To produce graduates who have acquired a comprehensive body of knowledge expected of a graduate English education and specific, measurable skills and training in researching, analyzing, and expressing their arguments about English literature, language, and writing disciplines in a professional idiom.
Objective
Critical Thinking And Writing Skills
That our English graduate students will demonstrate their abilities as independent critical thinkers and writers, capable of employing effective sophisticated critical thinking skills in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of knowledge.
Indicator
Course Requirements
Fulfilling requirements for classwork in five course blocks and taking a required research and bibliography methods class will serve as indicators that all English MA students have acquired a breadth of knowledge in the subject, have developed critical reading and writing skills appropriate to a graduate-level education in English, and are well-prepared for future professional endeavors.
To earn the MA in English, a student must take at least one course in each of five graduate English curriculum blocks. Each block comprises classes with shared disciplinary topics or historical kinship:
Block I (English language courses)
Block II (courses in writing disciplines and literary theory, practica in teaching and editing)
Block III (courses in early literature in English, through 1800)
Block IV (classes in 19th-century literature in English)
Block V (courses in 20th- and 21st-century literature in English).
The course block requirement ensures that students read and research widely in the discipline
In their first long semester, all English MA students also take ENG 697 (Methods of Research and Bibliography), a "gateway" course that introduces them to discipline-specific research and bibliographic methods and impresses upon them professional standards for critical writing.
Criterion
Certification of Course Requirements
As demonstration that the five course-block and research and bibliography methods class requirements have been met, and as a condition for the degree, all students who earn an MA in English at Sam Houston State University during the assessment period will show completion of the block requirement and of ENG 697 (Methods of Research and Bibliography) on their official transcripts.
Finding
Completion of Course Requirements
Without exception, all students who took the MA in English during the assessment period showed completion of the five-block course requirement and of ENG 697 (Methods of Research and Bibliography) on their official final transcripts.
Indicator
Written Comprehensive Examination
A passing grade on the written comprehensive examination will serve as an indicator that an English MA candidate has acquired a breadth of knowledge in the subject, has developed critical reading and writing skills appropriate to a graduate-level education in English, and is well-prepared for future professional endeavors.
For the examination, students choose three comprehensive areas from among thirteen broad topics in literature, language, and writing disciplines:
(1) English Language
(2) Early and Middle English Literature
(3) World Literature with an Emphasis in the Classical Tradition
(4) World Literature with an Emphasis in Anglophone Literature
(5) Theory and Practice of Composition and Rhetoric
(6) Technical and Professional Communication
(7) Renaissance and 17th-Century British Literature
(8) Restoration and 18th-Century British Literature
(9) American Literature before 1800
(10) 19th-Century British Literature
(11) 19th-Century American Literature
(12) 20th- and 21st-Century British Literature
(13) 20th- and 21st-Century American Literature
Because classroom professors sometimes teach to their own interests and preferences, so that their classes may or may not be effectively "comprehensive," the examination areas are distinct from classwork. While professors offer classes in Romantic and Victorian literature, for example, the 19th-Century British Literature area of the written examination comprehends the canon of works from 1800-1900.
To ensure breadth of knowledge in the discipline, the candidate must choose one American literature area and one British literature area; she or he must choose one British or American literature area before 1800 and one British or American literature area after 1800.
Students prepare for the examination with reading lists constructed by graduate faculty area specialists and approved by the Graduate Studies Committee; these lists are periodically updated to allow for the addition and deletion of works as the field of knowledge changes.
The examination is offered three times annually, on the third Saturdays of February, June, and October, respectively. Questions for the examination are drawn from a bank constructed by area specialists among the graduate faculty and screened carefully by the Graduate Studies Committee to ensure that they strike a fair balance between generalization and specificity. On the day of the examination, the student is given three questions for each area; she or he selects one and write for two hours on that section.
A double-blind grading system is used, in which both the candidates who sit for the exam and the faculty readers are anonymous: Two graduate faculty members read each exam and award it a Pass, Fail, or High Pass, according to its merits or deficiencies. In the case of a dispute between the two primary readers, the essay goes to a third graduate faculty member who has no knowledge of the previous results; his or her evaluation of the essay breaks the tie. An evaluation rubric that guides examination readers was formulated and approved by the English Graduate Studies Committee and Chair of the Department of English; the rubric is attached. Essays recently awarded Pass, Fail, and High Pass are also attached here as examples.
Criterion
Standard Pass Rate on Written Comprehensive Examination
As demonstration that the English graduate program is successful in preparing students for the written comprehensive examination, at least 92% of degree candidates will pass the exam at the first sitting or upon retaking it.
Finding
Written Comprehensive Examination Pass Rate
In the fall of 2008 and spring and summer of 2009, fifteen degree candidates sat for the written comprehensive examination in English:
The attached chart shows the distribution of examination essays across the range of areas.
Fourteen students passed all three areas upon either the first attempt or a retake. One student failed a second attempt. Upon appeal, the student retook the exam and failed a third time; the student was subsequently terminated from the program.
The findings show that 93% of the candidates (fourteen of fifteen) who sat for the written comprehensive examination during the assessment period passed all three sections as a requirement for taking the degree. While the percentage demonstrates that the English MA Program exceeded the benchmark of 92%, the results and readers' comments show some patterns:
(1) As the attached chart demonstrates, essays were distributed across the range of areas. Students took exams in every area except for the Theory and Practice of Composition and Rhetoric. (The last time that any student was examined in this disciplinary field was Fall 2005.)
(2) While students slightly favored British literature areas (45%) over American areas (39%), there are certain variables at work. The slightly higher percentage of British literature areas may be explained in part by the requirement that students sit for at least one literature area before 1800: There are three British literature areas before 1800 and only one American area before 1800. Given that there are only three total American literature areas and five total British literature areas, however, students proportionally prefer American literature areas. This fact may provide some support for a new American studies initiative in the department.
(3) The fact that three students chose World Literature with an Emphasis in Anglophone Literature as an elective area suggests the rising popularity of this relatively new subject among our graduate students. This may support a new multicultural literature initiative in the department.
(4) The distribution of essay grades fell predictably across the range of passes, fails, and high passes: Of forty-nine total essays, thirty-five (71.4%) passed, seven (14.3%) failed, and seven (14.3%) received high passes. The even number of fails and high passes suggests that the system is relatively well-balanced and objective.
(5) Readers' comments on essays showed some instructive patterns. A handful of comments recurred on failing essays:
(a) The essay failed to address the specific question or to obey the requirements of the prompt.
(b) The essay failed to establish crucial definitions or establish coherent contexts.
(c) The essay oversimplified and "underproblematized" sophisticated critical issues.
(d) The essay failed to establish a thesis or to state the critical argument clearly, forcing the reader to infer conclusions or to make connections that the candidate should have made explicitly.
(e) The essay was too vague or disoriented.
(f) The essay relied overmuch on plot summary without enough interpretation.
(g) The essay ignored or neglected works from the reading lists that would have been obvious and indispensable examples in addressing particular questions; readers wondered if candidates were perhaps not reading all of the works on the lists. These comments correspond loosely and intuitively with the rubric in the indicators section.
Indicator
Professional Activities
Engagement in objectively measurable professional activities will serve as an indicator that English MA students and recent graduates have met professional standards for critical thinking and writing, have prepared themselves for further graduate studies in the field, and have engaged theoretical and practical pedagogical matters of the kind that they will face in classroom teaching. Such activities include
(1) presenting peer-reviewed scholarly and creative works at professional conferences
(2) submitting scholarly and creative work for peer-reviewed publication
(3) serving the profession in other ways (as, for example, membership and/or leadership in scholarly organizations, attendance at professional development seminars and workshops, sponsorship of professional activities, and development of teaching curricula).
Criterion
Professional Accomplishments
As demonstration that English graduate students are becoming active participants in the profession of letters and language, at least four students will present peer-reviewed conference papers or other scholarly or creative work at professional venues during the assessment period, and at least two students and/or recent graduates will submit scholarly or creative work for peer-reviewed publication over a period of two years. The scholarly and creative productions will support professional development, so that, for example, students who teach or plan to teach college composition and rhetoric in two- and four-year institutions will present work at appropriate conferences; students who aspire to PhD work in literature and language will present scholarly, critical papers and submit for publication scholarly, critical works to appropriate, peer-reviewed journals; and creative writing students will present work at creative conferences and submit work for publication in peer-reviewed creative writing reviews.
Finding
Professional Accomplishments
(1) Conference Activities: During the assessment period, five English MA students presented peer-reviewed scholarly work at professional regional and national conferences. One student presented three peer-reviewed scholarly papers at professional conferences; one of these won the Best Graduate Student Paper Award at the Association for the Study of Literature and Environment (ASLE) 8th Biennial Conference. All of the students presented scholarly work in literature and composition and rhetoric theory that demonstrates their critical thinking and writing skills and their preparation for further graduate studies in the field and teaching literature and composition and rhetoric.
(2) Publications: During the assessment period, one student had a scholarly paper accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. One student had a paper published in a conference proceedings. And one student submitted a scholarly review for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Two recent MA graduates published creative volumes.
A list of graduate student accomplishments during the assessment period is attached. As it demonstrates, the MA Program exceeded its standard for professional accomplishments. These findings demonstrate that our students have not only acquired sophisticated critical thinking and writing skills but have also engaged professional activities as preparation for further graduate education and work as scholars and teachers in the field.
Indicator
Preparation For Further Graduate Studies
Acceptance of a representative number of English MA students and recent graduates into advanced degree programs will serve as an indicator that students have acquired the breadth of disciplinary knowledge and the necessary critical thinking and writing skills for advanced graduate education in English and related fields. Advanced degree programs could include the PhD in literature, creative writing, technical and professional writing, and composition and rhetoric; the MFA in creative writing; and the JD.
Criterion
Placement in Advanced Degree Programs
As demonstration that the English MA Program has successfully prepared its students for advanced graduate work, at least three students and/or recent graduates will be accepted into advanced degree programs (PhD or MFA) during the assessment period.
Finding
Placement In Advanced Degree Programs
By the end of the assessment period, four current English graduate students and recent MA graduates had been accepted for Fall 2009 into PhD programs at research institutions in literature and language:
(1) Brandon Cooper (Linguistics, University of South Carolina)
(2) Andrew Husband (Literature and the Environment, Texas Tech University, with full funding and two scholarship awards)
(3) Jon Nelson (Restoration and 18th-Century British Literature, Rice University, with full funding)
(4) Nathan Roberts (Religion and Literature, Baylor University).
