) . . W3 X3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 z! ! % % T& \& ) ) :3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 q/ q/ X3 X3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 q/ q/ X3 X3 5 5
bx ?Kr ` ^1( -4B2 @@ Hp ^`o( .
^ `h H .
L ^ `Lh H .
x x^x`h H .
H H^H`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
L ^ `Lh H . 80 8^8`0o( .
^`h H .
pL p^p`Lh H .
@ @ ^@ `h H .
^`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
PL P^P`Lh H . ^`o( .
^ `h H .
L ^ `Lh H .
x x^x`h H .
H H^H`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
L ^ `Lh H . ^`o( .
^ `h H .
L ^ `Lh H .
x x^x`h H .
H H^H`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
L ^ `Lh H . 80 8^8`0o( .
^`h H .
pL p^p`Lh H .
@ @ ^@ `h H .
^`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
PL P^P`Lh H . 80 8^8`0o( .
^`h H .
pL p^p`Lh H .
@ @ ^@ `h H .
^`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
PL P^P`Lh H . ^`o( .
^ `h H .
L ^ `Lh H .
x x^x`h H .
H H^H`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
L ^ `Lh H . 8 8^8`o( .
^`h H .
L ^ `Lh H .
^ `h H .
x x^x`h H .
HL H^H`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
L ^`Lh H . ^`o( .
^ `h H .
L ^ `Lh H .
x x^x`h H .
H H^H`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
L ^ `Lh H . 80 8^8`0o( .
^`h H .
pL p^p`Lh H .
@ @ ^@ `h H .
^`h H .
L ^`Lh H .
^`h H .
^`h H .
PL P^P`Lh H .
H) L* C- M 4 I7 !H; \< Sw= !> ;A & B $C ?C
H ZH Q{H gJ 4X zX q \ \ -_ yza b b nf h ri $j 9]l ;n zs Qv o(y Hz { " \ b 7 w C M H
@l {R D ! !? # Q =c $? # kh r h xT G ~ V b 'D a . d x / BO 5 5 @ X3 X3 k X3 X3 5 X @ U n k n o w n G * Ax T i m e s N e w R o m a n 5 S y m b o l 3. * Cx A r i a l 9 G a r a m o n d A B C a m b r i a M a t h " q h l\& - - a - a ! 24 d i5 i5 3Q HX ? Qv 2 ! x x A S S E S S M E N T R E P O R T E N G L I S H M A J O R a c a m e r o n B r u c e 4
Oh +'0
< H T
` l t | ASSESSMENT REPORTENGLISH MAJOR acameron Normal.dotm Bruce 5 Microsoft Office Word @ NSI @ l@ 8fjU@ ܑ ֠ - ՜. +,0 h p
Indiana University a i5 ASSESSMENT REPORTENGLISH MAJOR Title
! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G I J K L M N O Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m o p q r s t u w x y z { | } R o o t E n t r y F ޱ)֠ D a t a
H 1 T a b l e P : W o r d D o c u m e n t . S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n ( n D o c u m e n t S u m m a r y I n f o r m a t i o n 8 v C o m p O b j y
F' Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document
MSWordDoc Word.Document.8 9q