Annual Assessment Report to the College 2010-2011
College: Humanities
Department: English
Option: Rhetoric and Composition Theory
Committee Chair: Irene Clark
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 Rhetoric and Composition Committee is assessing graduate program-selected common SLO
#3 (Students will produce advanced analyses that take into account current schools of
aesthetic, critical, and historical methodology and are informed by disciplinary standards
appropriate to their option). The basis of this decision was that we wanted to align the
questions we had developed for the Rhet/Comp MA exam with the new common SLOs for the
graduate program, particularly since the committee had developed an exam model for the exam
that was different from the more established exam genre. This new model consists of two
components: 1) a three hour on-site exam, consisting of two questions, one in rhetoric the other
in composition, based on an extensive reading list which is revised each year and 2) a take-home
exam based on a particular area of expertise chosen by the student and for which the student
submits an annotated bibliography. This new model is currently being considered by the
literature option, so it was important for the exam to be assessed according to the new common
graduate SLOs, which were approved unanimously by the Rhet/Comp committee in order to
better align its efforts with the department and with other options. All six members of the
committee assessed this exam and its results will impact discussions about the reading list for
the following year, the nature of the questions, the choice of topics for the second component,
and the effectiveness of coursework for preparing students.
The new common grad SLOs:
1. Students will demonstrate knowledge of creative, cultural, linguistic, literary, performative,
and/or rhetorical theories.
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 aesthetic,
critical, and historical methodology and are informed by disciplinary standards appropriate to
their option.
Rhet/Comp adopted the department-selected five-point scale to measure SLOs. It assessed
Graduate SLO #3 through an MA exam aligned with that objective.
Rhet/Comp voted to replace the current grad Thesis Option with a Capstone Course, beginning
in Spring 2011. However, it has retained its exam option because it fosters an in-depth review of
theory and pedagogy related to Rhetoric and Composition and has the potential of influencing
the curriculum in this option.
*Please see the appendix for information about the Rhet/Comp exam questions and assessment
rubric.
Rhet/Comp retains connections with alumni through the WPA (Writing Program Administration)
discussion list, which enables us to acquire longitudinal assessment by seeking post-graduation
information about students, especially professional and publishing achievements. Many of our
students are currently in the process of completing Ph.D.s in Rhetoric and Composition; two
have permanent lectureships at the University of California and California State University.
Several students graduating with an MA in Rhetoric and Composition have already completed
their Ph.D.s and have obtained tenure track positions at universities in Arizona and Texas. At the
yearly Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) attendees from the
Rhet/Comp option at Northridge, both current and past, reunite to apprise one another of
accomplishments and disciplinary interests. The Rhet/Comp option will also will seek other ways
to better activate and expand its community of writers.
Rhetoric and Composition also discussed 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, Rhet/Comp will distribute surveys in several courses that focus on students’
understanding of rhetoric as an underlying component of becoming effective critical readers and
writers. 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 summaries, including quantitative data and qualitative evidence.
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?
Common grad SLO #3 (“Students will produce advanced analyses that take into account current
schools of aesthetic, critical, and historical methodology and are informed by disciplinary
standards appropriate to their option.)
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
Department-selected five-point scale and option-designed rubrics to measure all SLOs. See
appendix for rubric used.
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.
1. For common grad SLO #3, two MA exams, one focusing on broad theoretical and
historical issues in Rhetoric and Composition and the other concerned with a specialized
area selected by the student, were used to provide insight into the overall focus of the
program, the nature of the exam, and the ability of the student to develop an area of
expertise.
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.
The responses on one exam were read by all Rhetoric and Composition specialists on the
committee and assessed according to the graduate program rubric. As a result, the methodology
was neither longitudinal nor cross-sectional.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were
analyzed and highlight important findings from the data collected.
Since only one student took the exam this semester, we chose an example from each
component: the on-site piece based on the reading list and the specialized piece based on the
student’s selection of an area of expertise. Based on the student’s response to both
components, the committee remains pleased with the nature of the exam. However, what was
revealed from this analysis is the necessity for further discussions about the relationship of the
reading list to curriculum and about strategies for better preparing students for responding to
exam questions.
Total number of faculty members involved in rankings: 6
Average ranking of sample exam: 2.8
For future assessment, Rhet/Comp will seek ways to include more students in the assessment
process, so that the process can be made more comprehensive and the data can be made more
valid. The process also will be made more cross-sectional, as Rhet/Comp will seek ways to
compare findings from assessment of the exam with findings from other prior experiences in the
option. What is also important is for the Rhet/Comp committee to norm our responses to the
exam, so that we have a clear idea of the criteria we are using for assessment. See Five-Year
Plan for details.
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.
What this analysis suggests is the necessity for revisiting the core curriculum in the Rhetoric and
Composition Master’s option, in particular the issue of core concepts and the importance of
examining connections between the MA reading list and required course work. Since there was
some disagreement about the quality of the student’s response, it is also important for the
Composition Committee to construct a more consistent concept of what constitutes excellent,
satisfactory, and unsatisfactory work.
