Academic Year Assessed

2017 - 2018

Program(s) Assessed

English major, all options (Literature, Writing, Teaching)

What Was Done

For FY 2017-18 all students were evaluated for Core Learning Outcome #2 from our Assessment Plan.

    • Outcome #2:  Be able to critically interpret, analyze, and synthesize texts, culture, and/or communication. 
    • Data Collected:
      • A  random sample was selected of three final papers from each of the option-specific capstone courses: LIT 494RH for Literature, WRIT 494RH for Writing, and ENGL 461RH for English Education. Three faculty members were assigned to perform the evaluations, one faculty for each option.

What Was Learned

The papers collected from all three capstone courses (literature, education, and writing courses) again demonstrated sustained proficiency according to the assessment category. Taken collectively, they demonstrated an above proficient mastery of the central core skills associated with critical analysis. While skills differed slightly from paper to paper, they overall demonstrated the kind of core competencies that we expect from our majors. We will again follow our precedent of reporting on each disciplinary area separately as each program is increasingly demonstrating its own unique areas of expertise and potential challenges. 

    • 3A. Literature
      • Overall, the three literature papers demonstrated students' strong abilities to simultaneously "interpret", "analyze", and "synthesize" both literary and theoretical texts. All three papers both developed sophisticated theoretical perspectives by synthesizing diverse texts, and hence formulated a theoretical lens for critical analysis, and at the same time applied these theoretical insights to advance sustained readings or interpretations of a specific text or group of texts. .
      • In particular, the first two students did an exceptional job of “synthesizing” a very wide range of theories of humor, each discussing some dozen different theories and theorists and providing clear, cogent examples of each. While one might technically argue that these syntheses—at points—resembled more quick references to diverse texts than they did true integrated syntheses of the material, this is perhaps to be expected of undergraduate work, and the degree of synthesis was sufficient for the overall effect of the papers as a whole. One student then went on to use these theories to “critically interpret” Joseph Heller’s seminal novel, Catch-22 in a very thorough and compelling manner. His interpretation was both multilayered, following complex twists and turns in the plot and character development, and extensively documented with specific references to the text. The other student interpreted a wide range of examples of Native American humor, doing an admirable job of dealing with the cultural specificity of the texts. 
      • While the third paper synthesized a narrower range of critical theories, its synthesis was not only proficient but also appropriate for its different purposes. Moreover, it also used its synthesis of critical texts to develop a sophisticated critical lens through which to analyze its respective texts, and its interpretations were equally thorough and well supported with specific textual details. In particular, this student did a commendable job of interpreting unconventional texts—internet memes and web blogs—in a manner that drew on traditional methods of literary analysis, effectively demonstrating that “high” literary scholarship can effectively be applied to “low” cultural texts.
      • Recommendation: As the writing major has seen a very rapidly growing range of different writing styles and modes, this growing complication of the discipline was perhaps for the first time apparent within the literature major itself. One final paper evaluated was not a traditional analysis of literature at all. Instead it was an analysis of literary themes—specifically humor—across a wide range of Internet memes and web blogs. In a discipline that recently awarded Bob Dylan a Nobel Prize in literature, it should not surprise us that what counts as literature is rapidly evolving, but just as the writing major has had to grapple with an evolving notion of what modes of writing are appropriate for its majors, the literature major now needs to confront similar dilemmas regarding the nature of literature itself. Does the literature faculty consider it appropriate for students to study graphic novels, popular music, and Internet memes—not just in general, but specifically at the level of the senior capstone—as equally valid literary (or at least cultural) texts worthy of sustained interpretation and analysis? While there is nothing per se that prohibits the faculty from affirming this broadening of the category of literature—and, in fact, doing so may be all but inevitable—the literature faculty should collectively decide how broad of a definition of literature they are comfortable with. The evolution of the literature curriculum seems to suggest that the department is generally comfortable with a broad definition of literature, given that it has simultaneously added courses on the Great Books and popular culture, but it should directly decide if it is comfortable with a similarly broad definition at the capstone level.  

    • 3 B. Education
      • Representative samples of writing in ENGL 461, the capstone course, demonstrated levels of proficiency ranging from 3 (developing proficiency/acceptable) to 4 (fully proficient).  
      • Critically interpret, analyze, and synthesize texts: Demonstrated varying levels of competence in the treatment of the research and scholarship literature underlying the individual projects. In some cases, papers showed rich and nuanced understanding of the scholarship, insightful interpretation of its relevance for the specific domain of inquiry, and an ability to synthesize findings with the focus of the current project. Other work evidenced a more cursory and less integrated analysis of the literature, presenting a more “report”-like approach to the scholarship with less attention to interpreting findings with a view toward the project.  
      • Critically interpret, analyze, and synthesize culture: Demonstrated varying levels of competence in the description, interpretation, and analysis of the culture of the classroom and/or the community. Some work evidenced a solid ability to evaluate and prioritize the cultural challenges needing attention and showed insight into developing curricular components intended to address those challenges. Other work indicated a more general and less focused view of cultural aspects with curricular designs that showed a more experimental—rather than intentionally synthesized—approach to assignment development.  
      • Critically interpret, analyze, and synthesize communication: n/a (Capstone paper assignment did not include treatment of communication.)  
      • RECOMMENDATION: With regard to the work that showed less than optimum outcomes, it is recommended that students be encouraged to select research topics that are not overly ambitious and may lead to unhelpfully broad sweeps of the research literature and/or facile or unmanageably general observations of cultural challenges that may lead to speculative pedagogical ideas rather than pragmatically focused implementations. 
    • 3C. Writing
      • In reviewing the sample set, I see ample evidence that WRIT 494 students are able to critically interpret, analyze, and synthesize texts, culture, and/or communication. These samples, in fact, show students excelling at these abilities. Students meet this goal across different genres (from researched academic essays to nonfiction articles) and using different sorts of texts as subject matter to study. For instance, the sample includes a feminist rhetorical analysis of tweets, a site-based study bringing together personal experience and analysis of scholarship, and a synthesis of interviews and scientific studies. Students completing the course demonstrate excellent abilities to analyze, interpret and synthesize across a range of sources and dive deep into those sources.
      • These results will be discussed at the next Department meeting on September 24.

How We Responded

Based on our evaluations the assessment committee will make the following recommendations to the department. 

    • Recommendation #1: The Literature faculty, in particular, needs to form some general consensus as to how broadly the concept of literature should be defined, especially at the capstone level.
    • Recommendation #2:  With regard to the work in education that showed less than optimum outcomes, it is recommended that students be encouraged to select research topics that are not overly ambitious and may lead to unhelpfully broad sweeps of the research literature and/or facile or unmanageably general observations of cultural challenges that may lead to speculative pedagogical ideas rather than pragmatically focused implementations. 
    • Changes will be assessed at the end of the current academic year.

Closing the Loop

Do any of the outcomes this year represent improvements based on assessment from previous years?

    • We don't have this information at the moment. Our plan this academic year is to work on re-evaluating and revising our assessment plans to better meet the current criteria.