Annual Assessment Report to the College 2010-2011
College: Humanities
Department: English
Option: Creative Writing
Committee Chair: Rick Mitchell
Note: Please submit report to your department chair or program coordinator and to the
Associate Dean of your College. You may submit a separate report for each program which
conducted assessment activities.
Liaison: Martin Pousson
1. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s)
1a. Assessment Process Overview: Provide a brief overview of the intended plan to assess the
program this year. Is assessment under the oversight of one person or a committee?
The Creative Writing Committee selected its own undergraduate SLO #2 for assessment, as well
as the department-selected common undergraduate SLO #1 and the graduate program-selected
common SLO #1. CW also revised all of its own undergraduate SLOs in favor of more
measurable, performance-based verbs, and CW voted unanimously to adopt the new common
graduate SLOs, while dropping its own former option-specific ones, in order to better align its
efforts with the department and with other options. Also, for alignment, CW participated
actively in the revision of common undergraduate SLOs and voted to adopt them for assessment
purposes.
The new CW undergrad SLOs:
1. Students will create and revise original writing by practicing techniques and strategies
employed by experienced writers.
2. Students will analyze drama, narrative and/or poetry to identify writerly strategies.
3. Students will assess their own creative writing in relation to relevant literary and theoretical
traditions.
4. Students will demonstrate advanced creative writing skills by applying contemporary methods
in at least one genre in a final portfolio for a capstone course.
The new common grad SLOs:
1. Students will apply critical approaches to the study and writing of rhetorical, creative,
performative, literary and/or linguistic texts in English.
2. Students will conduct research and/or produce creative work appropriate to their option.
3. Students will produce advanced analyses that take into account current schools of critical,
historical, and aesthetic methodology and are informed by professional standards of rhetorical,
creative, performative, literary and/or linguistic research.
CW adopted the department-selected five-point scale to measure SLOs while designing its own
rubrics for assessment of specific SLOs in specific courses. The rubrics designed for use in this AY
will be submitted in an appendix to this form.
The new common undergraduate SLOs:
1. Students will demonstrate critical reading skills.
2. Students will demonstrate effective writing skills.
3. Students will demonstrate knowledge of creative, literary, linguistic, and/or rhetorical
theories.
4. Students will analyze British and American cultural, historical, and literary texts.
5. Students will analyze culturally diverse texts.
CW selected a gateway, intermediate, and capstone course for undergraduate assessment this
AY to make the process more embedded and longitudinal. For this AY and for both the CW and
common undergraduate SLOs, CW assessed 308 (gateway), 465 (intermediate), and 491
(capstone). All CW committee faculty members read random student writing samples from each
course and completed scales and rubrics for each sample. Then CW conducted comparative
analyses of the quantitative data generated from the SLO assessment to consider modifications
to the option, including course offerings, sequences, and other related student experiences.
CW selected an intermediate experience for graduate assessment this AY, with the thesis
proposal serving as the portal for a snapshot of the CW graduate option. CW recognized that,
for the common graduate SLO under assessment (#1), no single experience or course serves as a
gateway or capstone. In the future, CW will examine whether to establish such portals.
However, CW identified gateway and capstone experiences for common graduate SLOs #2 & #3,
such as the Entry Writing Sample (gateway) and the CW Capstone Course in development, 608X.
CW voted to replace the current graduate Thesis Option with a Capstone Course, 698X, to be
developed and proposed in Fall 2011 for implementation and initial offering in Spring 2013.
CW created a new Facebook account and page, as well as an alumni email listserv, in part to
conduct better longitudinal assessment by seeking post-graduation information about students,
especially professional creative writing, publishing, editing and adademic achievements. For the
future, CW will conduct comparative analyses of the quantitative data generated by this social
networking. CW also will seek other ways to better activate and expand its community of
writers.
CW discussed, reviewed, and reconsidered its direct measures for assessment activities
throughout the AY in a series of ongoing regular meetings and in email conversations. For future
AYs, CW decided that for all undergraduate SLOS, sample work will be drawn from gateway,
intermediate, and capstone courses, including creative and critical writing, involving aesthetic
and/or theoretical principles. For graduate SLOs, sample work will be drawn from the gateway
experience (Entry Writing Sample), from intermediate courses and from the Capstone Course in
development, 698X, including creative and critical writing, involving aesthetic and/or theoretical
principles. Samples will be randomly selected and made available for periodic review
throughout the AY in a creative writing database. Samples will be collected by faculty members
in ways that are increasingly longitudinal, providing evidence of student progress throughout
the option and within courses. All samples, all rubrics and all scales will be made anonymous,
with no instructor participating in assessing his/her own course. Samples will be assessed
according to articulated rubrics with scales that align with common and option-specific targeted
SLOs. Quantitative data will be collected, aggregated, analyzed and compared to data for
previous AYs in search of trends. Evidence collection will be made more comprehensive,
involving increasingly larger student populations for a fuller view of option outcomes.
CW also discussed, reviewed, and reconsidered its indirect measures for assessment activities
throughout the AY in a series of ongoing regular meetings and in email conversations. For future
AYs, CW decided that it will distribute surveys at gateway and capstone experiences for both
undergraduate and graduate options, as well as for alumni. Surveys will be distributed in 208,
308, and 309 in the undergraduate option and for the Entry Writing Sample and in the Capstone
Course in development, 698X, for the graduate option. Students will be periodically canvassed
within classes for longitudinal assessment and within the option for cross-sectional assessment.
