Department of English
Language and Literature
1997-98 Assessment Report
Department Chair: Betty P. Pytlik
Undergraduate Committee: Laurence Bartlett
Joan Connor
Reid Huntley
Joseph McLaughlin
Mark Rollins
Jeffrey Tucker
Arthur Woolley, Chair
June 30, 1998
(web version; no appendices)
This year’s report — Having read the previous assessment reports from the English Department and having looked carefully at the university Assessment Committee’s comments from last year’s evaluation process, this year’s English Department assessment committee, actually its Undergraduate Committee, decided to
• develop more objective evaluative data (to supplement student and alumni opinion surveys),
• emphasize the English major program as a whole rather than the goals and accomplishments of individual courses, and
• meet the promises made in our last report.
We have also worked this year both to strengthen the statements of our curricular purposes and to develop more credible evidence that the curriculum produces intended results.
Conventional assessment and the arts — The nature of assessment when it comes to the study of literature in one’s native language, the study of an essentially artistic phenomenon at a sophisticated level, cannot fundamentally be made objective. Artists and critics of artists, whatever their medium, ultimately assert an individual perspective; they are not attempting to produce statements to be tested by replication and characterized by a search for certainty. Quite the opposite, they are attempting to produce original, complex, idiosyncratic, innovative, probing and creative, often provocative, material for the edification and development of their viewers’ intellects, emotions, and imaginations. Consequently, there is a natural resistance in the field of literary study to the uniformity and consistency that are convincing and often necessary in a statistically and technically oriented era.
On the other hand, it is certainly reasonable to be asked to state what one is intending to teach and to demonstrate that in fact such things have been taught. In addition, one can indeed refer to a discipline of literary study, even if the standards of that discipline alter significantly over time and are constantly and eagerly being debated, more so now than ever. The effect of that increased debate on our curriculum has been the introduction, a few years ago, of a new course required for the Ohio University English major, one on the current spectrum of literary theories.
It should be noted that English departments across the country are, in the absence of any one national set of measurements, having to work out locally their own assessment processes and criteria. The Graduate Record Exam might be considered one form of such a national standard, but it has a very limited purpose—to measure knowledge and skills a person hoping to enter the college teaching profession should already have—not to measure an English major’s version of the broader knowledge and skills that are the raison d’etre of a liberal education. Even
the graduate programs in many English departments find the GRE too limited as an admissions evaluation tool but use it because they have no other reliable, comparative standard to use.
Scope — We have chosen not to emphasize this year the assessment of our graduate program. The doctoral program has been exhaustively reviewed as part of the Ohio Board of Regents review of all doctoral programs in the state. Ohio University’s English Department program was one of only three in the state to be approved by that process (self-study, on-site analysis by outside reviewers, copious reports, re-review by Regents-appointed experts). The only qualification was a requirement we submit a progress report in 1998. We intend to assess our Master’s program in 1998-99.
UNIT GOALS FOR STUDENT LEARNING
What are your goals for student learning? — The English department had, as of Fall 1997, 190 Arts & Sciences majors on the Athens campus, 60 of whom are in our creative writing program, 18 of whom are pre-law, and 2 of whom are pre-theology, the remainder being "straight" English majors. We also teach 17 Honors Tutorial College majors and 139 English Education majors. Every year several students choose to study abroad, usually at the University of Swansea in Wales, sometimes at Odense University in Denmark, with both of which we have exchange arrangements. The department taught 170 undergraduate sections of English and Humanities in winter 1998, an average quarter.
The English Department’s goals were stated in our first assessment report (1995-96); however, these goals were identified separately for the different parts of the English curriculum: service courses (Tier I composition, both first-year and junior; Tier II courses, i.e., Humanities, introduction to literature, oriental literature; and about eight Tier III courses), literary analysis and history, tutorial study, creative writing, and secondary school teaching.
Mission statement — This year the department revised its mission statement by drafting a broader statement (yet to be formally adopted by full department vote) describing the mission of the entire program, not merely that of each of its individual segments. The statement was first drafted by Professors Mark Rollins and Joan Connor, both members of the Undergraduate Committee. It was debated and adjusted by that committee, then edited further by the Administrative Staff Committee, and then again adjusted by the Undergraduate Committee.
