Academic Affairs

Writing Portfolios: A suggestion we will be considering for the fall of 1998 is to replace the prompted, "random" responses at the 234 and senior seminar levels to the same work of literature ("The Story of an Hour" by Kate Chopin) with the submission of a major paper from each course. Seniors in particular have difficulty fitting in the additional "random" writing sample to their busy schedules, hence the consistently low return rate from seniors. Submission of a major required paper from the seminar would, theoretically at least, increase the likelihood of having a full pool of samples for assessment. Whether the results would be skewed by the differing assignments at the 200 and 400-levels would also need to be considered.

The first portfolio collection has been completed, although only a single graduate’s portfolio was complete enough for assessment. That student’s portfolio reflected significant growth in the student’s self-evaluation as a writer. She made suggestions for improvement of the program, most significantly in the need for a library component in the 101 and 102 sequence. She praised the department’s success in teaching critical skills in reading and writing about literature, although she recommended that the premise of 234 be more concretely defined and explained to students early in the course. The writing samples submitted at the 234 and senior-seminar levels did not, however, provide any means of measuring writing improvement, since this student submitted the same paper, obviously preserved among her computer files, for both classes. The new method of assessment suggested above would eliminate this unforeseen pitfall.

Capstone Courses: Evaluation of the writing assessment and the courses themselves is undergoing revision. Because there were insufficient data for the committee to assess, the committee has decided to have all students enrolled in capstone courses submit papers. The consequence is that in addition to English majors, English minors as well as students who choose the courses as electives will also be evaluated. These additional students will expand the pool for assessing the differences between student writing in 234 and in senior seminars, but they will not form part of the longitudinal, portfolio assessments.

Survey: Perhaps all those who care to respond to these questions in the current alumni survey have done so; perhaps having the survey as part of an existing page rather than as a separate page affected response. Given the minimal response to this survey, the department needs to consider new methods of obtaining information from alumni about programs. The Chair’s pleas in the Newsletter for increased communication from alumni have yielded some response from former students via e-mail concerning their current jobs. If we are to use feedback from alumni in assessment, the department needs to develop a more targeted and systematic way of obtaining feedback from alumni. A database of KSC/UNK English alumni obtained in 1997 from the Alumni Office is much too large for this purpose; our current databases, while serviceable, are in need of correction and updating. The Assessment Committee recommends delaying the next distribution of a questionnaire until the five-year survey (coming up in 1999), including a self-addressed, stamped envelope to facilitate response, and redesigning of the survey to elicit personal achievements along with program evaluation.

Exit Interviews: Since response to the written exit interview as poor, and since a number of our English Education majors are not on campus the semester they graduate, the department should perhaps reconsider the timing of the exit interview process, keying it not to graduation but to the last semester on campus or a post graduation survey. The first method might use upper level courses or mailings; the latter would depend upon our ability to obtain current addresses for recent graduates.

Tracking:  Assessment and tracking of M.A. degree holders has not yet been carried out separately from the alumni survey of undergraduates. The Graduate Director plans to present to the Graduate Committee specific suggestions for exit interviews of M.A. degree holders and periodic surveys of M.A. degree holders, both those with the M.A. Ed. and those holding the new M.A. in English. These plans will be presented for implementation in the 1998-99 assessment.

In addition to assessment of graduate student portfolios, we intend to implement a self-assessment questionnaire for students about to graduate with the M.A. degree and a retroactive placement assessment of those who have graduated from the program in the past five years. These are new assessment tools to be implemented 1998-1999.

With the pending resignation of the Graduate Chair of the English Department, no new assessment tools of graduate students were implemented. The Graduate Program Committee refined the Comprehensive Examination for the M.A. in English by adding a non-thesis option. Students choosing this option will compile two portfolios (one in British literature and one in literature of the United States) as well as choosing a written or oral exam over those collected materials. One of the top priorities of the new Chair and the new members of the Graduate committee, will be to create and put into action a Graduate Student Assessment Plan. The largest problem facing the Assessment Committee is feedback from already overloaded faculty, not only in encouraging students to add papers to their portfolios so that student progress through their major can be evaluated, in following through with the 234 and senior-level writing samples, and in reporting the successes and needs of our seniors in 400-level courses. Cooperation is vital in any assessment program.

A new category "Capstone Courses" is being added to reflect the revision of capstone courses and senior seminars in the revised the English major program