Information about alumni will be collected via Facebook and social networking sites to establish
long-term outcomes of option, taking note especially of alumni professional achievements in
creative writing, publishing, editing, public readings, performances, conferences, and in
academic and other related positions. Students will be made increasingly more aware of the
culture of assessment within courses and throughout the option. Results and interpretations will
be documented in tables and/or narrative summaries, including quantitative data and
qualitative evidence.
For future CW assessment, careful comparative analysis will follow an inductive model by
collecting evidence first then determining results and creating a plan for future increased
success. CW will seek ways to increase average ranking for SLOs from 3.0 to 4.0 for the
undergraduate option, and it will seek ways to augment and optimize the student experience
with SLOs and with all other kinds of academic performance by increasing visits from
professional writers, editors, publishers and by developing professional platforms for students in
public readings, performances, and conferences. CW will seek to foster a more active
community of writers, while mentoring even stronger in-class student performance with
targeted common and option-specific SLOs. All CW faculty will be involved in the discussion of
findings and in recommended actions and proposed changes, in ongoing regular meetings, in
email conversations, and in direct participation in all assessment activities. Meeting minutes will
be detailed and will be shared, email conversations will be stored, and findings and actions will
be carefully recorded and documented, with data and other evidence provided where
appropriate.
1b. Implementation and Modifications: Did the actual assessment process deviate from what
was intended? If so, please describe any modification to your assessment process and why it
occurred.
No deviation from the intended plan.
2. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project: Answer questions according to the individual
SLO assessed this year. If you assessed an additional SLO, report in the next chart below.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
1. CW undergraduate SLO #2 (“Students will analyze poetry, narrative and/or drama to
identify writerly strategies.”)
2. Common undergraduate SLO #1 (“Students will demonstrate critical reading and writing
skills.”)
3. Common graduate SLO #1 (“Students will apply critical approaches to the study and
writing of rhetorical, creative, performative, literary and/or linguistic texts in English.”)
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
CW used the Department-selected five-point scale and a shared rubric to assess the common
undergraduate and common graduate SLOs and its own option-designed rubrics to measure the
option-specific SLO. All scales were aligned, and all rubrics were articulated and detailed to
make the measurement methods clear and refined.
1. For CW undergraduate SLO #2, CW assessed one gateway course (309), one
intermediate course (465), and one capstone course (491).
2. For common undergraduate SLO #1, CW assessed one gateway course (309), one
intermediate course (465), and one capstone course (491).
3. For common graduate SLO #1, CW assessed one intermediate experience (thesis
proposal).
Here’s the common Five-Point Scale (modeled after Likert Scale):
1: not demonstrated
2: less than satisfactory
3: satisfactory
4: more than satisfactory
5: excellent
Here’s a model shared rubric for common undergraduate SLO #1:
Common Undergraduate SLO Rubric
Outcome: Common Undergraduate SLO #1
Students will demonstrate critical reading skills.
5: “excellent”
4: “more than
satisfactory”
Analyzes and
interprets texts in an
insightful manner.
Derives meaning from
challenging texts.
Makes connections
between genres,
experiences, and/or
prior knowledge.
Comprehends and
Makes strong
connections in order
to analyze and
interpret texts.
Generally constructs
meaning from texts.
Generally makes
connections between
genres, experiences,
and/or prior
3: “satisfactory”
Makes connections in
order to analyze and
interpret texts.
Occasionally
constructs meaning
from texts in a.
Occasionally shows
ability to make
connections between
genres, experiences,
and/or prior
2: “less than
satisfactory”
Begins to analyze and
interpret texts.
Constructs meaning
from texts but
sometimes in a
confused and/or
inaccurate way.
Starts to make
connections between
genres, experiences,
and/or prior
reflects upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
techniques.
Rethinks and refines
ideas in the process
of responding to,
interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
knowledge.
knowledge.
knowledge.
knowledge.
Frequently
comprehends and
reflects upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
techniques.
Comprehends and
reflects upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
techniques.
Begins to
comprehend and
reflect upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
techniques.
Is unable to fully
comprehend and
reflect upon the
author’s perspect
purposes, and
techniques.
Starts to rethink and
refine ideas in the
process of responding
to, interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
Is unable to rethi
and refine ideas i
the process of
responding to,
interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
Usually rethinks and
refines ideas in the
process of responding
to, interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
Sometimes rethinks
and refines ideas in
the process of
responding to,
interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
Gateway Course: English 309. Verse Writing
Intensive practice in writing poetry; analysis and criticism of students’ work as well as some
critical study of published verse.
Measurement of sample student analysis, according to outcome, rubric & scale.
Rank 1-5 for each below:
#1:
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Here’s a model shared rubric for CW undergraduate SLO #2:
Creative Writing Undergraduate SLO Rubric
Outcome: Creative Writing Undergraduate SLO #2
Students will analyze drama, narrative, and/or poetry to identify writerly strategies.
5: “excellent”
4: “more than
satisfactory”
Sample clearly
identifies key
elements of poetry,
narrative, and/or
drama; accurately
uses terminologies
appropriate to
professional
discourse; and
identifies the
function, purpose, or
logic purpose behind
the formal structure
or aesthetic strategies
of the analyzed
writing (whether
student or
published). No
mechanical errors.