The department’s central purpose is 1) to study and teach the history, forms, theory, and practice associated with the production and reading of written texts, especially those presenting artistic and imaginative evocations of human experience; and 2) to help students develop an expertise for responding to such texts. These aims inevitably incorporate description of and debate about the cultural, social, economic, philosophical and political contexts implicit in the texts, thereby exposing students to a variety of such contexts, both historical and contemporary. They also mandate some knowledge about the nature and history of language, and the continual development and exercise among students of their ability to formulate and articulate their own engagement with life and literature.
Students--majors and non-majors alike--apply these studies in English language and literature to meet the requirements of various professional and personal futures. Many teach English at various levels from elementary to university. Others use English as a preparation for graduate school, e.g., in education, law or communications. Some develop careers as editors and writers--creative, technical, or professional. Many study English to develop their individual sense of values, culture and aesthetics. The department addresses these diverse applications by offering courses that introduce students to critical skills requisite to a fuller understanding of literature, that define the history of English and American literature, that enhance rhetorical, creative and imaginative skills, and that emphasize skills in research and scholarly exposition.
Indicate how your goals were developed and who was involved. — For two years, in 1990-92, the English department had an 1804 grant to review it curricular principles and practices. After listening to outside experts and after a number of mini-retreats, the department revised its major, effective 1993-94. The department’s fall 1997 all-day retreat spent half its time on assessment, primarily articulating goals of various portions of our curriculum. Past annual retreats have also paid significant attention to curriculum and goals.
The primary conduit for adding to the curriculum or making changes in the major requirements is the department’s Undergraduate Committee. This year the members were
Laurence Bartlett, Professor, hired 1970;
Deborah Brown, Assistant Professor, (1995);
Joan Connor, Assistant Professor, (1995);
Reid Huntley, Professor, (1968);
Joseph McLaughlin, Assistant Professor, (1996);
Mark Rollins, Associate Professor (1969);
Jeffrey Tucker, Assistant Professor (1997); and
Arthur Woolley, Chair, Associate Professor (1964).
This committee, with some editorial help from the department’s Administrative Staff Committee, was the responsible agent for formulating the mission statement and planning and producing the assessment report. The committee has a varied make-up: It includes retiring (1998), continuing and recent members of the department and members with a primary interest in the creative writing program, the tutorial program, African-American courses, British as well as American literary history, and the English secondary school teaching program.
Have they been modified based on previous reports? — The English department’s implicit, unstated goals have not been modified based on previous reports, though assessment methods and explicit statements of goals have been, as have practices in advising and multi-section course coordination. The general satisfaction among students with their courses and major program gives the department confidence in its overall goals and programs as described in previous assessment reports.
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
How do you assess student learning? — Primarily, the faculty of the English department assesses student learning by daily observing and instructing students on their developing capacities while they interact with their peers and their teachers during the courses taught by the department. We also solicit student comments, written and oral, and take statistical surveys.
In general, except qualitatively, English courses are not sequenced and students arrive at the university with many years of training in "the language arts," formal and informal, and at quite varying levels of capability. English prose and poetry, both superficial and sophisticated, are, after all, an available part of our culture’s public experience. Therefore success in later courses cannot be used as a valid sign of successful learning in the department’s beginning courses; that learning might have taken place, as it often does in superior students, in other environments under other stimuli.
What testing instruments, methods and processes do you use to collect assessment data? — A number of assessment methods have been in place for a long time.
• As most course instructors have done for decades (if not centuries) our English department faculty assess student learning by observing their performance on quizzes, tests, student-written papers, and journal entries (e.g., 200-250 word written responses to daily readings submitted two to three times a week). In English courses, a heavy emphasis is put on discussion among class members, and instructors evaluate student learning and its development by listening, participating and directing such discussions. Tutorial students are evaluated weekly in hour-long, one-on-one conferences with their tutor. Creative writing students are evaluated through regular peer critiquing in their relatively small classes. All writing students, from freshman composition to advanced creative writing, have individual conferences with their instructors outside of class that evaluate manuscripts and suggest improvements. English Education students are evaluated by high-school teachers and an Ohio University instructor when they "student teach" for a quarter in actual high school classes around the state.
• The department continued, with a small change, two polls instituted last year:
1. An internal senior exit poll, solicited, in spring quarter 1998, from all graduating English majors, by use of individually addressed envelopes distributed through their classes This survey asked the respondent to evaluate the usefulness of individual English courses to their education in English language and literature.
