ࡱ>  >bjbjVV .<<6+?????SSS8LTS72++AAA6666666A8:6?6??AA6>>>?A?A6>6>>2b5At 667k; : ASSESSMENT REPORTENGLISH MAJOR Academic Year 2009-2010 (Submitted October 2010) 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 four of the goals above to assess for 2009-2010: Goal #1 (Outcomes 1-4), Goal #2 (Outcomes 1-4), Goal #4 (Outcomes 1-2), and Goal #5 (Outcomes 1-4). The Outcomes under Goal #2 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. Five seniors took the online version of the examination under controlled circumstances in the Testing Center in April 2010. 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 2010 (five 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 departmental reports provided by ETS include Departmental Roster (individual scores and subscores for each student in the cohort) Departmental summary of total scores and subscores (compiled for the cohort) Mean scores for eight assessment indicators (compiled for the cohort) Departmental Demographic Summary (compiled for the cohort) The examination provides subscores in the following four areas: Literature 1900 and Earlier, Literature 1901 and Later, Literary Analysis, and Literary History and Identification. In addition, the report of assessment indicators provides a mean percent correct score for each cohort for the following eight areas: British Literature Pre-1660, British Literature 1660-1900, American Literature to 1900, British and American Literature 1901-1945, Literature in English Since 1945, Literary History, Identification, and Literary Theory. 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 chairperson of Humanities (who is also 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, the four subscores, and the eight assessment indicators. 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; however, the department is not expressly evaluating that outcome this year. It is likely that this outcome (Goal 3, outcome 3) will be assessed either through these portfolios or directly with other outcomes of Goal 3 in ENG-L371. The English faculty developed a rubric by which to assess the six areas expressed in the outcomes above. Six 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 six English majors enrolled in ENG-L202. Their course grades included one A+, three As, one B+, and one incomplete. Papers were collected from all of the students except one (the student receiving the incomplete). 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. Description of Assessment Results Results for the ETS Major Field Test: Literature in English Official scores for the five 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 2010. Table 1 below shows the percentile results for our five students (all seniors) based on the national data: Table 1. Individual scores and percentiles 17485%15340%14830%14425%13410% 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 median151154.7148155 These individual scores represent a decrease of 10 points in the IU Kokomo mean and 13 points in the IUK median over AY 2008-2009. These scores place IU Kokomo in the 40th percentile nationally in terms of individual student mean scores, a decrease from last years score in the 70th percentile. This years scores fall short of the departmental goal of having a departmental mean score that equals 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 (20% of our students scored above the national average). This is a decrease over last years 80% of students who met the benchmark. 