Sample identifies
some key elements of
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama; uses
some terminologies
appropriate to
professional
discourse; and shows
some awareness of
why the analyzed
work (whether
student or published)
is structured as it is.
In general,
mechanically correct,
but with a few errors.
3: “satisfactory”
Uneven. Sample
shows some
awareness that
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama has key
elements and/or
aesthetic strategies,
but is unable to
identify them clearly
or appropriately or
assess their purpose.
May show awareness
of terminologies
appropriate to the
discourse but
generally misuses
them. Mechanically
uneven.
2: “less than
satisfactory”
Vaguely aware that
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama can be
analyzed but shows
no evidence of
knowing how. Lacks
any sense of
terminologies
appropriate to the
discourse.
Mechanically
problematic, with
many errors.
Suggests minimal
engagement with the
text.
Capstone Course: English 491. Senior Seminar in Verse Writing
Preparation of a collection of poems or of a single long poem. Students complete, revise, and
supplement their work to produce a finished manuscript of poetry.
Measurement of sample student analysis, according to outcome, rubric & scale.
Rank 1-5 for each below:
#1:
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Here’s a model shared rubric for common graduate SLO #1:
Common Graduate SLO Rubric
Outcome: Common Graduate SLO #1
Students will apply critical approaches to the study and writing of creative, cultural, linguistic, lite
and/or rhetorical theories.
5: “excellent”
Proposal clearly
identifies key
elements of poetry,
narrative, and/or
drama; accurately
uses theory and
terminologies
appropriate to
professional
discourse; and
identifies the
function, purpose, or
logic purpose behind
the formal structure
or aesthetic strategies
4: “more than
satisfactory”
Proposal identifies
some key elements of
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama; uses
some theory and
terminologies
appropriate to
professional
discourse; and shows
some awareness of
why the proposed
thesis is structured as
it is. In general,
mechanically correct,
but with a few errors.
3: “satisfactory”
Uneven. Proposal
shows some
awareness that
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama has key
elements and/or
aesthetic strategies,
but is unable to
identify them clearly
or appropriately or
assess their purpose.
May show awareness
of theory and
terminologies
appropriate to the
2: “less than
satisfactory”
Vaguely aware that
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama can be
analyzed but shows
no evidence of
knowing how. Lacks
any sense of theory
or terminologies
appropriate to the
discourse.
Mechanically
problematic, with
many errors.
Suggests minimal
engagement.
of the proposed
thesis . No
mechanical errors.
discourse but
generally misuses
them. Mechanically
uneven.
Intermediate Experience: Creative Writing Thesis Proposal
Students will frame writing goals and practice in a formal discourse and articulate the guiding
principles of their work as a writer. Students will write a clear and succinct statement of their
plans for the thesis in the context of a broader overview that includes a discussion of both the
literary and theoretical framework out of which their work proceeds.
Measurement of sample student analysis, according to outcome, rubric & scale.
Rank 1-5 for each below:
#1:_______
#2:________
#3:_________ #4:__________ #5:__________
#6:________
#7:________
#8:_________ #9:__________ #10:_________
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and
population size for this SLO. For example, what type of students, which courses, how decisions
were made to include certain participants.
All CW committee faculty members were involved in ongoing discussions in regular meetings
and in email conversations to determine a plan for collecting evidence and gathering samples.
Students also were involved in the culture of assessment within individual courses and in
conversations with faculty members. CW also actively participated in regular monthly
Department meetings, in Chair’s Advisory meetings, and in periodic assessment-related
conferences. For this AY, CW decided to use random samples for all three SLOs undergoing
assessment from various courses in various levels of the option, in order to reach a crosssectional view of the option as a whole.
Here’s an outline of assessment sampling for each of the three SLOs:
1. For CW undergraduate SLO #2, random student writing samples were used to conduct
assessment in embedded and cross-sectional ways, with a total of three courses across
the option and five samples from each course.
student may not
have thought mu
about it.
2. For common undergraduate SLO #1, random student writing samples were used to
conduct assessment in embedded and cross-sectional ways, with a total of three
courses across the option and five samples from each course.
3. For common grad SLO #1, seven thesis proposals were used to develop a snapshot of
the intermediate graduate experience. (No current experience or course in CW seemed
to align with common graduate SLO #1 for a gateway or capstone experience—though
other CW experiences align well with common graduate SLOs #2 & #3.)
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed
longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a cross-sectional comparison used
(comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
Since CW wishes to avoid tracking individual students (“same students”) it must acknowledge
that, according to the description of terms here, it has conducted cross-sectional comparisons
for measurement of the CW undergraduate SLO and the common undergraduate SLO. However,
CW will develop a database that may allow for longitudinal assessment, especially within
courses, in the future, while safeguarding anonymity for students and faculty alike. For this AY
and for the future, CW decided to use many various course at various points aand various levels
for its assessment design. In reviewing its assessment activities for last AY, 2009-2010, CW found
that students were effectively achieving former option-specific SLO #2 (“write effectively”) and
SLO #3 (“relevant theories”). CW examined a random sample of out-of-class writing assignments
from several classes, 25 samples in all, with a scale of 1-4, with 4=excellent, 3=good, and then
averaged scores. CW found that on a scale of 1-4, with 4=excellent, 3=good, scores were
averaged as follows: SLO #2= 3.0; SLO #3=3.2. However, CW identified a potential problem with
its scale, as it might not have allowed for a full range of possible outcomes and as it was not
accompanied by an articulated rubric. CW also recognized that the assessment was not crosssectional, as the samples did not come from various courses and various levels throughout the
option. Therefore, CW redesigned its assessment methodology for this AY.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were
analyzed and highlight important findings from the data collected.
