FORMAT FOR APR COMMITTEE REPORTS TO THE FACULTY SENATE
1. The Academic Program Review (APR) Committee makes recommendations about
each program that it reviews in written reports to the Faculty Senate. The APR
Committee Report to the Faculty Senate should provide constructive feedback that
encourages program improvement. APR should provide a report to Faculty Senate
using the reporting grid attached to this document. In addition, APR may choose to
request a mid-review period follow-up (3 years) to concerns raised regarding the
program.
2. All materials referenced by the APR Committee should be in electronic format and
are received from the Deans’ Office. The following materials comprise the report to
APR:
ƒ The APR Self-Study Report provided by the departmental self-study
committee (including the annual reports and other important departmental
documents contained therein);
ƒ the unit data sheet provided by the Office of Institutional Research to the
department under review
ƒ the report of the external consultant(s) or accreditation agency;
ƒ the departmental response to the aforementioned reports; and
ƒ the dean’s summary report, which is prepared by the dean after reviewing the
APR Self-Study Report, the external consultant’s or accreditation agency’s
report, and the departmental response to this report.
Approved by Faculty Senate 9/28/06
Academic Program Review SUMMARY*
Department under review: English
Date self-study received in Dean’s office:
Date of external consultant’s review: 29 November 2010
Date APR received report: July 2010
APR’S summary of self-study (first two boxes must be completed)
APR’s summary of how the academic program attempts to reach its goals and objectives and the
extent to which those goals and objectives have been achieved.
The English Department’s BA engages students in the creative endeavors of writing and
literature analysis through three emphases, Literature, Rhetoric and Writing in addition to English
Education (Teacher Certification) and five minors. UWL English is similar to its peers in the
emphases offered though it has the distinction of offering a Rhetoric and Writing emphasis. As
part of a trend in English programs toward interdisciplinarity, its courses benefit seven other
programs. The innovative Chinese Dual Degree Articulation Program with Guangxi Normal
University in China has opened up opportunities for faculty and students. Extensive thought has
gone into revisions of the major, analysis of learning outcomes relative to assessment targets
and the conclusions of the last APR review.
APR’s comments including:
Notable strengths
1. The department is considering a Visual Studies Minor, it is reviewing its Professional
Writing minor and it recently restructured its major, suggesting that English engages in
continual and comprehensive reflection on its relationship to other UWL programs, its
students’ needs and trends in the discipline.
2. Giving significant attention to theoretical advances in cultural studies concerning social
difference, the program has successfully incorporated quite a number of courses of
excluded groups’ literature and linked discussions of the text to social contexts. Its course
offerings thus provide students with the latest exciting ideas in the field.
3. Considerable analysis has been done on learning outcomes data and changes to address
these outcomes have been pursued with alacrity.
Notable weaknesses
1. Salary compression undermines the morale and capacity of the program.
2. Continued university support for the Writing Center will be important.
3. Unnecessary obstacles that take time away from more important endeavors are presented
by the textbook rental service as run by Follett. Those departments requiring multiple
inexpensive books rather than one textbook are at a disadvantage under Follett and the
service does not always buy sufficient numbers of books in time for the beginning of class.
4. The General Education assessment requirements are time consuming and dissimilar from
the assessment criteria used by the department for its emphases.
APR comments on any/all of the six specific components of the self-study (if applicable)
Self Study: Purposes
The
English
department explores the practice of reading and writing through the study of
literature, linguistics, rhetoric and writing with the purpose of inciting sheer intellectual curiosity,
developing analytic power, creating an environment for creative works and preparing students to
instill the love of the language through teaching in grades K-12.
Such study is transformative,
empowering students to enjoy a lifetime of literacy, thoughtfulness and imagination. The major
offers three emphases and the department contributes significantly to General Education.
Self Study: Curriculum
As a major, the English Department offers three possible emphases: A B.A. in Literature or
Rhetoric and Writing, and a B.S. in English Education (Teaching Certification Program). The
department also offers several minors. These kinds of emphases are common amongst UW-L’s
“Performance Peer Institutions.” Nonetheless the Rhetoric and Writing major is distinctive due to
the focus on rhetoric as well as writing. The Literature Emphasis major is somewhat unique in
requiring a writing class (11 out of 24 peer institutions follow suite). UW-L’s program is in the
“minority” in that majors are not obligated to take a literary theory class though this is discussed in
introductory and capstone courses. This is also a feature the external reviewer believed should
be looked into. In regards to this, according to the Dean’s Letter the English Department
Literature Committee met in Summer 2011 to discuss the construction of a literary theory course “Introduction to Critical Theory/Methods in Textual Studies” – that could be paired with Eng. 301
(“Foundations in Literary Study”). It is the intention of the committee to discuss the development
of this course with the rest of the department faculty before the end of Fall 2011. The department
is also interested in reviewing the possibility of a Journalism minor but is currently focused on the
review of its Professional Writing Minor. A further distinct feature of the department is a recent
(one year) “Dual-Degree Articulation Program” in cooperation with Guangxi Normal University in
China. This program is gaining momentum and exposes opportunities for both students and
faculty to teach at Guangxi. Overall the department remains productive and vital in that there is an
emphasis upon the presence of, or construction of, certain courses and programs which follow (1.)
