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.

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.

A passing score 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. To demonstrate their mastery of a broad range of materials, they are required to choose at least one British literature area and one American literature area and at least one early (pre-1800) British or American literature area and one later (post-1800) British or American literature area. A double-blind grading system is used to evaluate the candidates' proficiency.

An examination grading rubric and sample pass, fail, and high pass essays are attached.

At least 92% of degree candidates will pass the exam at the first sitting or upon retaking it. As indicated last year, this year we have taken precautions to admit only students with the potential to excel. However, this goal may take another year to realize, given the matriculation schedule of two years.

During the fall of 2011 and spring and summer of 2012, twenty students sat for the comprehensive examination in English; eighteen passed all three sections on either the first take or a retake. (The two remaining students have appealed to take the failed sections a third time in October, which applies to the next reporting period.) The 90% pass rate for the 2011-2012 reporting period falls just short of the 92% target.  

Those who failed mainly failed to follow the directions given.  Some difficulties included failure to give the requisite number of examples, failure to have a governing thesis, and mechanical issues that resulted iin a product not appropriate for a professional audience.  

The ability of students to write according to accepted professional standards is an important indicator of the English MA Program's success in producing graduates who have acquired appropriate critical thinking and writing skills and are prepared for future professional endeavors. An annual holistic review of representative graduate student writing produced during the assessment period will measure the students' ability to make sophisticated arguments about literature, language, and writing disciplines in a critical idiom appropriate to professional standards.

As demonstration that the majority of English graduate students are capable of sophisticated critical thinking and writing about topics in English literature, language, and writing disciplines, a holistic reading of graduate papers submitted during the assessment period will show that on a grading scale of 1 (unacceptable) to 4 (exemplary), at least 92% of students will write at a level of 3-4 (acceptable-exemplary).

Last year, we discovered that essays under review were rated as acceptable or exemplary within the contexts of the expectations laid out by the assignments but might not be similarly rated according to larger professional standards. In an effort to rectify this discrepancy, we have evaluated our expectations and made adjustments to meet professional standards.  We have also encouraged students to engage in more professional presentations.  We expect that these interventions will make our process more reliable.

On June 5, 2012, seventeen graduate term essays from classes in literature, linguistics, and professional and technical writing were subjected to a holistic review. Five of the essays received an exemplary rating of 4; eleven of the essays received a 3; a single essay received a 2. Ninety-four percent of the essays earned the acceptable-exemplary rating of 3-4; this surpasses the criterion of 92%.

Even though all but one of the essays met the criterion, it remains a fact that not all students are strong analytic thinkers. Many write well, but the depth of knowledge and synthetic skills are still weak. There are students who have received Cs and Ds in their midterm essays; these clearly do not demonstrate graduate-level performance. A good writer is not necessarily a student who is also ready for graduate school.

Some essay assignments required more sophisticated critical thinking and researching than others. So although all but one of the seventeen essays under review were rated as acceptable or exemplary within the context of the expectations laid out by the assignments, not every essay was equal according to larger professional standards.

The 90% pass rate falls short of the projected 92%. This number is not representative of our students' success, however, because those who failed sections of the exam will be retaking the sections in October of 2012, which applies to the next reporting period.

In only two exceptional instances have students failed retakes over the last ten years. The graduate faculty are confident that the students who failed sections will pass them in October.

Nevertheless, the pass rate always remains a concern as it measures our students' breadth of knowledge, critical reading and writing skills, and ability to make arguments about literature and language in a critical idiom
befitting professional standards.

 Although most of our students do pass the exam, the rate of those who fail a section or sections on their first attempt has risen in the last two years. The graduate faculty attribute this rise to more rigorous grading standards, which we feel better measure the students’ competence in the field and preparation for future professional endeavors.  We will continue to monitor the pass-fail rate closely, however, and consider whether other variables may explain the higher incidence of fails on first attempts.   

To help prepare students for the exam, the Director of Graduate Studies in English will continue to publish information about the exam in both online and print formats, with reading lists, sample questions and responses, and strategies for preparing and sitting for the exam. The Director also will hold twice-annual preparation sessions for the exam.

Recently other graduate faculty have met with students preparing for area exams and have suggested strategies for responding to examination prompts, secondary sources, and typical questions. Students report that this individual attention has been very helpful in their preparation.

While the specific goal of a graduate course is not to prepare students for the comprehensive examination, some professors do discuss the expectations for the exam and give students midterm and final class exams with comprehensive questions similar to those that they will encounter on the written comprehensive. This seems also to have helped students in their preparations. 

Students will demonstrate knowledge, skills, and critical thinking through oral arguments.

Students earning the Master of Arts in English will demonstrate their knowledge and critical thinking skills through oral arguments.

Thesis students sit for a one-hour oral defense of the thesis; having passed the written comprehensive examination, non-thesis students sit for a one-hour oral comprehensive examination covering the same three areas as those on the written exam. A committee of three graduate faculty members examines each student, awarding the candidate a pass, high pass, or fail, according to her or his ability to respond to specific questions. The committee for the oral defense of thesis comprises the members of the student’s reading committee; the oral comprehensive examination committee comprises area experts appointed by the graduate director. 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.

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. During 2010-2011, our graduate faculty determined that some students demonstrated weak arguments and marginal knowledge-base. We are eager to determine if requiring students to take Research Methods during their first semester in the program improves comprehensive knowledge and synthesis.

During the reporting period, eight students sat for the oral exam in English (seven oral comprehensive examinations and one oral defense of thesis). 100% of students passed the oral examination at the first sitting. Two of these earned high passes on one or more exam sections. The results surpass the criterion of 92%.

Despite the continued success rate, the students' performances on the oral examination remain uneven: Some demonstrate obvious mastery of the subject areas and graduate-level ability to articulate their arguments orally in a professional critical idiom; others pass marginally, even though we know some of these same students to be excellent writers and critical thinkers.

Despite the fact that students pass the oral comprehensive examination, the exam sometimes exposes weaknesses in their synthetic critical thinking skills. Especially if students are questioned by professors whose classes they have not taken, the exam seems to reveal a certain lack of comprehensive knowledge, combined with performance anxiety.

The graduate faculty will develop strategies to improve student performance during oral examinations. The issues to be addressed are weak arguments and marginal knowledge base.