With the change to a five-point scale, CW found that undergraduate students were achieving
overall satisfactory results for the SLOs under assessment. For the gateway course, 309, the
average score for CW SLO #2 was 3.2, and for common undergraduate SLO #1, the average score
was 3.1. For the intermediate course, 465, the average score for CW SLO #2 was 3.5, and for
common undergraduate SLO #1, the average score was 3.5. For the capstones course, 491, the
average score for CW SLO #2 was 3.6, and for common undergraduate SLO #1, the average score
was 3.3. A review of these scores makes clear that the option leads to a positive outcome, with a
trajectory in the samples, except for the capstone course common undergraduate SLO, where
the average score was slightly lower than in the intermediate course. CW plans to conduct
further analysis as to determinants In this data. Several possible factors have skewed the data,
including the lack of a regulated course sequence. Some students take 400-level intermediate
courses before 300-level gateway course, inflating the average score for course such as 309,
while students in intermediate courses, such as 465, sometimes have taken capstone and even
graduate courses, possibly inflating the average score, and yet other students sometimes take
capstone courses, such a 491, before completing other courses, possibly deflating the average
score. The aggregate number of samples collected was 37. The total number of SLOs measured
was 3, one common undergraduate, one common graduate, one CW option-specific. The total
number rubrics used was 7.
CW plans to review its courses and the option structure to aim for a higher average score of 4.0
on both the common undergraduate SLO and the option-specific CW SLO, especially in
intermediate and capstone courses. CW proposed a change in advisement, with greater
regulation of the CW course sequence, mandating that students pass through gateway level
courses before enrolling in intermediate courses, and passing intermediate courses before
enrolling in capstone courses. Now that CW advisement will be conducted through the College
rather than through the option (a recently announced development), CW remains concerned
about how this course sequence will be regulated, but it will seek ways to encourage such
regulation.
For the undergraduate option, in many other ways, CW found the results demonstrated positive
option outcomes, as the samples from the capstone course, 491, and the intermediate course,
465, produced higher average scores than in the gateway course, 309. Even so, CW would like to
see its capstone course scores rise even higher than its intermediate and gateway course scores.
For the graduate option, CW found the results demonstrated especially positive outcomes, as
the samples from the intermediate experience, the thesis proposals, produced very high scores,
with an average of 4.14, more than satisfactory results, for common graduate SLO #1. In
discussion and analysis, CW views this outcome as further evidence of the long-term results of
its undergraduate option, since nearly all of the thesis proposals were written by students who
had graduated from the undergraduate option. This especially positive outcome also provides
evidence of the efficacy of the intermediate courses in the graduate option and of the
articulated course sequence for the degree. Finally, the outcome demonstrates the important
and intensive mentorship offered by CW faculty members in consultation with students writing
thesis proposals, especially as all CW faculty members, in alignment with the option encourage
effective writing skills with multiple revisions and critical thinking skills with historical and
contemporary, aesthetic and theoretical sophistication.
Even so, CW identified ways in which to further enhance the graduate option. CW decided to
move forward with its proposal to develop a new Capstone Course, 698X, by writing a formal
proposal in Fall 2011 for approval by the Department, by the College Academic Council and by
the University EPC. This plan would call for implementation and initial offering in Spring 2013. In
the meantime, CW will continue to accept thesis proposals and continue to offer the Thesis
Option, in 698C. Faculty members indicated that they will continue to conduct thesis
advisement with its current model of three readers, including one thesis director, the first
reader. CW also discussed and will develop a professional platform for readings and
performance by graduate students in its Capstone Course in development, 698X. This platform
might involve a request for space use in the VPAC. This platform also might involve production
on a class-based journal, to be made available through print-on-demand.
For both the undergraduate and graduate option, CW discussed ways to better activate a
community of writers through a more dynamic Facebook page, through wider use of surveys,
including alumni, and through more regular scheduling of readings by professional writers
across the genres. The scheduled readings will include alumni who have achieved success,
especially in publishing creative writing. In Fall 2011, CW will plan its first Open House, with a
panel and forum assembled with editors, publishers, and writers from the region. In this way,
CW aims not only to activate its current community but also to align with Department efforts
toward increasing the number of major and minors.
In addition to analysis of quantitative data, CW also discussed various kinds of qualitative
evidence, including findings from its alumni survey, from Facebook, and from ongoing
conversations with students. For its alumni survey this AY, CW found that there were 1361
alumni in the University database, and 720 with active, current email addresses. CW recently
canvassed those 720 alumni and received numerous responses with information still arriving. In
recent AYs, CW undergraduate and graduate students continued to be well-published, in book
form and literary journals of national reputation, and a number of graduates went on to
successful MA, MFA, and PhD programs, such us Claremont College; University of Iowa;
University of California, Irvine; UCLA; USC; San Francisco State University; Notre Dame; Arizona
State University; University of Amsterdam; and New York University; among others, and they
reported that they were well prepared by their undergraduate and graduate education at CSUN.