recent trends amongst performance peers (i.e., interest in a possible Visual Studies minor), (2.)
the ongoing incorporation of interdisciplinary themes, (3.) the study and inclusion of a diversity of
literary mediums (i.e., graphic novels, diaries, etc.),(4.) and the presence of “literary, linguistic, and
rhetorical traditions from previously excluded groups.” The department is active in improving and
designing new courses. Last the majority of the Eng. Dept. faculty regularly utilize technology
successfully in the classroom. This includes software such as D2L as well as technology
associated with digital and interactive media.
Self Study: Assessment of Student Learning & Degree of Program Success
Immense thought and effort has gone into defining learning objectives, assessing them, analyzing
the results and applying changes to the program. The department continues to refine learning and
performance objectives and to revise its curriculum. On the basis of assessment data, the
department hired a Freshman Writing Coordinator and completely revised the English Education
major. The assessment summary is frank, identifying student success and failure to meet learning
and performance standards. On the basis of assessment data, the department created ENG
301
as one of two core required courses and developed two new major emphases
(Literature
and
Rhetoric
&
Writing). In pursuit of improving the assessment process, the
department set up a department Assessment
Committee and curriculum committees for the
Literature and Rhetoric and Writing emphases. Syllabi and pedagogical approaches were modified
and the department created rubrics to assess outcomes such as ‘ability to understand their work in
a disciplinary framework’ for ENG 301, Foundations for Literary Studies (Report 2010-11, p. 13).
Assessment of Gen Ed English 110 found that the majority of students were at the level of
competent or above. However, the Gen Ed assessment requirements are confusing and mindnumbing for the department. Because they do not match the assessment methods English uses
for its own curriculum, they add time to the assessment process (see summary of External
Review). Though faculty surveys find agreement on best practices in teaching and writing,
improvements in the assessment process will come from efforts to increase consistency in the
content and standards across the sections of ENG 110.
Self Study: Previous Academic Program Review and New Program Initiatives
The previous academic review included two requests (2005). In response to these, (1) the
department has strengthened the English Writing Center through the acquirement of both
increased “philosophical support” from the Provost, Deans, and students, and relatively consistent
funding for supplies and tutors from the Provost’s Office, CLS Dean, and the Academic Initiative
program (while “secure” funding is still “debatable”). At this point, the center requires all of its
tutors for face-to-face help and cannot without further monetary support offer online tutoring. (2)
In March 2008 the department hired Dr. Darci Thoune as the new Coordinator for the Writing
Program (which supports freshman and remediation writing). Dr. Thoune has successfully
contributed to the program in a number of ways.
In the self-study the Eng. Dept. is clear that the budget cuts of the past several years,
antecedent and current salary compression/inversion amongst faculty, and the furlough plan has
made it difficult to replace important faculty, hire more diverse faculty, and leads to
interdepartmental “erosion of morale.” The latter “adversely affects the day-to-day operations of
the department.” They also point out that current textbook rental policies negatively impact the
manner in which they can design and run courses, and the “time-intensive requirements of the
GEAC.”
The department more than satisfies the UW-L Strategic Plan (2003) in contributing to UWL’s focus on academics, student development, diversity, globalization, and quality of life. Plans for
New Program Initiative are also strong: they are actively revising the professional writing minor
and looking to the creation of a Journalism minor, a revision of the English minor, and the creation
of a Visual Studies minor.
Last, it is worth noting that the English department “consistently contributes more SCH per
IFTE to General Education instruction than the university average.” The quantity of majors and
minors remains strong, and has not been an object of dispute by external reviewers.
Self Study: Personnel
The English department houses a diverse faculty who are actively involved in professional
development opportunities, creative-scholarly research, and teaching innovation. Nevertheless as
is typical of those with a 4-4 course load, the opportunities to engage in creative-scholarly work
could be improved. The department attempts to offset some of this pressure by essentially
encouraging all faculty to apply for sabbatical, grants, and one-course release (especially junior
faculty). The department makes it very clear that university wide expectations for increased
scholarly productivity with little or no lee-way or aid in regards to the 4-4 load is “unethical.”
From 1986 until AY 10-11 the English Department has lost seven tenure-track/tenured
positions through retirements and one resignation. In addition, given the vacancies of two
important specialists (medievalist and linguist), major enrollment trends, “increasing pressure” on
General Education courses (in terms of enrollment), and the growth of the Rhetoric and Writing
major and Creative Writing minor, the department “anticipates the need to hire replacements for
up to six faculty members as well as to hire in at least one new position within the next five years.”