2. An external poll of recent graduates (June 1997 through March 1998), distributed in May 1998, asked the same questions as the senior exit poll, but seen now from the perspective of a graduate. The survey also asked for prose comments on their present activities and the relevance of their major to those activities.
• The department’s annual newsletter often elicits alumni feedback about current occupations and successes and sometimes about the relevance or rewards of educational experience in the English department.
• Every section of every English course is evaluated by its students and, after grades are submitted, instructors consult these evaluations, often making adjustments based on them. We collected statistical results from the most recent three quarters available: winter 1997 through fall 1997.
• Institutional Research, of course, provides the department with the results of placement surveys among the department’s graduates and with results of a survey of alumni five years after graduation on satisfaction with their major.
• Admission to graduate school is a valid indication of successful learning demonstrated to external evaluators. Employment in a secondary school teaching position has the same implication.
• Students in creative writing can be considered successful when their work is published in Sphere, the English Department’s student-written literary publication. Outside judges select the best work submitted in each of three categories: fiction, non-fiction, and poetry. A number of graduate students (the department helped fund 11 graduate students traveling to conferences to give papers and 2 more received no funding but gave papers) and some undergraduates had papers selected for delivery at national and/or regional conferences.
This year the English department began three new methods of assessing—two of them in pilot form:
• We instituted an annual poll of advisees to identify strong and weak points of our advising system.
• We began a pilot program to test entering and exiting English majors on their knowledge of facts and terminology relevant to literary study. All faculty members were asked to submit at least two questions of fact they felt an English major should be able to answer correctly after taking the particular courses that instructor teaches, whether the courses were general and introductory or more specific and advanced. The undergraduate committee as a whole selected from this pool 29 questions they felt well-formulated and plausibly indicative of learning in our undergraduate curriculum. Eventually one question, number 17, was declared ambiguous and disregarded. The main purpose was to indicate whether exiting students did indeed know more than entering students. The test was administered near the end of spring quarter to the 19 English majors in one section each of two introductory literature courses, English 201 and 203. It was also administered to the 42 English majors in one section each of two senior English courses, English 460 and 466. Results were compared and appear in the section of this report titled "Evidence Obtained About Learning."
• We also began a pilot program comparing the analytical skills, cultural consciousness, and writing maturity of entering and exiting English majors as they deal with literary. Ultimately, we hope to ask incoming English majors to let us keep term papers they write for one of their beginning major courses (English 201, 202, and/or 203). Then, when the same students are abut to graduate we will ask them for a senior paper. To get started this year, we solicited from graduating seniors in spring quarter a copy of a paper done for an advanced English course in winter quarter (English 460, 464, and 465) as long as they could also provide us with one they had done a few years earlier in a beginning (200-level) required English major course. Eight students, prompted by gift certificates provided by Institutional Research, responded with a pair of such essays. The purpose was to see if the students’ abilities to analyze and articulate on a literary subject had improved. All the pairs of papers were analyzed separately by three members of the Undergraduate Committee. Results appear in the section of this report titled "Evidence Obtained About Learning."
Have these assessment activities been modified since last year? — Yes. As stated, we instituted three new methods this year and put more emphasis on the major program in contrast to individual courses and on obtaining more objective indicators of actual results, inadequate as these methods may be to measuring achievement of our profounder goals. In the cases of the senior exit poll and the recent graduate poll, we added 13 questions asking for a scaled response on the extent to which the respondent felt they had obtained training on particular skills or perspectives.
Moreover, the department as a whole has become more amenable to assessment processes, even though there remains considerable dismay at the amount of time and energy constant reassessment takes away from other activities closer to actual instruction and faculty self-development.
Though not the result of formal assessment but rather requirements mandated state-wide by the State Board of Education, the department has also modified its curriculum for our part of the preparation of a student to teach in secondary school. The new authorization from the state, to be known as a license (rather than certificate) to teach Integrated Language Arts (rather than English) required that Theater and Communications be included in the curriculum to a significant extent.
Led by the invaluable initiative of Professor Deborah Brown, our English Education specialist, the Undergraduate Committee debated what adjustments and reductions were prudent to meet the new requirements of the state. This debate caused, naturally, a good bit of assessment about the appropriate curriculum for students getting a teaching license. The efforts required submission of evidence that a host of particular learning goals, established by the state, would be met by one particular course or another. These state-mandated goals had to be negotiated between our department’s assessment of what constituted adequate preparation in the subject area; similar assessments by the College of Communication, by the School of Theater, and by the College of Education; and the limits of time for a student hoping to complete a program in four years.