Two other students were accepted into PhD programs in literature and creative writing but deferred their admission for one year: Bernadette Russo (Bowling Green) and Zach Vande Zande (University of North Texas). One other student, David Quarles, was accepted into the composition and rhetoric PhD program at the University of Texas at El Paso, but decided against pursuing the degree.
Three students were accepted into creative writing MFA programs for Fall 2009:
(1) Dana Allen (San Jose State University)
(2) Joshua Bowen (New Mexico State University)
(3) Melanie Sweeney (New Mexico State University).
The findings show that the English MA Program exceeded the quantitative goal established by the criterion. More important perhaps is the fact that all but one student who applied to an advanced degree program was accepted into at least one school. (Evidence suggests that the single student who was not accepted at any of his choices misgauged his abilities and applied for tier-one institutions at which he could not compete.)
While the findings demonstrate that our students have acquired the breadth of disciplinary knowledge and the necessary critical thinking and writing skills for advanced graduate education in English and related fields, they do not, however, make qualitative distinctions. Two of our students (Nelson, Allen) were accepted into premier institutions for their particular academic and creative pursuits, but we do not have a record of the programs to which all of our students applied and of their acceptance and rejection rates so that we judge how well they compete against students from other MA programs who also apply for advanced degrees.
Indicator
Preparation For English Teaching
Employment of a representative number of recent MA graduates as instructors at two- and four-year institutions and/or dual credit teachers at high schools will serve as an indicator that students have acquired the breadth of disciplinary knowledge and the necessary critical thinking and writing skills for teaching composition and rhetoric, literature, and/or creative writing on the college level and for teaching dual credit classes in high schools. Positions include full- and part-time employment as instructors in public junior and community colleges, adjuncts in four-year institutions, and dual credit teachers in public high schools.
Other indicators that students are prepared in the MA Program for teaching are completion of ENG 567 (Practicum in Teaching College Composition) and service as a graduate assistant. ENG 567, taught by Dr. Bill Bridges, studies the theories and practices of teaching college-level writing. Although it is required of all graduate assistants in the Department of English, a number of students who are not assistants also regularly enroll. English graduate assistants prepare for the teaching profession by serving as tutors in The Sam Houston State University Writing Center and teaching ENG 031 (Developmental English), ENG 164 (Composition I), and ENG 165 (Composition II).
Criterion
Placement In English Teaching Positions
As demonstration that the MA Program has successfully prepared its students for English teaching, at least four MA graduates will secure the following kinds of positions during the assessment period:
(1) full- or part-time instructors of composition and rhetoric, literature, and/or creative writing at two-year institutions;
(2) full- or part-time adjunct instructors of composition and rhetoric and/or literature at senior colleges;
(3) dual credit instructors of English in public high schools.
Finding
Placement in English Teaching Positions
During the assessment period, three recent MA graduates accepted part-time teaching positions in public junior and community colleges: Elizabeth Burdett (Lone Star College-Tomball), Semira Taheri (Lone Star College-Cy-Fair), Christina Tonan (Lone Star College-Montgomery). Three graduates worked as adjunct instructors at Sam Houston State University during the assessment period: Joshua Bowen, Melanie Sweeney, Zach Vande Zande. One recent graduate (Samira Taheri) accepted a part-time adjunct position at the University of Houston-Downtown. Two more have accepted adjunct faculty positions at Sam Houston State for Fall 2009: David Clarke, Bernadette Russo. The findings demonstrate that the MA Program has exceeded the expectation of the criterion. The findings show that students are prepared for teaching positions in two- and four-year institutions.
Indicator
Oral Examination
A passing grade on the oral examination will serve as an indicator that English MA students are able to articulate their knowledge of the field and demonstrate their critical thinking skills orally and that they are prepared for continued graduate education and teaching:
(1) Degree Plan I thesis students sit for an oral defense of the thesis. After the thesis candidate has passed the written comprehensive examination and submitted the thesis for approval, a committee comprising the director and two readers conducts an oral examination. In the oral defense of a scholarly thesis, the candidate is typically asked questions about the genesis of the project, research and critical methods, findings of the thesis and the value of those findings, and future plans for the work. In the oral defense of a creative thesis, the candidate is typically asked questions about the genesis of the project, the student's aesthetic, methods for completing the project, future plans for development, and the value of the thesis in the larger field. The defense asks that the candidate show how her or his thesis demonstrates professional competency and the ability to make an argument orally, as will be required in continued graduate education and teaching.
The committee typically examines the thesis candidate for one hour, awarding a Pass, Fail, or High Pass, according to merits and deficiencies; the grades are awarded for the defense and not the thesis itself. An evaluation rubric that guides the defense committee was formulated and approved by the English Graduate Studies Committee and Chair of the Department of English; the rubric is attached.
(2) After passing the written comprehensive examination, Degree Plan I non-thesis students and Degree Plan II students sit for an oral comprehensive examination covering the same three areas. The oral exam asks that the candidate demonstrate professional competency in the field and the ability to make arguments about disciplinary topics orally, as will be required in continued graduate education and teaching.
For the oral comprehensive examination, the Graduate Director appoints a committee of area specialists, with one of them serving as chair. As with the written comprehensive exam, the examiners ask that the candidate demonstrate his or her broad understanding of topics in English language, literature, and writing disciplines. Typically each of the three examiners asks questions for approximately fifteen minutes; this initial round of questioning is followed by a fifteen-minute "redirect," during which the committee members follow up on earlier questions or ask new ones that have arisen during the conversation.
As with the written comprehensive examination, the committee awards the candidate a Pass, Fail, or High Pass for each area, depending upon merits and deficiencies. An evaluation rubric that guides the examination committee was formulated and approved by the English Graduate Studies Committee and Chair of the Department of English; the rubric is attached.
Criterion
Standard Pass Rate on Oral Examination
As demonstration that the English graduate program is successful in preparing students for the oral examination, at least 92% of degree candidates will pass the oral defense of thesis or oral comprehensive exam at the first sitting or upon retaking it.
Finding
Oral Examination Pass Rate
In the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009, five students sat for oral defenses of their theses. All five passed, with three of them earning high passes. In the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009, four students sat for oral comprehensive examinations; all four passed. Collectively, 100% percent of students who sat for oral examinations during the assessment period passed. The findings demonstrate that the English MA Program has exceeded the standard of 92% established by the criterion. These findings, however, belie some inherent problems with the oral examination: The thesis exam seems to measure satisfactorily a student's ability to defend a particular research or creative project, and the uniform pass rate can be explained in part by the fact that students do not typically sit for the defense until the readers consider the thesis complete or nearly so. In the processes of researching and writing, the candidates have by this time grappled with most of the critical and aesthetic problems that will be addressed during the defense. The oral comprehensive examination, however, has been a frustrating and uncertain experience for many students and faculty examiners. Because students who sit for the orals have recently passed a written comprehensive examination, they are presumably well-prepared for an oral exam in the same three areas. But faculty examiners again and again express their disappointment that the students cannot respond adequately, sometimes to the most fundamental and predictable questions in the area. And while there are broad measurements for determining whether a student earns a Pass, Fail, or High Pass (as outlined in the indicators section), these measurements are so elastic that they cannot be made quantifiable. Since the fall of 2006, nineteen students have sat for oral comprehensive examinations. Only one was awarded a High Pass in all three sections. On the other hand, only two were failed on individual sections, which they retook and passed the next term. The high success rate, despite the general complaint that students are not performing well, suggests that faculty are either confused about what exactly the oral comprehensive exam is supposed to measure or regard passing as pro forma and relax the standards. Although students have been told that the same standards measuring competency in the written comprehensive examination apply to the oral exam, they often seem uncertain of what to expect; this confusion, coupled with the terror that some feel in an oral examination, makes for weak performances.
Action
Preparation For Written Comprehensive Examinations
The findings show that the MA Program exceeded the standard pass rate of 92% on the written comprehensive examination. Despite the continued success, however, the findings have prompted specific actions:
(1) To help students prepare for the comprehensive examination, the Director of Graduate Studies in English will continue to hold biannual exam preparation sessions, which provide MA candidates with information about preparing and sitting for the exam, with sample questions, and with sample responses across the range of fail, pass, and high pass essays. In these sessions, however, the Director will emphasize the recurring comments that readers had on essays, as a way of making the preparation more concrete for the candidates.
(2) The Director will continue to publish information about the exams on the graduate web site and to publish a booklet on preparation for the exam. Because the biannual preparation sessions and published materials seem, in part, to be helping students pass the comprehensive examinations, the Director will continue with these activities during the 2009-2010 assessment period.
(3) The Graduate Studies Committee will produce a formal rubric for evaluating exam essays; this rubric will be presented to the graduate faculty for approval, and once finalized, will be distributed to examination readers.
(4) The Graduate Studies Committee will discuss maintaining the Theory and Practice of Composition and Rhetoric examination area. Although passing this area is one indicator of a student's preparation for teaching, no student has sat for the exam since Fall 2005, and none has declared an intention to do so during the next year.
Action
Assessment Of Oral Comprehensive Examination
The findings demonstrate that while the oral comprehensive examination should be an important measure of the students' breadth of knowledge, critical thinking skills, and preparation for future professional endeavors, many students perform poorly, either because they are uncertain of expectations for the exam or because they are not used to making arguments and demonstrating their knowledge about the subject verbally. The Graduate Studies Committee will discuss, first, the means by which we can format the exam so as to make it a more objective measure of the associated objectives, perhaps by constructing an evaluation rubric comparable to that for the written examination; and, second, the means by which we can prepare students better for this specific examination, either with oral components in classes or practice sessions comparable to the mock interview sessions that some programs offer.
