The English Department 2018-2019 Annual Assessment Report to the College of Humanities.

Abstract

The English department 2018-19 annual assessment report to the College of Humanities for the Office of Academic Assessment and Program Review. Participating in the General Education assessment of Arts & Humanities, the department directly assessed six sections of three different GE courses (ENGL 300, 316 & 333), measuring GE SLO 5 (Students will be able to use appropriate critical vocabulary to describe and analyze works of artistic expression, literature, philosophy, or religion and a comprehension of the historical context within which a body of work was created or a tradition emerged) in all six sections, GE SLO 2 (Students will be able to analyze, interpret, and reflect critically upon ideas of value, meaning, discourse and expression from a variety of perspectives from the arts and/or humanities) in five sections, and GE SLO 3 (Students will be able to produce work/works of art that communicate to a diverse audience through a demonstrated understanding and fluency of expressive forms) in a single section. A random sample of student papers (n=56) was rubric scored on a scale of 1 to 3 (with 1=Does not meet expectations, 2= meets expectations, and 3=exceeds expectations), with the following mean scores per section: ENGL 300#1—SLO #2 = 1.7, SLO #5= 1.4 (10 samples); ENGL 300#2—SLO #2 =2, SLO #5 = 2 (10 samples); ENGL 316#1—SLO # 2= 2.3; SLO # 5= 2.1 (11samples); ENGL 316#2—SLO #2= 2; SLO # 5 = 1.7 (5 samples); ENGL 333#1—SLO #2=2.1, SLO #5 = 1.9 (10 samples); ENGL 333#2—SLO #3=2.3, SLO #5 = 2.4 (10 samples). The report notes that “Faculty often do not take into account GE SLOs as they are constructing their final projects; thus, the papers/projects and the SLOs are often not directly aligned in the assessment process [which was] especially true of SLO #5.” In addition, the report observes that the “evaluators were influenced by the quality of writing in their assessment of the works, even though writing was not specifically listed in any of the SLOs. The committee found some of the writing to be so poor that its content was obscured or rendered unintelligible.” A detailed analysis of student writing problems encountered during the assessment is included in the report. In addition, the department’s undergraduate and graduate options committees reviewed and affirmed their existing SLOs. Suggested assessment ideas for AY 2019-20 are included in the report, but plans for implementation are not indicated.