Additionally, CW students went on to achieve success in a variety of related careers:
independent filmmakers, members of theatrical groups, editors of literary reviews and journals,
directors of citywide reading series, creative consultants for entertainment companies,
specialists in information and library studies, and educators on the secondary, post-secondary,
and university level. CW students also won various awards within the Department, including the
Mitchell Marcus Award, the Oliver Evans Prize, the Eva Latif Prize, The Northridge Review Fiction
and Poetry Awards, and the Academy of American Poets Prize. CW alumni have been nominated
for national book prizes and writing awards, including the Pushcart Prize, the New Issues First
Book Prize, the Philip Levine Prize in Poetry, the Bay Area Playwrights Festival Prize, the Kennedy
Center’s Latino Playwriting Award, and won national prizes such as Best American Short Story
and Best Southern Short Story. CW alumni now teach at various national universities, including
UC Riverside, Hunter College, and UC Santa Cruz. CW alumni also have founded national and
regional literary reviews and presses, such as Chaparral and Red Hen Press. This AY, CW
undergraduate students were accepted for graduate study at many national universities,
including University of Chicago, UCLA, USC, Chapman University, UC Riverside, Spalding
University, North Carolina State University, and University of Illinois, often with full or partial
fellowships or scholarships. CW undergraduate students also won the University Wolfson
Scholar Award (given to a single CSUN graduating senior in the University), the Dean’s Scholar
Award (given to a single graduating senior in the College), and the Oviatt Library Scholarship
Award. CW undergraduate students also were selected as Editor for University literary reviews,
such as Captured and Kapu Sens, and they have published widely in national and regional
literary journals and reviews, such as Slake, Two Letters, Pearl, Ambit, Slipstream, and Rattling
Wall. CW undergraduate students were published In book form and were nominated for
national prizes, such as the SCIBA Fiction Award, and they participated in citywide reading
series, including readings sponsored by PEN Center USA, Good Reads, Slake, and
WANTED:WRITERS. CW graduate students were accepted for MFA programs at national
universities, including University of Illinois and UC Riverside. This AY, for the first time, CW
undergraduate and graduate students presented creative work at the Sigma Tau Delta
Colloquium. The positive response to the new panel led Sigma Tau Delta to formalize a creative
writing component for future colloquia.
In collecting, reviewing, and analyzing this qualitative evidence, CW finds that both its
undergraduate and graduate options lead to especially positive long-term outcomes. These
outcomes for SLOs are not always captured or made evident in assessment within courses since,
as the survey results reveal, many of the most compelling kinds of evidence develop over time.
CW recognizes the need to better demonstrate the efficacy of its option by seeking even better
ways to maintain correspondence with alumni and to promote student and alumni
achievements. This action likely will lead to further positive results even within individual
courses and throughout the option, as current students will benefit from these examples and
models.
Here’s a table for the CW assessment data for AY 2010-2011:
Creative Writing Option Assessment Data
Total samples collected: 37
Total SLOs measured: 3, 1 one common undergrad, 1 common grad, 1 CW option
Total rubrics: 7
Average Scores
UNDERGRADUATE GATEWAY COURSE
(Randomly selected 5 samples from 1 course to measure 2 SLOs)
English 309
CW SLO #2: 3.2
English 309
Common SLO #1: 3.1
UNDERGRADUATE INTERMEDIATE COURSE
(Randomly selected 5 samples from 1 course to measure 2 SLOs)
English 465
CW SLO #2: 3.5
English 465
Common SLO #1: 3.5
UNDERGRADUATE CAPSTONE COURSE
(Randomly selected 5 samples from 1 course to measure 2 SLOs)
English 491
CW SLO #2: 3.6
English 491
Common SLO #1: 3.3
GRADUATE INTERMEDIATE EXPERIENCE
(Randomly selected 7 samples from 1 experience to measure 1 SLOs)
Thesis Proposal
Common SLO #1: 4.14
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were or
will be used. For example, to recommend changes to course content/topics covered, course
sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan
changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed description of each.
For the undergraduate option, CW proposed a change in advisement, with greater regulation of
the CW course sequence, mandating that students pass gateway level courses before enrolling
in intermediate course and that they pass intermediate courses before enrolling in capstone
courses. Now that CW advisement will be conducted through the College rather than through
the option (a recently announced development), CW remains concerned about how this course
sequence will be regulated, but it will seek ways to encourage such regulation.
For the graduate option, CW decided to move forward with its proposal to develop a new
Capstone Course, 698X, by writing a formal proposal in Fall 2011 for approval by the
Department, by the College Academic Council and by the University EPC. This plan would call for
implementation and initial offering in Spring 2013. As a result, the current Thesis Option, 68C,
will be dropped (this decision was reached by official vote on record in meeting minutes). In the
meantime, CW will continue to accept thesis proposals and continue to offer the current Thesis
Option, 698C. Faculty members indicated that they will continue to conduct thesis advisement
with its current model of three readers, including one thesis director, the first reader. CW also
discussed and will develop a professional platform for readings and performances by graduate
students in its Capstone Course in development, 698X. This platform might involve a request for
space use in the VPAC. This platform also might involve production on a class-based journal, to
be made available through Print-On-Demand.
For both the undergraduate and graduate option, CW discussed ways to better activate a
community of writers through a more dynamic Facebook page, through wider use of surveys,
including alumni, and through more regular scheduling of readings by professional writers
across the genres. The scheduled readings will include alumni who have achieved success,
especially in publishing creative writing. In Fall 2011, CW will plan its first Open House, with a
panel and forum assembled with editors, publishers, and writers from the region. In this way,
CW aims not only to activate its current community but also to align with Department efforts
toward increasing the number of major and minors.