Action
Advanced Graduate Study In English
The findings demonstrate that the English MA Program exceeded the criteria for placement of graduates in advanced degree programs. Because enrollments have declined by some 19% over the last year, however, maintaining the existing standard for fewer students is equivalent to raising it. Until graduate student numbers rise, we will maintain the existing criterion: At least three students will be accepted into advanced degree programs (PhD or MFA) during the 2009-2010 assessment period. As a way to help students prepare for further graduate education he Graduate Director is also writing a general guide to graduate school, which treats such issues as pursuing a degree that best serves one's professional goals; finding the best program for one's means; applying to programs; securing funding; and meeting expectations for scholarship and productivity. This guide will be published on the English graduate web pages as part of a larger initiative to revise the web site. The guide will serve not only our own students who may be interested in pursuing advanced degrees but also any person who is seeking such information. It thus serves a larger purpose than merely providing local information. As another initiative, the graduate program web site will feature interview videos with students who have recently gone on to PhD and MFA work in English. These graduates will share their experiences as a means of informing and encouraging current students to pursue advanced degrees in the field.
Action
Data Collection
The findings for the indicators adequately measure quantities established by the criteria, as long as the data are directly available to the graduate faculty (as, for example, with pass rates on written and oral exams and course certification). Collecting measurable data for other findings, however, depends upon responses of students and graduates to e-mail polls, anecdotal evidence, and other unsystematic means. This makes difficult not only collecting important data about such things as professional activities and placement rates in advanced degree programs and teaching positions but also measuring the qualitative success of our program in preparing students for future endeavors: How effectively, for example, does completing required courses or writing a creative thesis serve the graduate in a MFA program or freshman classroom? How does the graduate carry critical thinking and writing skills acquired in ENG 697 into research in a PhD seminar? Such evaluations cannot be made without a more systematic way of gathering quantifiable information from our students and graduates and of asking that they consider how the specific knowledge and skills acquired in our program serve them in the future. To that end, the Graduate Studies Committee will come up with some such systematic means (for example, exit interviews, a database for graduates, telephone polls).
Objective
Breadth Of Knowledge
That our English graduate students will demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of English language and literature within theoretical contexts; will demonstrate the ability to articulate this understanding, in writing and orally, in a critical idiom befitting graduate-level studies; and will demonstrate the ability to link the subject with other selected disciplines.
Indicator
Course Requirements
Fulfilling requirements for classwork in five course blocks and taking a required research and bibliography methods class will serve as indicators that all English MA students have acquired a breadth of knowledge in the subject, have developed critical reading and writing skills appropriate to a graduate-level education in English, and are well-prepared for future professional endeavors.
To earn the MA in English, a student must take at least one course in each of five graduate English curriculum blocks. Each block comprises classes with shared disciplinary topics or historical kinship:
Block I (English language courses)
Block II (courses in writing disciplines and literary theory, practica in teaching and editing)
Block III (courses in early literature in English, through 1800)
Block IV (classes in 19th-century literature in English)
Block V (courses in 20th- and 21st-century literature in English).
The course block requirement ensures that students read and research widely in the discipline
In their first long semester, all English MA students also take ENG 697 (Methods of Research and Bibliography), a "gateway" course that introduces them to discipline-specific research and bibliographic methods and impresses upon them professional standards for critical writing.
Criterion
Certification of Course Requirements
As demonstration that the five course-block and research and bibliography methods class requirements have been met, and as a condition for the degree, all students who earn an MA in English at Sam Houston State University during the assessment period will show completion of the block requirement and of ENG 697 (Methods of Research and Bibliography) on their official transcripts.
Finding
Completion of Course Requirements
Without exception, all students who took the MA in English during the assessment period showed completion of the five-block course requirement and of ENG 697 (Methods of Research and Bibliography) on their official final transcripts.
Indicator
Written Comprehensive Examination
A passing grade on the written comprehensive examination will serve as an indicator that an English MA candidate has acquired a breadth of knowledge in the subject, has developed critical reading and writing skills appropriate to a graduate-level education in English, and is well-prepared for future professional endeavors.
For the examination, students choose three comprehensive areas from among thirteen broad topics in literature, language, and writing disciplines:
(1) English Language
(2) Early and Middle English Literature
(3) World Literature with an Emphasis in the Classical Tradition
(4) World Literature with an Emphasis in Anglophone Literature
(5) Theory and Practice of Composition and Rhetoric
(6) Technical and Professional Communication
(7) Renaissance and 17th-Century British Literature
(8) Restoration and 18th-Century British Literature
(9) American Literature before 1800
(10) 19th-Century British Literature
(11) 19th-Century American Literature
(12) 20th- and 21st-Century British Literature
(13) 20th- and 21st-Century American Literature
Because classroom professors sometimes teach to their own interests and preferences, so that their classes may or may not be effectively "comprehensive," the examination areas are distinct from classwork. While professors offer classes in Romantic and Victorian literature, for example, the 19th-Century British Literature area of the written examination comprehends the canon of works from 1800-1900.
To ensure breadth of knowledge in the discipline, the candidate must choose one American literature area and one British literature area; she or he must choose one British or American literature area before 1800 and one British or American literature area after 1800.
Students prepare for the examination with reading lists constructed by graduate faculty area specialists and approved by the Graduate Studies Committee; these lists are periodically updated to allow for the addition and deletion of works as the field of knowledge changes.
The examination is offered three times annually, on the third Saturdays of February, June, and October, respectively. Questions for the examination are drawn from a bank constructed by area specialists among the graduate faculty and screened carefully by the Graduate Studies Committee to ensure that they strike a fair balance between generalization and specificity. On the day of the examination, the student is given three questions for each area; she or he selects one and write for two hours on that section.
A double-blind grading system is used, in which both the candidates who sit for the exam and the faculty readers are anonymous: Two graduate faculty members read each exam and award it a Pass, Fail, or High Pass, according to its merits or deficiencies. In the case of a dispute between the two primary readers, the essay goes to a third graduate faculty member who has no knowledge of the previous results; his or her evaluation of the essay breaks the tie. An evaluation rubric that guides examination readers was formulated and approved by the English Graduate Studies Committee and Chair of the Department of English; the rubric is attached. Essays recently awarded Pass, Fail, and High Pass are also attached here as examples.
Criterion
Standard Pass Rate on Written Comprehensive Examination
As demonstration that the English graduate program is successful in preparing students for the written comprehensive examination, at least 92% of degree candidates will pass the exam at the first sitting or upon retaking it.
Finding
Written Comprehensive Examination Pass Rate
In the fall of 2008 and spring and summer of 2009, fifteen degree candidates sat for the written comprehensive examination in English:
The attached chart shows the distribution of examination essays across the range of areas.
Fourteen students passed all three areas upon either the first attempt or a retake. One student failed a second attempt. Upon appeal, the student retook the exam and failed a third time; the student was subsequently terminated from the program.
The findings show that 93% of the candidates (fourteen of fifteen) who sat for the written comprehensive examination during the assessment period passed all three sections as a requirement for taking the degree. While the percentage demonstrates that the English MA Program exceeded the benchmark of 92%, the results and readers' comments show some patterns:
(1) As the attached chart demonstrates, essays were distributed across the range of areas. Students took exams in every area except for the Theory and Practice of Composition and Rhetoric. (The last time that any student was examined in this disciplinary field was Fall 2005.)
(2) While students slightly favored British literature areas (45%) over American areas (39%), there are certain variables at work. The slightly higher percentage of British literature areas may be explained in part by the requirement that students sit for at least one literature area before 1800: There are three British literature areas before 1800 and only one American area before 1800. Given that there are only three total American literature areas and five total British literature areas, however, students proportionally prefer American literature areas. This fact may provide some support for a new American studies initiative in the department.
(3) The fact that three students chose World Literature with an Emphasis in Anglophone Literature as an elective area suggests the rising popularity of this relatively new subject among our graduate students. This may support a new multicultural literature initiative in the department.
(4) The distribution of essay grades fell predictably across the range of passes, fails, and high passes: Of forty-nine total essays, thirty-five (71.4%) passed, seven (14.3%) failed, and seven (14.3%) received high passes. The even number of fails and high passes suggests that the system is relatively well-balanced and objective.
(5) Readers' comments on essays showed some instructive patterns. A handful of comments recurred on failing essays:
(a) The essay failed to address the specific question or to obey the requirements of the prompt.
(b) The essay failed to establish crucial definitions or establish coherent contexts.
(c) The essay oversimplified and "underproblematized" sophisticated critical issues.
(d) The essay failed to establish a thesis or to state the critical argument clearly, forcing the reader to infer conclusions or to make connections that the candidate should have made explicitly.
(e) The essay was too vague or disoriented.
(f) The essay relied overmuch on plot summary without enough interpretation.
(g) The essay ignored or neglected works from the reading lists that would have been obvious and indispensable examples in addressing particular questions; readers wondered if candidates were perhaps not reading all of the works on the lists. These comments correspond loosely and intuitively with the rubric in the indicators section.
Indicator
Preparation For Further Graduate Studies
Acceptance of a representative number of English MA students and recent graduates into advanced degree programs will serve as an indicator that students have acquired the breadth of disciplinary knowledge and the necessary critical thinking and writing skills for advanced graduate education in English and related fields. Advanced degree programs could include the PhD in literature, creative writing, technical and professional writing, and composition and rhetoric; the MFA in creative writing; and the JD.
Criterion
Placement in Advanced Degree Programs
As demonstration that the English MA Program has successfully prepared its students for advanced graduate work, at least three students and/or recent graduates will be accepted into advanced degree programs (PhD or MFA) during the assessment period.
Finding
Placement In Advanced Degree Programs
By the end of the assessment period, four current English graduate students and recent MA graduates had been accepted for Fall 2009 into PhD programs at research institutions in literature and language:
(1) Brandon Cooper (Linguistics, University of South Carolina)
(2) Andrew Husband (Literature and the Environment, Texas Tech University, with full funding and two scholarship awards)
(3) Jon Nelson (Restoration and 18th-Century British Literature, Rice University, with full funding)
(4) Nathan Roberts (Religion and Literature, Baylor University).
Two other students were accepted into PhD programs in literature and creative writing but deferred their admission for one year: Bernadette Russo (Bowling Green) and Zach Vande Zande (University of North Texas). One other student, David Quarles, was accepted into the composition and rhetoric PhD program at the University of Texas at El Paso, but decided against pursuing the degree.
Three students were accepted into creative writing MFA programs for Fall 2009:
(1) Dana Allen (San Jose State University)
(2) Joshua Bowen (New Mexico State University)
(3) Melanie Sweeney (New Mexico State University).
The findings show that the English MA Program exceeded the quantitative goal established by the criterion. More important perhaps is the fact that all but one student who applied to an advanced degree program was accepted into at least one school. (Evidence suggests that the single student who was not accepted at any of his choices misgauged his abilities and applied for tier-one institutions at which he could not compete.)