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, the four subscores, and the eight assessment indicators. Table 3. Institutional mean score (total score) IU Kokomo meanNational Institutional Percentile15140% Table 4. Institutional scores (four subscores) IU Kokomo meansNational Institutional PercentileSubscore 1: 5445%Subscore 2: 4630%Subscore 3: 5135% Subscore 4: 4830% Please see the previous discussion for the identification of the four subscore areas. These scores represent decreases in all four Subscores. Subscore 1 declined from 61 to 54 and from 70th percentile to 40th. Subscore 2 declined from 63 to 50 and from 80th percentile to 30th. Subscore 3 declined from 63 to 53 and from 75th percentile to 35th. Subscore 4 dropped from 55 to 49 and from 40th percentile to 30th. As has been true in previous years, Subscore 4 (Literary History and Identification) was our lowest-scoring area as a whole this year. Table 5. Institutional scores (eight assessment indicators)Cohort 1 (5 students) Note: The cohort this year was too small for ETS to provide this report. Next years assessment report with combine this years means for the eight assessment indicators with next years cohort. IU Kokomo meansNational Institutional PercentileIndicator 1: Indicator 2: Indicator 3: Indicator 4: Indicator 5: Indicator 6: Indicator 7: Indicator 8:  Results for the Portfolio Evaluations: Results from the five student portfolios from our assessment are listed below: Table 7. Portfolio Evaluation Results (from highest to lowest on a 3-point scale) StudentPortfolio AverageStudent #12.75Student #22.68Student #32.65Student #42.62Student #52.14 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 to High Fair range (see rubric below), higher than last year. The mean score for all portfolios was 2.57, higher than the previous years mean of 2.34. 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 lower level on the ETS examination than last years students. After increases on the exam over the last three years, this years cohort presents the first decline. However, this years cohort also represented an increase in the scores on the portfolio assessment. 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 #3 for assessment and establishing a benchmark for the portfolios. 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 7  79OPQs_ c  &@XOPRiH[ijkuz!/׸ױש̭hhQ{H h hSw=hrih# h h$ChHzhBO5hHzh\hQh h hC- h hBO h hQvh h\5 hh5 h5h hQv5< QRs i C D _ n 9 : r ^gdQv & FgdQv^gdQv & FgdQvgdQvgdC-   4 A _   . K | PRgdC- & F gdQv & FgdQv^gdQvgdQv & FgdQvRiIJEF.ijC#D#[#X%&gd$C & F gd$CgdQv/0a*4TyHv CLVW uKjþhQ{HhQ{HhHz5 hQ{H5 hHz5h h hL*h' hhHz h h$Ch#hrih\ h h;n h hSw=D !7"J"l"q"x""""""""B#C#D#[#$%W%X%& &&;&&&&&&&&''''#'?'c'd''''''' ((,(5(C(^(_(ƾh{ h h.h\hri h hDhq\ h h$Ch~h~5h~h-_5h h~5 hQv5h hQv5h~ h5hSw=hh\h#hQ{Hh' h4X6&&&&''`(a(b((((( $$Ifa$gdgJgd.gd-_gdC-gdQv _(`(a(b(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))K)L)M)O)P)Q)V)l)m)n)s))))))))))ü뵱뱵ީ띡 h{5hgJh!H;h&Bh hh5h h h{R h h\h\h{ h h{h\h h{5 h.5h h.5 h h. h hD h h-_<((((uu $$Ifa$gdgJ}kd$$Ifl04 T t0644 latyt ((((uu $$Ifa$gdgJ}kd$$Ifl04 T t0644 latyt ((((ui $$Ifa$gd\ $$Ifa$gdgJ}kd:$$Ifl04 T t0644 latyt ((((ui $$Ifa$gd\ $$Ifa$gdgJ}kd$$Ifl04 T t0644 latyt (((())L)M)\)j){))||||||pppp $$Ifa$gd&Bgd-_}kdt$$Ifl04 T t0644 latyt ))))))^RRRR $$Ifa$gd kd$$Ifl\:," t0644 layt )))H,I,R-S-T---^YYYYYYYYgd-_kd$$Ifl\:," t0644 layt ))))))*!*$***H*J*L*`*b*********'+W+^+e+i+++++,,#,F,G,,---Q-R-S-T-U-]-k-v--------------ºµ°̤̤heihGhb5 hbhb hh5 h{R5 hb5h h{R5 h{5 h~5hbhZHhbhgJhgJH*hh=ch=cH*hgJh\h=ch!H;h{<------x{kd;$$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG $$Ifa$gdG--------%.6.8.9.;.>.O.Q.R.T.W.h.j.k.m.p..........///Y/Z/\/l/m/o/////////////0&0'0)090:0<0c000000 11ƾƾξƾƾƾκƾƾʺʶ h5h.hh!h!H*h!heihThbhv\%hbh{R hb5 hv\%5 hb5hGhb5 hbhbD------.$.ss $$Ifa$gdGgd-_{kd$$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG$.%.9.=.xl $$Ifa$gdG $$Ifa$gdb{kdE$$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG=.>.R.V.xl $$Ifa$gdG $$Ifa$gdb{kd$$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytGV.W.k.o.xl $$Ifa$gdG $$Ifa$gdb{kdO$$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytGo.p...