The state Board of Education approved our proposed program with a query or two and the understanding we would develop two courses not currently offered.
ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
Detail How You Have Analyzed the Data Or Other Gathered Information — Much effort this year was applied to determining new methods for assessing—with validity, credibility and integrity—the learning occurring among English majors; less was applied to meticulous analysis. Actual areas of success and failure seemed fairly self-evident once the instrument was created. Results are summarized in the section of this report entitled "Evidence Obtained About Learning" and detailed data collected appears in various appendices.
• With reference to advising, areas for improvement were pinpointed by low scores on student satisfaction with the area indicated by a particular question. Professors Cronin, Huntley, Pytlik and Woolley reviewed the results and made consequent suggestions for adjustment in the advising process.
• With reference to overall satisfaction with instruction, Professor Laurence Bartlett paid particular attention to analyzing the results from all the course evaluations collected for the three quarters of 1997.
• In addition, the department’s Budget and Rating Committee, consisting of eight members, i.e., the chair of the department ex officio, four members by virtue of chairing major committees/programs, and three elected members, read all student evaluations of all courses. Based on these numerical and prose evaluations, syllabi of courses taught during the year, the instructor’s comments on the same courses, and sometimes collegial observations, the committee debates and assigns each faculty member a numerical rating for teaching. (The committee also provides ratings, based on other materials, on research and service productivity.) The chair of the department then provides to any faculty member who requests it, a description of the committee’s analysis of the instructor’s success and areas needing improvement. This mechanism, though meant primarily for merit ratings and compensation calculations, provides an assessment and feedback, based on student input and taken very seriously by most faculty.
• With reference to the objective learning test, questions to be asked were selected by the entire Undergraduate Committee. Analysis of results, since they came in late in the spring quarter, were made by the chair of the Undergraduate Committee and will be distributed to the entire department next fall.
• With reference to the analysis of entering and exiting essays by the same student, analysis of the essays was made by Professors Bartlett, Connor and McLaughlin, all members of the Undergraduate Committee.
• With reference to the senior exit and recent graduate polls, analysis was made by the department chair, Professor Pytlik, and the undergraduate chair, Professor Woolley.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED ABOUT LEARNING
What evidence (assessment information) have you gathered indicating that you are accomplishing your goals? What evidence indicates that they are not being fully accomplished? — In general, the evidence indicates the department is indeed accomplishing its learning goals. More specific evidence follows:
• Overall course satisfaction — The department’s course evaluation form asks students to indicate their rating using a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) on 10 questions, the last being overall quality of instruction in the course. Responses from winter 1997 on all questions average 4.36, from spring 1997 4.40, and from fall 1997 4.49. Since all of these are in the uppermost quintile, the department’s student ratings seem quite good. The tutorial program rates particularly high with a 4.69 rating for 9 questions and 4.56 for the 10th, overall instruction. The creative writing courses are the next best with a 4.50 for 9 questions and 4.33 for the 10th.
Looking at particular strengths and weaknesses, we find the strengths are availability for consultation outside of class (4.66), enthusiasm for teaching (4.61) and openness to student questions (4.6). Our weakest characteristics seem to be clarity when presenting course concepts (4.24) and fairness in evaluating student performance (4.27). Some of the weaknesses might be ascribed to the natural subjectivity of the discipline and a consequent (and hardly avoidable even if frustrating to some students) variety of perspectives and standards from different instructors.
• Our senior exit poll had 23 returns from the total of 81 English majors (mostly Arts & Sciences) graduating in June 1998. On a scale of 1 (unsatisfactory) to 5 (excellent), these seniors rated the effectiveness of the courses they had taken, in contrast to a rating of the instructors done through regular end-of the-course evaluations, as an average of 3.94. Our best courses, according to these ratings were Shakespeare (301, 303), the twentieth century (315), literary theory (399), history of the English language (351), major authors (465-66), and English education (451-52), all scoring well above a 4.00. Courses needing work were the courses in earlier literary history (311-313, 323), the introductory courses (201-203), the course in writing for the discipline (307J), and some special English language courses (352, 353). Many of these could be expected to be less popular since they deal with times and texts further removed from the more familiar current culture.