While the findings demonstrate that our students have acquired the breadth of disciplinary knowledge and the necessary critical thinking and writing skills for advanced graduate education in English and related fields, they do not, however, make qualitative distinctions. Two of our students (Nelson, Allen) were accepted into premier institutions for their particular academic and creative pursuits, but we do not have a record of the programs to which all of our students applied and of their acceptance and rejection rates so that we judge how well they compete against students from other MA programs who also apply for advanced degrees.
Indicator
Preparation For English Teaching
Employment of a representative number of recent MA graduates as instructors at two- and four-year institutions and/or dual credit teachers at high schools will serve as an indicator that students have acquired the breadth of disciplinary knowledge and the necessary critical thinking and writing skills for teaching composition and rhetoric, literature, and/or creative writing on the college level and for teaching dual credit classes in high schools. Positions include full- and part-time employment as instructors in public junior and community colleges, adjuncts in four-year institutions, and dual credit teachers in public high schools.
Other indicators that students are prepared in the MA Program for teaching are completion of ENG 567 (Practicum in Teaching College Composition) and service as a graduate assistant. ENG 567, taught by Dr. Bill Bridges, studies the theories and practices of teaching college-level writing. Although it is required of all graduate assistants in the Department of English, a number of students who are not assistants also regularly enroll. English graduate assistants prepare for the teaching profession by serving as tutors in The Sam Houston State University Writing Center and teaching ENG 031 (Developmental English), ENG 164 (Composition I), and ENG 165 (Composition II).
Criterion
Placement In English Teaching Positions
As demonstration that the MA Program has successfully prepared its students for English teaching, at least four MA graduates will secure the following kinds of positions during the assessment period:
(1) full- or part-time instructors of composition and rhetoric, literature, and/or creative writing at two-year institutions;
(2) full- or part-time adjunct instructors of composition and rhetoric and/or literature at senior colleges;
(3) dual credit instructors of English in public high schools.
Finding
Placement in English Teaching Positions
During the assessment period, three recent MA graduates accepted part-time teaching positions in public junior and community colleges: Elizabeth Burdett (Lone Star College-Tomball), Semira Taheri (Lone Star College-Cy-Fair), Christina Tonan (Lone Star College-Montgomery). Three graduates worked as adjunct instructors at Sam Houston State University during the assessment period: Joshua Bowen, Melanie Sweeney, Zach Vande Zande. One recent graduate (Samira Taheri) accepted a part-time adjunct position at the University of Houston-Downtown. Two more have accepted adjunct faculty positions at Sam Houston State for Fall 2009: David Clarke, Bernadette Russo. The findings demonstrate that the MA Program has exceeded the expectation of the criterion. The findings show that students are prepared for teaching positions in two- and four-year institutions.
Indicator
Oral Examination
A passing grade on the oral examination will serve as an indicator that English MA students are able to articulate their knowledge of the field and demonstrate their critical thinking skills orally and that they are prepared for continued graduate education and teaching:
(1) Degree Plan I thesis students sit for an oral defense of the thesis. After the thesis candidate has passed the written comprehensive examination and submitted the thesis for approval, a committee comprising the director and two readers conducts an oral examination. In the oral defense of a scholarly thesis, the candidate is typically asked questions about the genesis of the project, research and critical methods, findings of the thesis and the value of those findings, and future plans for the work. In the oral defense of a creative thesis, the candidate is typically asked questions about the genesis of the project, the student's aesthetic, methods for completing the project, future plans for development, and the value of the thesis in the larger field. The defense asks that the candidate show how her or his thesis demonstrates professional competency and the ability to make an argument orally, as will be required in continued graduate education and teaching.
The committee typically examines the thesis candidate for one hour, awarding a Pass, Fail, or High Pass, according to merits and deficiencies; the grades are awarded for the defense and not the thesis itself. An evaluation rubric that guides the defense committee was formulated and approved by the English Graduate Studies Committee and Chair of the Department of English; the rubric is attached.
(2) After passing the written comprehensive examination, Degree Plan I non-thesis students and Degree Plan II students sit for an oral comprehensive examination covering the same three areas. The oral exam asks that the candidate demonstrate professional competency in the field and the ability to make arguments about disciplinary topics orally, as will be required in continued graduate education and teaching.
For the oral comprehensive examination, the Graduate Director appoints a committee of area specialists, with one of them serving as chair. As with the written comprehensive exam, the examiners ask that the candidate demonstrate his or her broad understanding of topics in English language, literature, and writing disciplines. Typically each of the three examiners asks questions for approximately fifteen minutes; this initial round of questioning is followed by a fifteen-minute "redirect," during which the committee members follow up on earlier questions or ask new ones that have arisen during the conversation.
As with the written comprehensive examination, the committee awards the candidate a Pass, Fail, or High Pass for each area, depending upon merits and deficiencies. An evaluation rubric that guides the examination committee was formulated and approved by the English Graduate Studies Committee and Chair of the Department of English; the rubric is attached.
Criterion
Standard Pass Rate on Oral Examination
As demonstration that the English graduate program is successful in preparing students for the oral examination, at least 92% of degree candidates will pass the oral defense of thesis or oral comprehensive exam at the first sitting or upon retaking it.
Finding
Oral Examination Pass Rate
In the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009, five students sat for oral defenses of their theses. All five passed, with three of them earning high passes. In the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009, four students sat for oral comprehensive examinations; all four passed. Collectively, 100% percent of students who sat for oral examinations during the assessment period passed. The findings demonstrate that the English MA Program has exceeded the standard of 92% established by the criterion. These findings, however, belie some inherent problems with the oral examination: The thesis exam seems to measure satisfactorily a student's ability to defend a particular research or creative project, and the uniform pass rate can be explained in part by the fact that students do not typically sit for the defense until the readers consider the thesis complete or nearly so. In the processes of researching and writing, the candidates have by this time grappled with most of the critical and aesthetic problems that will be addressed during the defense. The oral comprehensive examination, however, has been a frustrating and uncertain experience for many students and faculty examiners. Because students who sit for the orals have recently passed a written comprehensive examination, they are presumably well-prepared for an oral exam in the same three areas. But faculty examiners again and again express their disappointment that the students cannot respond adequately, sometimes to the most fundamental and predictable questions in the area. And while there are broad measurements for determining whether a student earns a Pass, Fail, or High Pass (as outlined in the indicators section), these measurements are so elastic that they cannot be made quantifiable. Since the fall of 2006, nineteen students have sat for oral comprehensive examinations. Only one was awarded a High Pass in all three sections. On the other hand, only two were failed on individual sections, which they retook and passed the next term. The high success rate, despite the general complaint that students are not performing well, suggests that faculty are either confused about what exactly the oral comprehensive exam is supposed to measure or regard passing as pro forma and relax the standards. Although students have been told that the same standards measuring competency in the written comprehensive examination apply to the oral exam, they often seem uncertain of what to expect; this confusion, coupled with the terror that some feel in an oral examination, makes for weak performances.
Action
Program Orientation Sessions And Degree Plan Reviews
The findings demonstrate that 100% of our English MA graduates meet requirements for taking courses in the five curriculum blocks and taking ENG 697 (Methods of Research and Bibliography), which we maintain as viable standards of our students' competency in the field. Because completion of the five course blocks and research methods course is a program requirement, however, the standard is not variable and cannot be raised. Given the uniform success in satisfying the course block criterion, the English MA Program will continue with its existing courses of action during the 2009-2010 assessment period: The Graduate Director in English will maintain detailed information about course block certification on line and in print. All new students will be required to attend an orientation session outlining the degree requirements, including those for the course blocks. When a student applies for graduation, the Office of the Registrar will continue to send a copy of the student's degree plan, which alerts her or him to any missing course block requirements.
Action
Preparation For Written Comprehensive Examinations
The findings show that the MA Program exceeded the standard pass rate of 92% on the written comprehensive examination. Despite the continued success, however, the findings have prompted specific actions:
(1) To help students prepare for the comprehensive examination, the Director of Graduate Studies in English will continue to hold biannual exam preparation sessions, which provide MA candidates with information about preparing and sitting for the exam, with sample questions, and with sample responses across the range of fail, pass, and high pass essays. In these sessions, however, the Director will emphasize the recurring comments that readers had on essays, as a way of making the preparation more concrete for the candidates.
(2) The Director will continue to publish information about the exams on the graduate web site and to publish a booklet on preparation for the exam. Because the biannual preparation sessions and published materials seem, in part, to be helping students pass the comprehensive examinations, the Director will continue with these activities during the 2009-2010 assessment period.
(3) The Graduate Studies Committee will produce a formal rubric for evaluating exam essays; this rubric will be presented to the graduate faculty for approval, and once finalized, will be distributed to examination readers.
(4) The Graduate Studies Committee will discuss maintaining the Theory and Practice of Composition and Rhetoric examination area. Although passing this area is one indicator of a student's preparation for teaching, no student has sat for the exam since Fall 2005, and none has declared an intention to do so during the next year.
Action
Assessment Of Oral Comprehensive Examination
The findings demonstrate that while the oral comprehensive examination should be an important measure of the students' breadth of knowledge, critical thinking skills, and preparation for future professional endeavors, many students perform poorly, either because they are uncertain of expectations for the exam or because they are not used to making arguments and demonstrating their knowledge about the subject verbally. The Graduate Studies Committee will discuss, first, the means by which we can format the exam so as to make it a more objective measure of the associated objectives, perhaps by constructing an evaluation rubric comparable to that for the written examination; and, second, the means by which we can prepare students better for this specific examination, either with oral components in classes or practice sessions comparable to the mock interview sessions that some programs offer.
Action
Advanced Graduate Study In English
The findings demonstrate that the English MA Program exceeded the criteria for placement of graduates in advanced degree programs. Because enrollments have declined by some 19% over the last year, however, maintaining the existing standard for fewer students is equivalent to raising it. Until graduate student numbers rise, we will maintain the existing criterion: At least three students will be accepted into advanced degree programs (PhD or MFA) during the 2009-2010 assessment period. As a way to help students prepare for further graduate education he Graduate Director is also writing a general guide to graduate school, which treats such issues as pursuing a degree that best serves one's professional goals; finding the best program for one's means; applying to programs; securing funding; and meeting expectations for scholarship and productivity. This guide will be published on the English graduate web pages as part of a larger initiative to revise the web site. The guide will serve not only our own students who may be interested in pursuing advanced degrees but also any person who is seeking such information. It thus serves a larger purpose than merely providing local information. As another initiative, the graduate program web site will feature interview videos with students who have recently gone on to PhD and MFA work in English. These graduates will share their experiences as a means of informing and encouraging current students to pursue advanced degrees in the field.