For future assessment, CW will design rubrics for all its option-specific SLOs, and it plans to
adopt future developed shared rubrics for common SLOs. CW will discuss how to conduct
longitudinal assessment within its undergraduate courses, in search of ways to increase the
average score from 3.0 to 4.0, especially for its intermediate and capstone courses. CW will
create a database to share among CW faculty for better collection of evidence, for more random
selection of evidence, and for more regular review of evidence.
As a result of the especially positive results of its alumni survey, CW recognizes the need to
better demonstrate the efficacy of its option by seeking even better ways to maintain
correspondence with alumni and to promote student and alumni achievements. This action
likely will lead to further positive results even within individual courses and throughout the
option, as current students will benefit from these examples and models.
3. How do your assessment activities connect with your program’s strategic plan?
CW aligned itself with the Department’s strategic plan by:
1.
Revising its own option-specific undergraduate SLOs in favor of more measurable,
performance-based verbs in order to generate more valid evidence, more quantitative
data and to conduct more effective comparative analyses.
2.
Contributing to the revision of common undergraduate SLOs, collaboratively
conducting assessment of a Department-selected common undergrad SLO, adopting a
Department-selected five-point scale for measurement of SLO.
3.
Adopting the new common graduate SLOs, dropping its own option-specific grad
SLOs, collaboratively conducting assessment of a graduate program-selected SLO.
4.
Replacing the graduate Thesis Option with a new CW Capstone Course in
development, 698X, to align its efforts more effectively with the Department and with
other grad options, which previously replaced their own Thesis Option with 698D, a
Capstone Course.
5.
Identifying cross-sectional (and potential longitudinal) portals for undergraduate
assessment with gateway, intermediate, and capstone courses.
6.
Designing rubrics for assessment of specific SLOs in specific courses, to make
assessment throughout the Department more articulated, more comprehensive, and
more valid.
7.
Contributed to efforts of Department to increase majors and minors by designing
and inaugurating social networking platforms, including Facebook and an alumni email
listserv, with the aim of connecting prospective students with current students and to
promote the successes of alumni to prospective majors and minors.
4. Overall, if this year’s program assessment evidence indicates that new resources are
needed in order to improve and support student learning, please discuss here.
1. CW will seek funding for use of VPAC for student performances & readings.
2. CW will seek funding for honorariums for featured professional writers, in ongoing periodic
performances & readings.
3. CW will seek funding for Capstone Class-based Writing Journal, in Print-on-Demand form.
5. Other information, assessment or reflective activities not captured above.
See appendix with rubrics designed for assessment of specific SLOs in specific courses and
experiences, seven total for this AY.
6. Appendix attached (seven rubrics for assessment during this AY)
Common Undergraduate SLO Rubric
Outcome: Common Undergraduate SLO #1
Students will demonstrate critical reading skills.
5: “excellent”
4: “more than
satisfactory”
Analyzes and
interprets texts in an
insightful manner.
Derives meaning from
challenging texts.
Makes connections
between genres,
experiences, and/or
prior knowledge.
Comprehends and
reflects upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
techniques.
Rethinks and refines
ideas in the process
of responding to,
interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
Makes strong
connections in order
to analyze and
interpret texts.
Generally constructs
meaning from texts.
Generally makes
connections between
genres, experiences,
and/or prior
knowledge.
Frequently
comprehends and
reflects upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
techniques.
Usually rethinks and
refines ideas in the
process of responding
to, interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
3: “satisfactory”
Makes connections in
order to analyze and
interpret texts.
Occasionally
constructs meaning
from texts in a limited
fashion.
Occasionally shows
ability to make
connections between
genres, experiences,
and/or prior
knowledge.
Comprehends and
reflects upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
techniques.
Sometimes rethinks
and refines ideas in
the process of
responding to,
interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
2: “less than
satisfactory”
1: “not
demonstrated
Begins to analyze and
interpret texts.
Is unable to analy
and interpret text
Constructs meaning
from texts but
sometimes in a
confused and/or
inaccurate way.
Constructs meani
from texts in a
confused and/or
inaccurate way.
Starts to make
connections between
genres, experiences,
and/or prior
knowledge.
Begins to
comprehend and
reflect upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
techniques.
Starts to rethink and
refine ideas in the
process of responding
to, interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
Gateway Course: English 309. Verse Writing
Intensive practice in writing poetry; analysis and criticism of students’ work as well as some
critical study of published verse.
Measurement of sample student analysis, according to outcome, rubric & scale.
Is unable to make
connections betw
genres, experienc
and/or prior
knowledge.
Is unable to fully
comprehend and
reflect upon the
author’s perspect
purposes, and
techniques.
Is unable to rethi
and refine ideas i
the process of
responding to,
interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
Rank 1-5 for each below:
#1:
2
_____
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
3
2
2
4
_____
_____
_____
_____
Common Undergraduate SLO Rubric
Outcome: Common Undergraduate SLO #1
Students will demonstrate critical reading skills.
5: “excellent”
4: “more than
satisfactory”
Analyzes and
interprets texts in an
insightful manner.
Derives meaning from
challenging texts.
Makes connections
between genres,
experiences, and/or
prior knowledge.
Comprehends and
reflects upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
techniques.
Rethinks and refines
Makes strong
connections in order
to analyze and
interpret texts.