{o $$Ifa$gdG $Ifgdb{kd$$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG...00111112ss $$Ifa$gdGgd-_{kdY$$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG 11112#2&272:2K2N2_2b2s2v222222222222222223536383S33333333333333333333333佶ۭۥ hdhxhdhGhx5hGhd5 hd5hb h hxhx h h-_hxh-_5 h h.hh hx5hh!hZHhv\% h5 hv\%5 h&B5922$2%2xx $$Ifa$gdG{kd$$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG%2&28292xx $$Ifa$gdG{kdc$$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG92:2L2M2xx $$Ifa$gdG{kd$$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytGM2N2`2a2xx $$Ifa$gdG{kdm $$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytGa2b2t2u2xx $$Ifa$gdG{kd $$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytGu2v222xx $$Ifa$gdG{kdw $$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG2222xl $$Ifa$gdG $$Ifa$gdZH{kd $$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG2222xx $$Ifa$gdG{kd $$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG222222222222222gd-_{kd $$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG273833333333h}kd $$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG $$Ifa$gdG$a$gdxgd-_ 3333ui $$Ifa$gdR $$Ifa$gdG}kd $$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG3333uu $$Ifa$gdG}kd $$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG333333333333333444455A5x5y5555556H6o7p7777777778 8?8a8c8888 99ĸԥԥԥԚԒɃh~ h hL*h hb 5h hQv5hP8hbOJQJh;AhbOJQJhbOJQJh?Chb5OJQJ hQv5 h hb h>)hb hb5hGhh5hhhhdhGhx5 hdhx23333uu $$Ifa$gdG}kd)$$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG3333uu $$Ifa$gdG}kd$$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG333556F6G6H6Q6v666||wrrrriiii $IfgdI7gdbgdQvgd-_}kd=$$Ifl0,"LL t0644 laytG 6667<7E7o7 $IfgdI7o7p7u7z775,,, $IfgdI7kd$$Iflֈ 7","F<F<F<F<F<F< t0644 lBaytI777777 $IfgdI7777775,,, $IfgdI7kd$$Iflֈ 7","F<F<F<F<F<< t0644 lBaytI777777 $IfgdI7777775,,, $IfgdI7kdu$$Iflֈ 7","F<F<F<F<F<< t0644 lBaytI777777 $IfgdI777778500+gdC-gdbkdL$$Iflֈ 7","F<F<F<F<F<< t0644 lBaytI78 8::<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>$a$gd gd;AgdwXgdQvgdC-gdb 9:::::o;;3<8<W<[<x<<<<=1=8=U=j=n=>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ҭҵh~mHnHujh' UhxTjhxTUhb5OJQJhzshwXh' h hQv5hyzahMhd h hb h hL*hhhb(,1h/ =!"#$% $$Ift!vh5 5T#v #vT:V l t065 5Tatyt $$Ift!vh5 5T#v #vT:V l t065 5Tatyt $$Ift!vh5 5T#v #vT:V l t065 5Tatyt $$Ift!vh5 5T#v #vT:V l t065 5Tatyt $$Ift!vh5 5T#v #vT:V l t065 5Tatyt $$If!vh5555#v:V l t065yt $$If!vh5555#v:V l t065yt $$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5L5L#vL:V l t065LytG$$If!vh5 5j5/55R5 #v #vj#v/#v#vR#v :V l t065</ BytI7$$If!vh5 5j5/55R5 #v #vj#v/#v#vR#v :V l t065</ BytI7$$If!vh5 5j5/55R5 #v #vj#v/#v#vR#v :V l t065</ BytI7$$If!vh5 5j5/55R5 #v #vj#v/#v#vR#v :V l t065</ BytI7^ 002 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List jj zs Table Grid7:V06U6 zs Hyperlink >*B*ph44  0Header  H$6!6  0 Header CharCJaJ4 @24  0Footer  H$6A6  0 Footer CharCJaJPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$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$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! 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-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] 6 ***-/_()-139> $%'/18ER R&((((())--$.=.V.o..2%292M2a2u22222333336o77777778>!"#&()*+,-.02345679:;<=>?@ABCDFGHIJKLMNOPQ $&-!8@0(  B S  ? "%+%%%%&-&>&F&W&_&&&&&"'+'-'5'r'z''''(c(k(W0`01 166666666666b j !'!T%\%%%((8+@+66666666666333333 H $S%T%%%00 1 111515U5U5666666666 H $S%T%%%00 1 111515U5U566 bx?Kr`^1(-4B2@@Hp^`o(.   ^ `hH.  L ^ `LhH. xx^x`hH. HH^H`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(.   ^ `hH.  L ^ `LhH. xx^x`hH. HH^H`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o(.   ^ `hH.  L ^ `LhH. xx^x`hH. HH^H`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(.   ^ `hH.  L ^ `LhH. xx^x`hH. HH^H`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.88^8`o(. ^`hH.  L ^ `LhH.   ^ `hH. xx^x`hH. HLH^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o(.   ^ `hH.  L ^ `LhH. xx^x`hH. HH^H`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH. H)L*C-M 4I7!H;\<Sw=!>;A&B$C?C HZHQ{HgJ4XzXq\\-_yzabbhri$j;nzsQvo(yHz{\bwMH @l{RD!!?Q=c #khrhxTG~b 'D.dx/BO66@6x@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial9GaramondA BCambria Math"qh&FC&0).c).c!24d663QHX ?Qv2!xxASSESSMENT REPORT ENGLISH MAJORacameronacameron4         Oh+'0  < H T `lt| ASSESSMENT REPORTENGLISH MAJOR acameronNormal acameron3Microsoft Office Word@ @سv`Y@Xpt@J;u).՜.+,0 hp  Indiana Universityc6  ASSESSMENT REPORTENGLISH MAJOR Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSUVWXYZ[\]_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{}~Root Entry F[