Action
Data Collection
The findings for the indicators adequately measure quantities established by the criteria, as long as the data are directly available to the graduate faculty (as, for example, with pass rates on written and oral exams and course certification). Collecting measurable data for other findings, however, depends upon responses of students and graduates to e-mail polls, anecdotal evidence, and other unsystematic means. This makes difficult not only collecting important data about such things as professional activities and placement rates in advanced degree programs and teaching positions but also measuring the qualitative success of our program in preparing students for future endeavors: How effectively, for example, does completing required courses or writing a creative thesis serve the graduate in a MFA program or freshman classroom? How does the graduate carry critical thinking and writing skills acquired in ENG 697 into research in a PhD seminar? Such evaluations cannot be made without a more systematic way of gathering quantifiable information from our students and graduates and of asking that they consider how the specific knowledge and skills acquired in our program serve them in the future. To that end, the Graduate Studies Committee will come up with some such systematic means (for example, exit interviews, a database for graduates, telephone polls).
Goal
Professional Development
To produce graduates who are measurably well-prepared for further graduate studies in English (PhD or MFA) and for professions requiring specific knowledge and skills acquired in graduate English courses (as, for example, teaching, professional writing, editing, and researching).
Objective
Preparation For Continued Graduate Education
That the English MA Program will produce graduates who are well-prepared for further graduate education in English (as for example, the PhD in literature, creative writing, and composition and rhetoric; or the MFA in creative writing).
Indicator
Course Requirements
Fulfilling requirements for classwork in five course blocks and taking a required research and bibliography methods class will serve as indicators that all English MA students have acquired a breadth of knowledge in the subject, have developed critical reading and writing skills appropriate to a graduate-level education in English, and are well-prepared for future professional endeavors.
To earn the MA in English, a student must take at least one course in each of five graduate English curriculum blocks. Each block comprises classes with shared disciplinary topics or historical kinship:
Block I (English language courses)
Block II (courses in writing disciplines and literary theory, practica in teaching and editing)
Block III (courses in early literature in English, through 1800)
Block IV (classes in 19th-century literature in English)
Block V (courses in 20th- and 21st-century literature in English).
The course block requirement ensures that students read and research widely in the discipline
In their first long semester, all English MA students also take ENG 697 (Methods of Research and Bibliography), a "gateway" course that introduces them to discipline-specific research and bibliographic methods and impresses upon them professional standards for critical writing.
Criterion
Certification of Course Requirements
As demonstration that the five course-block and research and bibliography methods class requirements have been met, and as a condition for the degree, all students who earn an MA in English at Sam Houston State University during the assessment period will show completion of the block requirement and of ENG 697 (Methods of Research and Bibliography) on their official transcripts.
Finding
Completion of Course Requirements
Without exception, all students who took the MA in English during the assessment period showed completion of the five-block course requirement and of ENG 697 (Methods of Research and Bibliography) on their official final transcripts.
Indicator
Written Comprehensive Examination
A passing grade on the written comprehensive examination will serve as an indicator that an English MA candidate has acquired a breadth of knowledge in the subject, has developed critical reading and writing skills appropriate to a graduate-level education in English, and is well-prepared for future professional endeavors.
For the examination, students choose three comprehensive areas from among thirteen broad topics in literature, language, and writing disciplines:
(1) English Language
(2) Early and Middle English Literature
(3) World Literature with an Emphasis in the Classical Tradition
(4) World Literature with an Emphasis in Anglophone Literature
(5) Theory and Practice of Composition and Rhetoric
(6) Technical and Professional Communication
(7) Renaissance and 17th-Century British Literature
(8) Restoration and 18th-Century British Literature
(9) American Literature before 1800
(10) 19th-Century British Literature
(11) 19th-Century American Literature
(12) 20th- and 21st-Century British Literature
(13) 20th- and 21st-Century American Literature
Because classroom professors sometimes teach to their own interests and preferences, so that their classes may or may not be effectively "comprehensive," the examination areas are distinct from classwork. While professors offer classes in Romantic and Victorian literature, for example, the 19th-Century British Literature area of the written examination comprehends the canon of works from 1800-1900.
To ensure breadth of knowledge in the discipline, the candidate must choose one American literature area and one British literature area; she or he must choose one British or American literature area before 1800 and one British or American literature area after 1800.
Students prepare for the examination with reading lists constructed by graduate faculty area specialists and approved by the Graduate Studies Committee; these lists are periodically updated to allow for the addition and deletion of works as the field of knowledge changes.
The examination is offered three times annually, on the third Saturdays of February, June, and October, respectively. Questions for the examination are drawn from a bank constructed by area specialists among the graduate faculty and screened carefully by the Graduate Studies Committee to ensure that they strike a fair balance between generalization and specificity. On the day of the examination, the student is given three questions for each area; she or he selects one and write for two hours on that section.
A double-blind grading system is used, in which both the candidates who sit for the exam and the faculty readers are anonymous: Two graduate faculty members read each exam and award it a Pass, Fail, or High Pass, according to its merits or deficiencies. In the case of a dispute between the two primary readers, the essay goes to a third graduate faculty member who has no knowledge of the previous results; his or her evaluation of the essay breaks the tie. An evaluation rubric that guides examination readers was formulated and approved by the English Graduate Studies Committee and Chair of the Department of English; the rubric is attached. Essays recently awarded Pass, Fail, and High Pass are also attached here as examples.
Criterion
Standard Pass Rate on Written Comprehensive Examination
As demonstration that the English graduate program is successful in preparing students for the written comprehensive examination, at least 92% of degree candidates will pass the exam at the first sitting or upon retaking it.
Finding
Written Comprehensive Examination Pass Rate
In the fall of 2008 and spring and summer of 2009, fifteen degree candidates sat for the written comprehensive examination in English:
The attached chart shows the distribution of examination essays across the range of areas.
Fourteen students passed all three areas upon either the first attempt or a retake. One student failed a second attempt. Upon appeal, the student retook the exam and failed a third time; the student was subsequently terminated from the program.
The findings show that 93% of the candidates (fourteen of fifteen) who sat for the written comprehensive examination during the assessment period passed all three sections as a requirement for taking the degree. While the percentage demonstrates that the English MA Program exceeded the benchmark of 92%, the results and readers' comments show some patterns:
(1) As the attached chart demonstrates, essays were distributed across the range of areas. Students took exams in every area except for the Theory and Practice of Composition and Rhetoric. (The last time that any student was examined in this disciplinary field was Fall 2005.)
(2) While students slightly favored British literature areas (45%) over American areas (39%), there are certain variables at work. The slightly higher percentage of British literature areas may be explained in part by the requirement that students sit for at least one literature area before 1800: There are three British literature areas before 1800 and only one American area before 1800. Given that there are only three total American literature areas and five total British literature areas, however, students proportionally prefer American literature areas. This fact may provide some support for a new American studies initiative in the department.
(3) The fact that three students chose World Literature with an Emphasis in Anglophone Literature as an elective area suggests the rising popularity of this relatively new subject among our graduate students. This may support a new multicultural literature initiative in the department.
(4) The distribution of essay grades fell predictably across the range of passes, fails, and high passes: Of forty-nine total essays, thirty-five (71.4%) passed, seven (14.3%) failed, and seven (14.3%) received high passes. The even number of fails and high passes suggests that the system is relatively well-balanced and objective.
(5) Readers' comments on essays showed some instructive patterns. A handful of comments recurred on failing essays:
(a) The essay failed to address the specific question or to obey the requirements of the prompt.
(b) The essay failed to establish crucial definitions or establish coherent contexts.
(c) The essay oversimplified and "underproblematized" sophisticated critical issues.
(d) The essay failed to establish a thesis or to state the critical argument clearly, forcing the reader to infer conclusions or to make connections that the candidate should have made explicitly.
(e) The essay was too vague or disoriented.
(f) The essay relied overmuch on plot summary without enough interpretation.
(g) The essay ignored or neglected works from the reading lists that would have been obvious and indispensable examples in addressing particular questions; readers wondered if candidates were perhaps not reading all of the works on the lists. These comments correspond loosely and intuitively with the rubric in the indicators section.
Indicator
Professional Activities
Engagement in objectively measurable professional activities will serve as an indicator that English MA students and recent graduates have met professional standards for critical thinking and writing, have prepared themselves for further graduate studies in the field, and have engaged theoretical and practical pedagogical matters of the kind that they will face in classroom teaching. Such activities include
(1) presenting peer-reviewed scholarly and creative works at professional conferences
(2) submitting scholarly and creative work for peer-reviewed publication
(3) serving the profession in other ways (as, for example, membership and/or leadership in scholarly organizations, attendance at professional development seminars and workshops, sponsorship of professional activities, and development of teaching curricula).
Criterion
Professional Accomplishments
As demonstration that English graduate students are becoming active participants in the profession of letters and language, at least four students will present peer-reviewed conference papers or other scholarly or creative work at professional venues during the assessment period, and at least two students and/or recent graduates will submit scholarly or creative work for peer-reviewed publication over a period of two years. The scholarly and creative productions will support professional development, so that, for example, students who teach or plan to teach college composition and rhetoric in two- and four-year institutions will present work at appropriate conferences; students who aspire to PhD work in literature and language will present scholarly, critical papers and submit for publication scholarly, critical works to appropriate, peer-reviewed journals; and creative writing students will present work at creative conferences and submit work for publication in peer-reviewed creative writing reviews.
Finding
Professional Accomplishments
(1) Conference Activities: During the assessment period, five English MA students presented peer-reviewed scholarly work at professional regional and national conferences. One student presented three peer-reviewed scholarly papers at professional conferences; one of these won the Best Graduate Student Paper Award at the Association for the Study of Literature and Environment (ASLE) 8th Biennial Conference. All of the students presented scholarly work in literature and composition and rhetoric theory that demonstrates their critical thinking and writing skills and their preparation for further graduate studies in the field and teaching literature and composition and rhetoric.