Responses to the new questions this year on accomplishments of the major as a whole coordinated with the numbers given from the senior exit poll. The areas that were weak were understanding of our multicultural heritage (not yet a major aim of the study of English and American literary history but an increasing one) and the English language as a developing medium (question 11). Otherwise, students seemed quite happy with their major, all questions being rated at 3.8 or higher and six with ratings of 4.0 or higher. Close reading and the close study of two or three major authors rated as the highest skills learned.
Several items gleaned from comments promise to be the subject of review by the Undergraduate Committee in 1998-99: earlier exposure to literary theory, more diversity in readings, softening of demands for higher quality of work, and less repetition of the same texts in different courses. Other students complimented the excellent teaching of several professors.
• The survey of recent graduates did not receive many replies, only 10, hardly enough for drawing serious conclusions. The statistical part of the poll asks the same questions as the senior exit poll and the patterns were about the same. However, the scores on the new questions asking about the impressions of achieved skills in the major as a whole were very gratifying for the department. These former students rated every skill or content area asked about as 3.8 or higher and four of the 13 areas rated 4.5 or better on the 5.0 scale. The department scored particularly high on critical thinking about texts (4.8) and on training in literary analysis (4.7) and quite highly on consciousness about human beings and interactions with society (4.5). These are talents that will be applicable in a great number of occupations and positions of civil responsibility (see Ohio University mission statement). The questions asked of recent graduates concerning the value of the major elicited positive responses too with the overall response to the graduate’s experience as an English major and his or her training in reading analytically both rating a very high 4.6. These numbers, though based on an inadequate sample size, are all notably higher than the numbers generated last year from graduates over the period 1990-96.
Written comments, of course, were even fewer, but those who did comment, with one exception, remarked very positively on the value of their undergraduate major, whether they were in a writing/literary field or not. Two commenters suggested more international literature. (This is an area the department is already hiring in.)
• In our new objective test of literary facts and terminology, sophomores scored 34% correct answers and seniors 56%, a very solid improvement. English majors are only required to take a selection of courses from among a pool of applicable courses. Consequently, none would be expected to get all correct answers. Probably only the rare faculty member would be able to get 100%.
On a few of the questions, entering students outscored exiting, all of them questions dealing with terminology, a form of knowledge stressed in the introductory courses. When questions reflected particular authors, titles or events associated especially with a historical period of literature, exiting students would score as much as 7 times the percentage of correct answers or exceed the entering students by as much as 60 percentage points. In the case of recognizing the poem’s author from the quoted final two lines of an unidentified poem (a fairly well-known one by Wordsworth), not one entering student got the correct answer (multiple choice) while 31% of the exiting students did. The evidence is strong of increased objective knowledge in areas faculty believe educated English majors should have learned.
• Our new essay comparison assessment tool produced less statistical but equally strong results. Comments from the reviewers suggest that sampling needs improvement. We were really trying to see if—and on what bases—we could identify differences between entering and exiting students whatever their initial level of competence. Reviewers, even though one of them was quite skeptical prior to reading the essays, were quite clear that the capacities of exiting students were noticeably superior to the same student’s capacities as entering majors in such matters as developing arguments with a "greater sense of focus, complexity of thesis, more extensive use of evidence, a more confident voice." The later essays also evidenced an increased sense of the wider cultural context that generated the literary texts examined, a sense presumably developed by the period courses required in the major. Reviewers did not supply statistical ratings for the particular traits they observed in the student essays.
• The Institutional Research office supplies the department, through the college, with results of two surveys, a Career and Further Education Study and a Five-year Educational Outcomes Survey of Alumni. The latter is done only every two years and no data was produced in 1997-98. The former is done annually and uses a class that has a year between graduation and the time of the survey. This year, results were available from a study of the class of 1996. 66% of our majors held jobs within 2 months of graduation, Only 7% were neither employed nor in school. 42% were enrolled in graduate study, full- or part-time. 54% were very or extremely satisfied with their present position and fully 84% were at least somewhat satisfied with their major. 94% said they were either very well or extremely well-prepared for further academic work. These figures indicate our graduates both pursued further intellectual development and were productive citizens economically. (Once again, see Ohio University’s Mission Statement indicating the "central purpose" of "intellectual and personal growth" as well as the training of "responsible, productive citizens.")