The replacement faculty do not necessarily have to be in the retired faculty specialties, but will
have much to do with current and future curriculum given trends, and “evolving program initiatives”
(i.e., development of Visual Studies, China Dual Degree program, etc.).
Self Study: Support for Achieving Academic Program Goals (Resources)
Faculty need technology equipped classrooms to successfully teach. Space is needed for special
needs testing and for larger size classes. Otherwise, the department has adequate resources.
External Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on External Reviewer (if applicable)
Finding a strong department on the mend from downsizing but still without sufficient probationary
positions, the External Reviewer noted several external pressures on the department. For
instance, he pointed to the bifurcation of effort on assessment (for General Education on the one
hand and for its major, minor and program emphases on the other) as one of these pressures.
The reviewer praised the redesign of the website and the attention given to advising of Education
emphasis majors. Agreeing with the department’s self study materials, the reviewer suggested a
central body to oversee the functioning and shaping of the curriculum.
The External Reviewer made five recommendations.
1. The department needs to resolve the issue of a literary theory course, something that
came up in the previous external review.
2. There are courses on the books that are not taught often and quite a few topics courses,
suggesting some weeding of the traditional curriculum might be needed.
3. Technology needs must be met to accommodate the teaching of 21st century English,
which is increasingly digital and visual.
4. Salary inversion/compression affects morale.
5. Means to allow faculty time to pursue creative projects should be sought.
Department’s response to the Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on the Department’s Response (if applicable)
1. The department chair has received a subcommittee proposal to add a literary theory course
(311) to the Literature emphasis (Rhetoric already has a theory course). The new course
introducing literary and textual theory will follow 301. This proposal will be brought before the
full department this semester.
2. Though the department can make use of Centennial hall, that building does not
accommodate small class sizes (10-20 students). Two classrooms in Wimberly have been
upgraded.
3. Using the limited means at hand (teaching schedules, sabbatical applications, merit awards),
the department seeks to do what it can to address the issue of salary compression. The
department notes that salary levels and compression make attracting and retaining faculty
difficult and affects overall morale.
4. The department has a release time policy that faculty can apply for. They are seeking to
apply it on a rotating basis so that multiple people do not apply for release time in the same
semester. The department will also explore combining two sections of a class and winter
intercession teaching to lower the number of hours faculty spend in the classroom but
recognizes that an extra three hours per week does not provide the time necessary for
significant creative work.
Dean’s Letter
APR’s Comments on Dean’s Letter (if applicable)
1. The Dean’s letter underscores that the English department is in a “healthy transition
process,” and praises their hiring of a composition director, increased scholarly
productivity, relationship with Guangxi Normal University, and development of a
critical theory course.
2. The Dean’s office appears to be actively attempting to correct the room size and
technology issues.
3. The letter addresses the fact that faculty salary inversion-compression is an issue,
but one that the College has limited resources to address. A 2010-2011 study
shows that all the English Faculty salaries are compressed, and that three of them
are inverted. As a means to overcome this inequity, in the last three years two
English faculty have received salary compensation in the form of the UW-System
Recruitment and Retention Funds. The college has also requested salary equity
adjustments for a number of faculty, five of which are English Department faculty.
4. The Dean encourages the English department to continue to find time for scholarlycreative activities through sabbatical, teaching release time, etc.
APR’s Recommendations (must be completed)
Recommendations:
The English department should continue their good work through the broad-based and inclusive
strategic planning process that has enabled them to develop their highly effective program.
We find that the department serves as a model for others in the following areas:
1. The department’s Self Study is clear and thoughtful, being at once concise and
comprehensive;
2. The department’s use of the measurements it has devised to assess and strengthen the
curriculum is exemplary in being transparent, logical and meticulous;
3. The department is innovative and persistent in finding ways to provide faculty with time for
scholarship;
4. Agility and flexibility is evident in the decisions the department has made to adapt its major
to technological and theoretical changes in the discipline;
5. The website is a model, being user friendly, creative and helpful for students, faculty and
guests. The blog is wonderful.
The English Department should continue to work as a department, and with the Dean and Provost
on the following issues:
1. The need for classrooms that are the proper size – they are often too small –
and equipped with the necessary technology.
2. The presence of time constraints on creative – scholarly activity. The combination
of course load and university/college service limits creative-scholarly productivity.
While the department works to alleviate this pressure internally through course
reduction, and the Dean supports sabbatical, it is important to continue
developing opportunities for creativity activity.
3. The presence of considerable salary inversion-compression amongst faculty.
4. The necessity of continued university support for the Writing Center.
No serious areas to address – review in 7 years
* APR’s report to faculty senate will consist of this completed form in electronic form.