(2) Publications: During the assessment period, one student had a scholarly paper accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. One student had a paper published in a conference proceedings. And one student submitted a scholarly review for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Two recent MA graduates published creative volumes.
A list of graduate student accomplishments during the assessment period is attached. As it demonstrates, the MA Program exceeded its standard for professional accomplishments. These findings demonstrate that our students have not only acquired sophisticated critical thinking and writing skills but have also engaged professional activities as preparation for further graduate education and work as scholars and teachers in the field.
Indicator
Preparation For Further Graduate Studies
Acceptance of a representative number of English MA students and recent graduates into advanced degree programs will serve as an indicator that students have acquired the breadth of disciplinary knowledge and the necessary critical thinking and writing skills for advanced graduate education in English and related fields. Advanced degree programs could include the PhD in literature, creative writing, technical and professional writing, and composition and rhetoric; the MFA in creative writing; and the JD.
Criterion
Placement in Advanced Degree Programs
As demonstration that the English MA Program has successfully prepared its students for advanced graduate work, at least three students and/or recent graduates will be accepted into advanced degree programs (PhD or MFA) during the assessment period.
Finding
Placement In Advanced Degree Programs
By the end of the assessment period, four current English graduate students and recent MA graduates had been accepted for Fall 2009 into PhD programs at research institutions in literature and language:
(1) Brandon Cooper (Linguistics, University of South Carolina)
(2) Andrew Husband (Literature and the Environment, Texas Tech University, with full funding and two scholarship awards)
(3) Jon Nelson (Restoration and 18th-Century British Literature, Rice University, with full funding)
(4) Nathan Roberts (Religion and Literature, Baylor University).
Two other students were accepted into PhD programs in literature and creative writing but deferred their admission for one year: Bernadette Russo (Bowling Green) and Zach Vande Zande (University of North Texas). One other student, David Quarles, was accepted into the composition and rhetoric PhD program at the University of Texas at El Paso, but decided against pursuing the degree.
Three students were accepted into creative writing MFA programs for Fall 2009:
(1) Dana Allen (San Jose State University)
(2) Joshua Bowen (New Mexico State University)
(3) Melanie Sweeney (New Mexico State University).
The findings show that the English MA Program exceeded the quantitative goal established by the criterion. More important perhaps is the fact that all but one student who applied to an advanced degree program was accepted into at least one school. (Evidence suggests that the single student who was not accepted at any of his choices misgauged his abilities and applied for tier-one institutions at which he could not compete.)
While the findings demonstrate that our students have acquired the breadth of disciplinary knowledge and the necessary critical thinking and writing skills for advanced graduate education in English and related fields, they do not, however, make qualitative distinctions. Two of our students (Nelson, Allen) were accepted into premier institutions for their particular academic and creative pursuits, but we do not have a record of the programs to which all of our students applied and of their acceptance and rejection rates so that we judge how well they compete against students from other MA programs who also apply for advanced degrees.
Indicator
Oral Examination
A passing grade on the oral examination will serve as an indicator that English MA students are able to articulate their knowledge of the field and demonstrate their critical thinking skills orally and that they are prepared for continued graduate education and teaching:
(1) Degree Plan I thesis students sit for an oral defense of the thesis. After the thesis candidate has passed the written comprehensive examination and submitted the thesis for approval, a committee comprising the director and two readers conducts an oral examination. In the oral defense of a scholarly thesis, the candidate is typically asked questions about the genesis of the project, research and critical methods, findings of the thesis and the value of those findings, and future plans for the work. In the oral defense of a creative thesis, the candidate is typically asked questions about the genesis of the project, the student's aesthetic, methods for completing the project, future plans for development, and the value of the thesis in the larger field. The defense asks that the candidate show how her or his thesis demonstrates professional competency and the ability to make an argument orally, as will be required in continued graduate education and teaching.
The committee typically examines the thesis candidate for one hour, awarding a Pass, Fail, or High Pass, according to merits and deficiencies; the grades are awarded for the defense and not the thesis itself. An evaluation rubric that guides the defense committee was formulated and approved by the English Graduate Studies Committee and Chair of the Department of English; the rubric is attached.
(2) After passing the written comprehensive examination, Degree Plan I non-thesis students and Degree Plan II students sit for an oral comprehensive examination covering the same three areas. The oral exam asks that the candidate demonstrate professional competency in the field and the ability to make arguments about disciplinary topics orally, as will be required in continued graduate education and teaching.
For the oral comprehensive examination, the Graduate Director appoints a committee of area specialists, with one of them serving as chair. As with the written comprehensive exam, the examiners ask that the candidate demonstrate his or her broad understanding of topics in English language, literature, and writing disciplines. Typically each of the three examiners asks questions for approximately fifteen minutes; this initial round of questioning is followed by a fifteen-minute "redirect," during which the committee members follow up on earlier questions or ask new ones that have arisen during the conversation.
As with the written comprehensive examination, the committee awards the candidate a Pass, Fail, or High Pass for each area, depending upon merits and deficiencies. An evaluation rubric that guides the examination committee was formulated and approved by the English Graduate Studies Committee and Chair of the Department of English; the rubric is attached.
Criterion
Standard Pass Rate on Oral Examination
As demonstration that the English graduate program is successful in preparing students for the oral examination, at least 92% of degree candidates will pass the oral defense of thesis or oral comprehensive exam at the first sitting or upon retaking it.
Finding
Oral Examination Pass Rate
In the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009, five students sat for oral defenses of their theses. All five passed, with three of them earning high passes. In the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009, four students sat for oral comprehensive examinations; all four passed. Collectively, 100% percent of students who sat for oral examinations during the assessment period passed. The findings demonstrate that the English MA Program has exceeded the standard of 92% established by the criterion. These findings, however, belie some inherent problems with the oral examination: The thesis exam seems to measure satisfactorily a student's ability to defend a particular research or creative project, and the uniform pass rate can be explained in part by the fact that students do not typically sit for the defense until the readers consider the thesis complete or nearly so. In the processes of researching and writing, the candidates have by this time grappled with most of the critical and aesthetic problems that will be addressed during the defense. The oral comprehensive examination, however, has been a frustrating and uncertain experience for many students and faculty examiners. Because students who sit for the orals have recently passed a written comprehensive examination, they are presumably well-prepared for an oral exam in the same three areas. But faculty examiners again and again express their disappointment that the students cannot respond adequately, sometimes to the most fundamental and predictable questions in the area. And while there are broad measurements for determining whether a student earns a Pass, Fail, or High Pass (as outlined in the indicators section), these measurements are so elastic that they cannot be made quantifiable. Since the fall of 2006, nineteen students have sat for oral comprehensive examinations. Only one was awarded a High Pass in all three sections. On the other hand, only two were failed on individual sections, which they retook and passed the next term. The high success rate, despite the general complaint that students are not performing well, suggests that faculty are either confused about what exactly the oral comprehensive exam is supposed to measure or regard passing as pro forma and relax the standards. Although students have been told that the same standards measuring competency in the written comprehensive examination apply to the oral exam, they often seem uncertain of what to expect; this confusion, coupled with the terror that some feel in an oral examination, makes for weak performances.
Action
Scholarship and Professional Activities
The findings demonstrate that the English MA Program exceeded the standards for professional accomplishments established by the criteria. Because enrollments have declined by some 19% over the last year, however, maintaining the existing standard for fewer students is equivalent to raising it. Until graduate student numbers rise, we will maintain the existing criteria: At least four students will present conference papers or other scholarly or creative work at professional venues during the assessment period, and at least two students will submit for publication scholarly or creative work in a peer-reviewed publication over a period of two years. During the 2009-2010 assessment period, the graduate faculty will continue to encourage students to participate in professional activities. The Graduate Director will keep information about conference activities and about graduate-level researching and writing on the English graduate web pages current and accessible.
Action
Preparation For Written Comprehensive Examinations
The findings show that the MA Program exceeded the standard pass rate of 92% on the written comprehensive examination. Despite the continued success, however, the findings have prompted specific actions:
(1) To help students prepare for the comprehensive examination, the Director of Graduate Studies in English will continue to hold biannual exam preparation sessions, which provide MA candidates with information about preparing and sitting for the exam, with sample questions, and with sample responses across the range of fail, pass, and high pass essays. In these sessions, however, the Director will emphasize the recurring comments that readers had on essays, as a way of making the preparation more concrete for the candidates.
(2) The Director will continue to publish information about the exams on the graduate web site and to publish a booklet on preparation for the exam. Because the biannual preparation sessions and published materials seem, in part, to be helping students pass the comprehensive examinations, the Director will continue with these activities during the 2009-2010 assessment period.
(3) The Graduate Studies Committee will produce a formal rubric for evaluating exam essays; this rubric will be presented to the graduate faculty for approval, and once finalized, will be distributed to examination readers.
(4) The Graduate Studies Committee will discuss maintaining the Theory and Practice of Composition and Rhetoric examination area. Although passing this area is one indicator of a student's preparation for teaching, no student has sat for the exam since Fall 2005, and none has declared an intention to do so during the next year.
Action
Assessment Of Oral Comprehensive Examination
The findings demonstrate that while the oral comprehensive examination should be an important measure of the students' breadth of knowledge, critical thinking skills, and preparation for future professional endeavors, many students perform poorly, either because they are uncertain of expectations for the exam or because they are not used to making arguments and demonstrating their knowledge about the subject verbally. The Graduate Studies Committee will discuss, first, the means by which we can format the exam so as to make it a more objective measure of the associated objectives, perhaps by constructing an evaluation rubric comparable to that for the written examination; and, second, the means by which we can prepare students better for this specific examination, either with oral components in classes or practice sessions comparable to the mock interview sessions that some programs offer.
Action
Advanced Graduate Study In English
The findings demonstrate that the English MA Program exceeded the criteria for placement of graduates in advanced degree programs. Because enrollments have declined by some 19% over the last year, however, maintaining the existing standard for fewer students is equivalent to raising it. Until graduate student numbers rise, we will maintain the existing criterion: At least three students will be accepted into advanced degree programs (PhD or MFA) during the 2009-2010 assessment period. As a way to help students prepare for further graduate education he Graduate Director is also writing a general guide to graduate school, which treats such issues as pursuing a degree that best serves one's professional goals; finding the best program for one's means; applying to programs; securing funding; and meeting expectations for scholarship and productivity. This guide will be published on the English graduate web pages as part of a larger initiative to revise the web site. The guide will serve not only our own students who may be interested in pursuing advanced degrees but also any person who is seeking such information. It thus serves a larger purpose than merely providing local information. As another initiative, the graduate program web site will feature interview videos with students who have recently gone on to PhD and MFA work in English. These graduates will share their experiences as a means of informing and encouraging current students to pursue advanced degrees in the field.