• A spot phone and memo check of 26 of this June’s bachelor’s degree graduates indicates that at least three of our eleven graduating creative writing majors are going to graduate school, while one is working on an organic agriculture farm. At least four of our six graduating pre-law majors are going to law school. Thirteen of our regular majors are going to graduate school, one is working in London this summer and applying for a writing or editing job in the fall (with internship experience in New York while an undergraduate), one is working part-time and looking for a fall job, two are applying for work in the fall but currently otherwise occupied, and one has a public relations job full-time. This indicates a healthy percentage of graduates following paths they have chosen with most getting further education or already gainfully employed.
IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTED 1997-98
What improvements or enhancements have been implemented based on your assessment activities? — The department made several improvements based on both this year’s and last year’s assessment activities. These concerned advising, coordination of multi-section courses and emphasizing assessment of the major as a whole.
• Advising — Students were asked in winter 1998 to rate their adviser on a scale of 1 (high) to 3 (Low). Of 207 possible respondents, 142 responses were received. On none of the 10 questions to be answered numerically, did the average fall below 2, the middle rating. The overall rating was 2.32. The department’s advisers were rated best on treating advisees with respect (2.64) and worst on concern about the advisee’s career (2.09). (Many advisers had not considered placement a subject they were responsible to give advice on unless asked by the student.) Availability (of the adviser) scores were not as high as they should have been (2.12), though keeping appointments scored a relatively good 2.50. Understanding degree requirements rated 2.47, a good score considering that every faculty member in the department does advising.
Written comments and suggestions indicated students wished for more career and placement advising, asked for ability to change advisers by request (already in effect but apparently not adequately publicized), announcements when DARS reports were available, better notification that an adviser was on leave and that the student needed to check for a substitute, more available times, both mandatory consultation and freedom not to have any consultation, and more knowledge about other majors.
As a result, a notice has been put on our departmental advising bulletin board announcing how to apply to change one’s adviser. Another notice will be posted by the chair of the department’s advising committee as soon as DARS reports are available. The same person will, each quarter, post notices on the office doors of faculty on leave indicating to students that they should check the bulletin board for their new adviser. Advisers have been encouraged by letter to invite students to discuss post-graduate plans. They have also been asked to schedule longer hours for advising.
• Coordination of multi-sectional courses was a commitment made by our last annual report since students had complained of varying standards between different sections of the same course. The department began efforts to deal with this problem, without trying to eliminate the valuable individuality of professors’ insights into literature. Three members of the undergraduate committee held meetings of faculty members who often taught sections of one of these several introductory courses (English 201, 202 and 203). These meetings generated for each course some agreed lists of terms to be taught and principles to be applied when designing the particular syllabus for a particular section. The Undergraduate Committee as a whole then reviewed the suggestions from these three meetings and developed a statement on Course Guidelines for English 201, 202 and 203. Since senior graduate students also sometimes teach these courses, the guidelines should provide a means of making the standards and goals among all sections more consistent.
• The assessment of the major as a whole was strengthened by the development of a departmental mission statement presented early in this report.
How are you using information from your answer to questions 3 to improve your program? — The department has initiated new assessment tools and the process of creating these has resulted in increased departmental attention to assessment, student learning results, and the design of the major. Results of most of our assessment activities this year have not been in hand long enough to effect alterations. In fact, our assessments prove considerable success with our current major and student learning. Moreover, the department’s current hiring activities have defined replacement positions that will result in courses with the greater diversity of cultural origin that students have asked for in this year’s assessment data. The Undergraduate Committee can discuss next year the placement in the curricular sequence of the literary theory course.
RECOMMENDATIONS
What changes do you recommend for your unit in the future? — The following changes relevant to the curriculum are to be undertaken next year:
• Develop more coordinated standards for 307J and 399, both courses required for the major.
• Consider replacing the present introductory course requirement of two courses from among 201, 202 and 203 (Critical Approaches to Fiction, Poetry, and Drama, respectively) with a requirement for "202 and either 201 or 203" since poetry (202) is the form of literature most commonly met in literary history courses and a compact form of literary art.
• Develop two required courses for the new license in Integrated Language Arts: World Literature and Adolescent Literature.
The following changes are to be made in assessment processes:
• Assess the Master’s degree program.
• Improve the collection procedure for sampling literary analysis essays from entering and exiting majors. Also develop more systematic methods of analyzing those essays.
• Tighten the administration of the test and the process of selecting questions for the objective test of information and technical terms.
• Involve a wider group in analyzing statistical data collected for assessment.
• Improve knowledge of advisers about career planning for English majors.