Generally constructs
meaning from texts.
Generally makes
connections between
genres, experiences,
and/or prior
knowledge.
Frequently
comprehends and
reflects upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
3: “satisfactory”
Makes connections in
order to analyze and
interpret texts.
Occasionally
constructs meaning
from texts in a.
Occasionally shows
ability to make
connections between
genres, experiences,
and/or prior
knowledge.
Comprehends and
reflects upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
2: “less than
satisfactory”
Begins to analyze and
interpret texts.
Constructs meaning
from texts but
sometimes in a
confused and/or
inaccurate way.
Starts to make
connections between
genres, experiences,
and/or prior
knowledge.
Begins to
comprehend and
reflect upon the
author’s perspectives,
ideas in the process
of responding to,
interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
techniques.
techniques.
Usually rethinks and
refines ideas in the
process of responding
to, interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
Sometimes rethinks
and refines ideas in
the process of
responding to,
interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
purposes, and
techniques.
Starts to rethink and
refine ideas in the
process of responding
to, interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
Intermediate Course: English 465. Theories of Fiction
Intensive study of the theories and craft of fiction.
Measurement of sample student analysis, according to outcome, rubric & scale.
Rank 1-5 for each below:
#1:
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Common Undergraduate SLO Rubric
Outcome: Common Undergraduate SLO #1
Students will demonstrate critical reading skills.
techniques.
Is unable to rethi
and refine ideas i
the process of
responding to,
interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
5: “excellent”
4: “more than
satisfactory”
Analyzes and
interprets texts in an
insightful manner.
Derives meaning from
challenging texts.
Makes connections
between genres,
experiences, and/or
prior knowledge.
Comprehends and
reflects upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
techniques.
Rethinks and refines
ideas in the process
of responding to,
interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
Makes strong
connections in order
to analyze and
interpret texts.
Generally constructs
meaning from texts.
Generally makes
connections between
genres, experiences,
and/or prior
knowledge.
Frequently
comprehends and
reflects upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
techniques.
Usually rethinks and
refines ideas in the
process of responding
to, interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
3: “satisfactory”
Makes connections in
order to analyze and
interpret texts.
Occasionally
constructs meaning
from texts in a.
Occasionally shows
ability to make
connections between
genres, experiences,
and/or prior
knowledge.
Comprehends and
reflects upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
techniques.
Sometimes rethinks
and refines ideas in
the process of
responding to,
interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
2: “less than
satisfactory”
demonstrated
Begins to analyze and
interpret texts.
Is unable to analy
and interpret text
Constructs meaning
from texts but
sometimes in a
confused and/or
inaccurate way.
Constructs meani
from texts in a
confused and/or
inaccurate way.
Starts to make
connections between
genres, experiences,
and/or prior
knowledge.
Begins to
comprehend and
reflect upon the
author’s perspectives,
purposes, and
techniques.
Starts to rethink and
refine ideas in the
process of responding
to, interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
Capstone Course: English 491. Senior Seminar in Verse Writing
Preparation of a collection of poems or of a single long poem. Students complete, revise, and
supplement their work to produce a finished manuscript of poetry.
Measurement of sample student analysis, according to outcome, rubric & scale.
Rank 1-5 for each below:
1: “not
Is unable to make
connections betw
genres, experienc
and/or prior
knowledge.
Is unable to fully
comprehend and
reflect upon the
author’s perspect
purposes, and
techniques.
Is unable to rethi
and refine ideas i
the process of
responding to,
interpreting, and
analyzing various
texts.
#1:
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
2
3
3
3
3
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Creative Writing Undergraduate SLO Rubric
Outcome: Creative Writing Undergraduate SLO #2
Students will analyze drama, narrative, and/or poetry to identify writerly strategies.
5: “excellent”
4: “more than
3: “satisfactory”
satisfactory”
Sample clearly
identifies key
elements of poetry,
narrative, and/or
drama; accurately
uses terminologies
appropriate to
professional
discourse; and
identifies the
function, purpose, or
logic purpose behind
the formal structure
or aesthetic strategies
of the analyzed
writing (whether
student or
published). No
mechanical errors.
Sample identifies
some key elements of
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama; uses
some terminologies
appropriate to
professional
discourse; and shows
some awareness of
why the analyzed
work (whether
student or published)
is structured as it is.
In general,
mechanically correct,
but with a few errors.
2: “less than
satisfactory”
Uneven. Sample
shows some
awareness that
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama has key
elements and/or
aesthetic strategies,
but is unable to
identify them clearly
or appropriately or
assess their purpose.
May show awareness
of terminologies
appropriate to the
discourse but
generally misuses
them. Mechanically
uneven.
Vaguely aware that
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama can be
analyzed but shows
no evidence of
knowing how. Lacks
any sense of
terminologies
appropriate to the
discourse.
Mechanically
problematic, with
many errors.
Suggests minimal
engagement with the
text.
Gateway Course: English 309. Verse Writing
Intensive practice in writing poetry; analysis and criticism of students’ work as well as some
critical study of published verse.
Measurement of sample student analysis, according to outcome, rubric & scale.
Rank 1-5 for each below:
#1:
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
2
3
3
3
4
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Creative Writing Undergraduate SLO Rubric
Outcome: Creative Writing Undergraduate SLO #2
Students will analyze drama, narrative, and/or poetry to identify writerly strategies.