Action
Data Collection
The findings for the indicators adequately measure quantities established by the criteria, as long as the data are directly available to the graduate faculty (as, for example, with pass rates on written and oral exams and course certification). Collecting measurable data for other findings, however, depends upon responses of students and graduates to e-mail polls, anecdotal evidence, and other unsystematic means. This makes difficult not only collecting important data about such things as professional activities and placement rates in advanced degree programs and teaching positions but also measuring the qualitative success of our program in preparing students for future endeavors: How effectively, for example, does completing required courses or writing a creative thesis serve the graduate in a MFA program or freshman classroom? How does the graduate carry critical thinking and writing skills acquired in ENG 697 into research in a PhD seminar? Such evaluations cannot be made without a more systematic way of gathering quantifiable information from our students and graduates and of asking that they consider how the specific knowledge and skills acquired in our program serve them in the future. To that end, the Graduate Studies Committee will come up with some such systematic means (for example, exit interviews, a database for graduates, telephone polls).
Objective
Preparation For Teaching
That the English MA Program will produce graduates who are well-prepared to enter the profession of English as teachers in public junior and community colleges and enhance the knowledge and critical skills of those who teach in public and private secondary schools.
Indicator
Course Requirements
Fulfilling requirements for classwork in five course blocks and taking a required research and bibliography methods class will serve as indicators that all English MA students have acquired a breadth of knowledge in the subject, have developed critical reading and writing skills appropriate to a graduate-level education in English, and are well-prepared for future professional endeavors.
To earn the MA in English, a student must take at least one course in each of five graduate English curriculum blocks. Each block comprises classes with shared disciplinary topics or historical kinship:
Block I (English language courses)
Block II (courses in writing disciplines and literary theory, practica in teaching and editing)
Block III (courses in early literature in English, through 1800)
Block IV (classes in 19th-century literature in English)
Block V (courses in 20th- and 21st-century literature in English).
The course block requirement ensures that students read and research widely in the discipline
In their first long semester, all English MA students also take ENG 697 (Methods of Research and Bibliography), a "gateway" course that introduces them to discipline-specific research and bibliographic methods and impresses upon them professional standards for critical writing.
Criterion
Certification of Course Requirements
As demonstration that the five course-block and research and bibliography methods class requirements have been met, and as a condition for the degree, all students who earn an MA in English at Sam Houston State University during the assessment period will show completion of the block requirement and of ENG 697 (Methods of Research and Bibliography) on their official transcripts.
Finding
Completion of Course Requirements
Without exception, all students who took the MA in English during the assessment period showed completion of the five-block course requirement and of ENG 697 (Methods of Research and Bibliography) on their official final transcripts.
Indicator
Written Comprehensive Examination
A passing grade on the written comprehensive examination will serve as an indicator that an English MA candidate has acquired a breadth of knowledge in the subject, has developed critical reading and writing skills appropriate to a graduate-level education in English, and is well-prepared for future professional endeavors.
For the examination, students choose three comprehensive areas from among thirteen broad topics in literature, language, and writing disciplines:
(1) English Language
(2) Early and Middle English Literature
(3) World Literature with an Emphasis in the Classical Tradition
(4) World Literature with an Emphasis in Anglophone Literature
(5) Theory and Practice of Composition and Rhetoric
(6) Technical and Professional Communication
(7) Renaissance and 17th-Century British Literature
(8) Restoration and 18th-Century British Literature
(9) American Literature before 1800
(10) 19th-Century British Literature
(11) 19th-Century American Literature
(12) 20th- and 21st-Century British Literature
(13) 20th- and 21st-Century American Literature
Because classroom professors sometimes teach to their own interests and preferences, so that their classes may or may not be effectively "comprehensive," the examination areas are distinct from classwork. While professors offer classes in Romantic and Victorian literature, for example, the 19th-Century British Literature area of the written examination comprehends the canon of works from 1800-1900.
To ensure breadth of knowledge in the discipline, the candidate must choose one American literature area and one British literature area; she or he must choose one British or American literature area before 1800 and one British or American literature area after 1800.
Students prepare for the examination with reading lists constructed by graduate faculty area specialists and approved by the Graduate Studies Committee; these lists are periodically updated to allow for the addition and deletion of works as the field of knowledge changes.
The examination is offered three times annually, on the third Saturdays of February, June, and October, respectively. Questions for the examination are drawn from a bank constructed by area specialists among the graduate faculty and screened carefully by the Graduate Studies Committee to ensure that they strike a fair balance between generalization and specificity. On the day of the examination, the student is given three questions for each area; she or he selects one and write for two hours on that section.
A double-blind grading system is used, in which both the candidates who sit for the exam and the faculty readers are anonymous: Two graduate faculty members read each exam and award it a Pass, Fail, or High Pass, according to its merits or deficiencies. In the case of a dispute between the two primary readers, the essay goes to a third graduate faculty member who has no knowledge of the previous results; his or her evaluation of the essay breaks the tie. An evaluation rubric that guides examination readers was formulated and approved by the English Graduate Studies Committee and Chair of the Department of English; the rubric is attached. Essays recently awarded Pass, Fail, and High Pass are also attached here as examples.
Criterion
Standard Pass Rate on Written Comprehensive Examination
As demonstration that the English graduate program is successful in preparing students for the written comprehensive examination, at least 92% of degree candidates will pass the exam at the first sitting or upon retaking it.
Finding
Written Comprehensive Examination Pass Rate
In the fall of 2008 and spring and summer of 2009, fifteen degree candidates sat for the written comprehensive examination in English:
The attached chart shows the distribution of examination essays across the range of areas.
Fourteen students passed all three areas upon either the first attempt or a retake. One student failed a second attempt. Upon appeal, the student retook the exam and failed a third time; the student was subsequently terminated from the program.
The findings show that 93% of the candidates (fourteen of fifteen) who sat for the written comprehensive examination during the assessment period passed all three sections as a requirement for taking the degree. While the percentage demonstrates that the English MA Program exceeded the benchmark of 92%, the results and readers' comments show some patterns:
(1) As the attached chart demonstrates, essays were distributed across the range of areas. Students took exams in every area except for the Theory and Practice of Composition and Rhetoric. (The last time that any student was examined in this disciplinary field was Fall 2005.)
(2) While students slightly favored British literature areas (45%) over American areas (39%), there are certain variables at work. The slightly higher percentage of British literature areas may be explained in part by the requirement that students sit for at least one literature area before 1800: There are three British literature areas before 1800 and only one American area before 1800. Given that there are only three total American literature areas and five total British literature areas, however, students proportionally prefer American literature areas. This fact may provide some support for a new American studies initiative in the department.
(3) The fact that three students chose World Literature with an Emphasis in Anglophone Literature as an elective area suggests the rising popularity of this relatively new subject among our graduate students. This may support a new multicultural literature initiative in the department.
(4) The distribution of essay grades fell predictably across the range of passes, fails, and high passes: Of forty-nine total essays, thirty-five (71.4%) passed, seven (14.3%) failed, and seven (14.3%) received high passes. The even number of fails and high passes suggests that the system is relatively well-balanced and objective.
(5) Readers' comments on essays showed some instructive patterns. A handful of comments recurred on failing essays:
(a) The essay failed to address the specific question or to obey the requirements of the prompt.
(b) The essay failed to establish crucial definitions or establish coherent contexts.
(c) The essay oversimplified and "underproblematized" sophisticated critical issues.
(d) The essay failed to establish a thesis or to state the critical argument clearly, forcing the reader to infer conclusions or to make connections that the candidate should have made explicitly.
(e) The essay was too vague or disoriented.
(f) The essay relied overmuch on plot summary without enough interpretation.
(g) The essay ignored or neglected works from the reading lists that would have been obvious and indispensable examples in addressing particular questions; readers wondered if candidates were perhaps not reading all of the works on the lists. These comments correspond loosely and intuitively with the rubric in the indicators section.
Indicator
Professional Activities
Engagement in objectively measurable professional activities will serve as an indicator that English MA students and recent graduates have met professional standards for critical thinking and writing, have prepared themselves for further graduate studies in the field, and have engaged theoretical and practical pedagogical matters of the kind that they will face in classroom teaching. Such activities include
(1) presenting peer-reviewed scholarly and creative works at professional conferences
(2) submitting scholarly and creative work for peer-reviewed publication
(3) serving the profession in other ways (as, for example, membership and/or leadership in scholarly organizations, attendance at professional development seminars and workshops, sponsorship of professional activities, and development of teaching curricula).
Criterion
Professional Accomplishments
As demonstration that English graduate students are becoming active participants in the profession of letters and language, at least four students will present peer-reviewed conference papers or other scholarly or creative work at professional venues during the assessment period, and at least two students and/or recent graduates will submit scholarly or creative work for peer-reviewed publication over a period of two years. The scholarly and creative productions will support professional development, so that, for example, students who teach or plan to teach college composition and rhetoric in two- and four-year institutions will present work at appropriate conferences; students who aspire to PhD work in literature and language will present scholarly, critical papers and submit for publication scholarly, critical works to appropriate, peer-reviewed journals; and creative writing students will present work at creative conferences and submit work for publication in peer-reviewed creative writing reviews.
Finding
Professional Accomplishments
(1) Conference Activities: During the assessment period, five English MA students presented peer-reviewed scholarly work at professional regional and national conferences. One student presented three peer-reviewed scholarly papers at professional conferences; one of these won the Best Graduate Student Paper Award at the Association for the Study of Literature and Environment (ASLE) 8th Biennial Conference. All of the students presented scholarly work in literature and composition and rhetoric theory that demonstrates their critical thinking and writing skills and their preparation for further graduate studies in the field and teaching literature and composition and rhetoric.
(2) Publications: During the assessment period, one student had a scholarly paper accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. One student had a paper published in a conference proceedings. And one student submitted a scholarly review for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Two recent MA graduates published creative volumes.
A list of graduate student accomplishments during the assessment period is attached. As it demonstrates, the MA Program exceeded its standard for professional accomplishments. These findings demonstrate that our students have not only acquired sophisticated critical thinking and writing skills but have also engaged professional activities as preparation for further graduate education and work as scholars and teachers in the field.
Indicator
Preparation For English Teaching
Employment of a representative number of recent MA graduates as instructors at two- and four-year institutions and/or dual credit teachers at high schools will serve as an indicator that students have acquired the breadth of disciplinary knowledge and the necessary critical thinking and writing skills for teaching composition and rhetoric, literature, and/or creative writing on the college level and for teaching dual credit classes in high schools. Positions include full- and part-time employment as instructors in public junior and community colleges, adjuncts in four-year institutions, and dual credit teachers in public high schools.
Other indicators that students are prepared in the MA Program for teaching are completion of ENG 567 (Practicum in Teaching College Composition) and service as a graduate assistant. ENG 567, taught by Dr. Bill Bridges, studies the theories and practices of teaching college-level writing. Although it is required of all graduate assistants in the Department of English, a number of students who are not assistants also regularly enroll. English graduate assistants prepare for the teaching profession by serving as tutors in The Sam Houston State University Writing Center and teaching ENG 031 (Developmental English), ENG 164 (Composition I), and ENG 165 (Composition II).
Criterion
Placement In English Teaching Positions
As demonstration that the MA Program has successfully prepared its students for English teaching, at least four MA graduates will secure the following kinds of positions during the assessment period:
(1) full- or part-time instructors of composition and rhetoric, literature, and/or creative writing at two-year institutions;
(2) full- or part-time adjunct instructors of composition and rhetoric and/or literature at senior colleges;
(3) dual credit instructors of English in public high schools.
Finding
Placement in English Teaching Positions
During the assessment period, three recent MA graduates accepted part-time teaching positions in public junior and community colleges: Elizabeth Burdett (Lone Star College-Tomball), Semira Taheri (Lone Star College-Cy-Fair), Christina Tonan (Lone Star College-Montgomery). Three graduates worked as adjunct instructors at Sam Houston State University during the assessment period: Joshua Bowen, Melanie Sweeney, Zach Vande Zande. One recent graduate (Samira Taheri) accepted a part-time adjunct position at the University of Houston-Downtown. Two more have accepted adjunct faculty positions at Sam Houston State for Fall 2009: David Clarke, Bernadette Russo. The findings demonstrate that the MA Program has exceeded the expectation of the criterion. The findings show that students are prepared for teaching positions in two- and four-year institutions.
Indicator
Oral Examination
A passing grade on the oral examination will serve as an indicator that English MA students are able to articulate their knowledge of the field and demonstrate their critical thinking skills orally and that they are prepared for continued graduate education and teaching:
(1) Degree Plan I thesis students sit for an oral defense of the thesis. After the thesis candidate has passed the written comprehensive examination and submitted the thesis for approval, a committee comprising the director and two readers conducts an oral examination. In the oral defense of a scholarly thesis, the candidate is typically asked questions about the genesis of the project, research and critical methods, findings of the thesis and the value of those findings, and future plans for the work. In the oral defense of a creative thesis, the candidate is typically asked questions about the genesis of the project, the student's aesthetic, methods for completing the project, future plans for development, and the value of the thesis in the larger field. The defense asks that the candidate show how her or his thesis demonstrates professional competency and the ability to make an argument orally, as will be required in continued graduate education and teaching.
The committee typically examines the thesis candidate for one hour, awarding a Pass, Fail, or High Pass, according to merits and deficiencies; the grades are awarded for the defense and not the thesis itself. An evaluation rubric that guides the defense committee was formulated and approved by the English Graduate Studies Committee and Chair of the Department of English; the rubric is attached.
(2) After passing the written comprehensive examination, Degree Plan I non-thesis students and Degree Plan II students sit for an oral comprehensive examination covering the same three areas. The oral exam asks that the candidate demonstrate professional competency in the field and the ability to make arguments about disciplinary topics orally, as will be required in continued graduate education and teaching.
For the oral comprehensive examination, the Graduate Director appoints a committee of area specialists, with one of them serving as chair. As with the written comprehensive exam, the examiners ask that the candidate demonstrate his or her broad understanding of topics in English language, literature, and writing disciplines. Typically each of the three examiners asks questions for approximately fifteen minutes; this initial round of questioning is followed by a fifteen-minute "redirect," during which the committee members follow up on earlier questions or ask new ones that have arisen during the conversation.
As with the written comprehensive examination, the committee awards the candidate a Pass, Fail, or High Pass for each area, depending upon merits and deficiencies. An evaluation rubric that guides the examination committee was formulated and approved by the English Graduate Studies Committee and Chair of the Department of English; the rubric is attached.
Criterion
Standard Pass Rate on Oral Examination
As demonstration that the English graduate program is successful in preparing students for the oral examination, at least 92% of degree candidates will pass the oral defense of thesis or oral comprehensive exam at the first sitting or upon retaking it.
Finding
Oral Examination Pass Rate
In the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009, five students sat for oral defenses of their theses. All five passed, with three of them earning high passes. In the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009, four students sat for oral comprehensive examinations; all four passed. Collectively, 100% percent of students who sat for oral examinations during the assessment period passed. The findings demonstrate that the English MA Program has exceeded the standard of 92% established by the criterion. These findings, however, belie some inherent problems with the oral examination: The thesis exam seems to measure satisfactorily a student's ability to defend a particular research or creative project, and the uniform pass rate can be explained in part by the fact that students do not typically sit for the defense until the readers consider the thesis complete or nearly so. In the processes of researching and writing, the candidates have by this time grappled with most of the critical and aesthetic problems that will be addressed during the defense. The oral comprehensive examination, however, has been a frustrating and uncertain experience for many students and faculty examiners. Because students who sit for the orals have recently passed a written comprehensive examination, they are presumably well-prepared for an oral exam in the same three areas. But faculty examiners again and again express their disappointment that the students cannot respond adequately, sometimes to the most fundamental and predictable questions in the area. And while there are broad measurements for determining whether a student earns a Pass, Fail, or High Pass (as outlined in the indicators section), these measurements are so elastic that they cannot be made quantifiable. Since the fall of 2006, nineteen students have sat for oral comprehensive examinations. Only one was awarded a High Pass in all three sections. On the other hand, only two were failed on individual sections, which they retook and passed the next term. The high success rate, despite the general complaint that students are not performing well, suggests that faculty are either confused about what exactly the oral comprehensive exam is supposed to measure or regard passing as pro forma and relax the standards. Although students have been told that the same standards measuring competency in the written comprehensive examination apply to the oral exam, they often seem uncertain of what to expect; this confusion, coupled with the terror that some feel in an oral examination, makes for weak performances.
Action
Placement Leads for English Teaching
The findings demonstrate that the English MA program exceeded its criterion for placement in English teaching positions. Because enrollments have declined by some 19% over the last year, however, maintaining the existing standard for fewer students is equivalent to raising it. Until graduate student numbers rise, we will maintain the existing criterion: At least four MA graduates will secure positions as public junior college teachers or administrators and/or adjunct instructors at senior colleges during the assessment period. While the Program does not provide a placement service for teachers, in 2009-2010 the faculty will continue to communicate with administrators in public junior colleges and to send information about teaching positions to current graduate students and recent MA graduates. As another initiative, the graduate program web site will feature interview videos with graduates who now teach in public junior and community colleges and/or teach as adjuncts in four-year institutions. The graduates will share their experiences as a means of encouraging our current students to pursue teaching in such institutions.
Action
Preparation For Written Comprehensive Examinations
The findings show that the MA Program exceeded the standard pass rate of 92% on the written comprehensive examination. Despite the continued success, however, the findings have prompted specific actions:
(1) To help students prepare for the comprehensive examination, the Director of Graduate Studies in English will continue to hold biannual exam preparation sessions, which provide MA candidates with information about preparing and sitting for the exam, with sample questions, and with sample responses across the range of fail, pass, and high pass essays. In these sessions, however, the Director will emphasize the recurring comments that readers had on essays, as a way of making the preparation more concrete for the candidates.
(2) The Director will continue to publish information about the exams on the graduate web site and to publish a booklet on preparation for the exam. Because the biannual preparation sessions and published materials seem, in part, to be helping students pass the comprehensive examinations, the Director will continue with these activities during the 2009-2010 assessment period.
(3) The Graduate Studies Committee will produce a formal rubric for evaluating exam essays; this rubric will be presented to the graduate faculty for approval, and once finalized, will be distributed to examination readers.
(4) The Graduate Studies Committee will discuss maintaining the Theory and Practice of Composition and Rhetoric examination area. Although passing this area is one indicator of a student's preparation for teaching, no student has sat for the exam since Fall 2005, and none has declared an intention to do so during the next year.
Action
Assessment Of Oral Comprehensive Examination
The findings demonstrate that while the oral comprehensive examination should be an important measure of the students' breadth of knowledge, critical thinking skills, and preparation for future professional endeavors, many students perform poorly, either because they are uncertain of expectations for the exam or because they are not used to making arguments and demonstrating their knowledge about the subject verbally. The Graduate Studies Committee will discuss, first, the means by which we can format the exam so as to make it a more objective measure of the associated objectives, perhaps by constructing an evaluation rubric comparable to that for the written examination; and, second, the means by which we can prepare students better for this specific examination, either with oral components in classes or practice sessions comparable to the mock interview sessions that some programs offer.
Action
Data Collection
The findings for the indicators adequately measure quantities established by the criteria, as long as the data are directly available to the graduate faculty (as, for example, with pass rates on written and oral exams and course certification). Collecting measurable data for other findings, however, depends upon responses of students and graduates to e-mail polls, anecdotal evidence, and other unsystematic means. This makes difficult not only collecting important data about such things as professional activities and placement rates in advanced degree programs and teaching positions but also measuring the qualitative success of our program in preparing students for future endeavors: How effectively, for example, does completing required courses or writing a creative thesis serve the graduate in a MFA program or freshman classroom? How does the graduate carry critical thinking and writing skills acquired in ENG 697 into research in a PhD seminar? Such evaluations cannot be made without a more systematic way of gathering quantifiable information from our students and graduates and of asking that they consider how the specific knowledge and skills acquired in our program serve them in the future. To that end, the Graduate Studies Committee will come up with some such systematic means (for example, exit interviews, a database for graduates, telephone polls).