5: “excellent”
4: “more than
satisfactory”
Sample clearly
identifies key
elements of poetry,
narrative, and/or
drama; accurately
uses terminologies
appropriate to
professional
discourse; and
Sample identifies
some key elements of
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama; uses
some terminologies
appropriate to
professional
discourse; and shows
some awareness of
3: “satisfactory”
Uneven. Sample
shows some
awareness that
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama has key
elements and/or
aesthetic strategies,
but is unable to
identify them clearly
2: “less than
satisfactory”
Vaguely aware that
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama can be
analyzed but shows
no evidence of
knowing how. Lacks
any sense of
terminologies
appropriate to the
identifies the
function, purpose, or
logic purpose behind
the formal structure
or aesthetic strategies
of the analyzed
writing (whether
student or
published). No
mechanical errors.
why the analyzed
work (whether
student or published)
is structured as it is.
In general,
mechanically correct,
but with a few errors.
or appropriately or
assess their purpose.
May show awareness
of terminologies
appropriate to the
discourse but
generally misuses
them. Mechanically
uneven.
discourse.
Mechanically
problematic, with
many errors.
Suggests minimal
engagement with the
text.
Intermediate Course: English 465. Theories of Fiction
Intensive study of the theories and craft of fiction.
Measurement of sample student analysis, according to outcome, rubric & scale.
Rank 1-5 for each below:
#1:
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Creative Writing Undergraduate SLO Rubric
Outcome: Creative Writing Undergraduate SLO #2
Students will analyze drama, narrative, and/or poetry to identify writerly strategies.
sentence structur
problems,
subject/verb
agreements. May
suggest almost no
engagement with
text, as if the stud
may not even hav
read it.
5: “excellent”
4: “more than
3: “satisfactory”
satisfactory”
Sample clearly
identifies key
elements of poetry,
narrative, and/or
drama; accurately
uses terminologies
appropriate to
professional
discourse; and
identifies the
function, purpose, or
logic purpose behind
the formal structure
or aesthetic strategies
of the analyzed
writing (whether
student or
published). No
mechanical errors.
Sample identifies
some key elements of
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama; uses
some terminologies
appropriate to
professional
discourse; and shows
some awareness of
why the analyzed
work (whether
student or published)
is structured as it is.
In general,
mechanically correct,
but with a few errors.
Uneven. Sample
shows some
awareness that
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama has key
elements and/or
aesthetic strategies,
but is unable to
identify them clearly
or appropriately or
assess their purpose.
May show awareness
of terminologies
appropriate to the
discourse but
generally misuses
them. Mechanically
uneven.
2: “less than
satisfactory”
Vaguely aware that
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama can be
analyzed but shows
no evidence of
knowing how. Lacks
any sense of
terminologies
appropriate to the
discourse.
Mechanically
problematic, with
many errors.
Suggests minimal
engagement with the
text.
Capstone Course: English 491. Senior Seminar in Verse Writing
Preparation of a collection of poems or of a single long poem. Students complete, revise, and
supplement their work to produce a finished manuscript of poetry.
Measurement of sample student analysis, according to outcome, rubric & scale.
Rank 1-5 for each below:
#1:
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
1: “not
demonstrated
Incoherent and
incomplete. Non
responsive. Unab
to identify any
elements of poet
narrative, and/or
drama. Deeply
mechanically
flawed—basic
sentence structur
problems,
subject/verb
agreements. May
suggest almost no
engagement with
text, as if the stud
may not even hav
read it.
3
3
4
3
3
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Common Graduate SLO Rubric
Outcome: Common Graduate SLO #1
Students will demonstrate knowledge of creative, cultural, linguistic, literary, performative, and/
rhetorical theories.
5: “excellent”
4: “more than
satisfactory”
Proposal clearly
identifies key
elements of poetry,
narrative, and/or
drama; accurately
uses theory and
terminologies
appropriate to
professional
discourse; and
identifies the
function, purpose, or
logic purpose behind
the formal structure
or aesthetic strategies
of the proposed
thesis . No
mechanical errors.
Proposal identifies
some key elements of
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama; uses
some theory and
terminologies
appropriate to
professional
discourse; and shows
some awareness of
why the proposed
thesis is structured as
it is. In general,
mechanically correct,
but with a few errors.
2: “less than
3: “satisfactory”
Uneven. Proposal
shows some
awareness that
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama has key
elements and/or
aesthetic strategies,
but is unable to
identify them clearly
or appropriately or
assess their purpose.
May show awareness
of theory and
terminologies
appropriate to the
discourse but
generally misuses
them. Mechanically
uneven.
satisfactory”
Vaguely aware that
poetry, narrative,
and/or drama can be
analyzed but shows
no evidence of
knowing how. Lacks
any sense of theory
or terminologies
appropriate to the
discourse.
Mechanically
problematic, with
many errors.
Suggests minimal
engagement.
Intermediate Experience: Creative Writing Thesis Proposal
Students will frame writing goals and practice in a formal discourse and articulate the guiding
principles of their work as a writer. Students will write a clear and succinct statement of their
plans for the thesis in the context of a broader overview that includes a discussion of both the
literary and theoretical framework out of which their work proceeds.
Measurement of sample student analysis, according to outcome, rubric & scale.
Rank 1-5 for each below:
#1:_______
#2:________
#3:_________ #4:__________ #5:__________
#6:________
#7:________
#8:_________ #9:__________ #10:_________