For future assessment, Rhet/Comp will design materials, including new and revised optionspecific rubrics that lead to clearer, more articulated findings. Also, Rhet/Comp will collect
quantitative data for future comparative purposes, so that it will be able to conduct trend
analysis. See Five-Year Plan for details.
3. How do your assessment activities connect with your program’s strategic plan?
Rhetoric and Composition aligned itself with the Department’s strategic plan by:
1.
Adopting the new common grad SLOs, dropping its own option-specific grad SLOs,
collaboratively conducting assessment of a grad program-selected SLO.
2.
Voting to replace the grad Thesis Option with a new Rhetoric and Composition
Capstone Course 698D.
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. Rhetoric and Composition will seek funding for featured speakers, particularly those involved
in assessment, stretch composition, and high school-college connections.
2. Rhetoric and Composition will seek a new faculty hire in Developmental Writing, to replace
Professor Pamela Bourgeois, who is electing to enter the Faculty Early Retirement Program in
2011-2012.
5. Other information, assessment or reflective activities not captured above.
1. Sample MA exam questions linked to SLO#3. One question from the on-site component of
the exam and the question that addressed the student’s area of expertise, for which the
student had two weeks to develop a response.
2. The MA assessment rubric, aligned to the common graduate SLOs for all options.
RHETORIC AND COMPOSITION MA OPTION
APPENDIX
This section of the Rhetoric/Composition Annual Report consists of the following documents:
1. Sample MA exam questions linked to SLO#3. One question from the on-site component
of the exam and the question that addressed the student’s area of expertise, for which
the student had two weeks to develop a response.
2. The MA assessment rubric, aligned to the common graduate SLOs for all options.
Sample Exam Question: Rhetoric
In his introduction to Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, George Kennedy discusses the context for the
origins of the study of rhetoric in the western world: “Democratic government was emerging in
Athens, based on the assumption that all citizens had an equal right and duty to participate in
their own government. To do so effectively, they needed to be able to speak in public.” To
what extent do you see rhetoric and the study of rhetoric involved in this impetus toward
democracy? In your response, make specific reference to at least four of the following
rhetoricians: Plato, Aristotle, Gorgias, Francis Bacon, Hugh Blair, Frederick Doublas, Kennth
Burke, Mikhail Bakhtin.
Sample Exam Question: Composition
Increasingly, courses aimed at preparing writing teachers address the origins of and early
perspectives on current concepts associated with the teaching of writing, in particular,
invention, writing-across the curriculum, assessment, audience, and academic discourse. Write
an essay in which you discuss two of these concepts, referring to the work of at least two of the
scholars listed below.
William Riley Parker, David Russell, Richard Braddock et al, Sharon Crowley
Patricia Bizzell , Andrea Lunsford and Lisa Ede, Kathleen Yancey
Question for Specialized Component of the Exam: Focus—New Literacy Studies
The preparation for college writing teachers often focuses on scholarship concerned
with rhetoric and composition, but rarely addresses ideas associated with new literacy studies.
In fact, many composition teachers know absolutely nothing about work done in this area.
Write an essay (10 pages) in which you address the following question:
To what extent should scholarship concerned with new literacy studies be included in the
preparation of college writing teachers?
EVALUATING THE RHETORIC AND COMPOSITION MA EXAM
Reflects Common Scale for Shared Rubric but does not include lowest category (not
demonstrated) since it is highly unlikely that a student taking the MA exam would score in that
category.
4=High Pass
EXCELLENT
Exam questions assigned this score show very strong ability on the part of the examinee to
provide a detailed, substantive, and insightful discussion about the area under focus. Exams in
this category may be marked by all or some of the following features:
•
•
•
•
•
impressively substantive in material selected for discussion
noteworthy integration/synthesis of material, ideas, and/or concepts from more than
one perspective in rhetoric/composition (as befits the question)
thorough use of specific, relevant and well-chosen examples
well-structured and convincing argumentation
good balance between specific and general discussion
3=Pass
MORE THAN SATISFACTORY
Exam questions assigned this score show good ability on the part of the examinee to provide a
detailed, substantive, and insightful discussion about the area under focus. Exams in this
category may be marked by all or some of the following features:
•
•
•
•
•
consistently substantive in material selected for discussion
some integration/synthesis of material, ideas, and/or concepts from one or more areas
in rhetoric/composition (as befits the question)
good use of specific, relevant and well-chosen examples
generally well-structured and convincing argumentation
adequate balance between specific and general discussion
2=Low Pass
SATISFACTORY
Exam questions assigned this score show adequate but undistinguished ability on the part of the
examinee to provide a detailed, substantive, and insightful discussion about the area under
focus. Exams in this category may be marked by all or some of the following features:
•
•
•
•
•
•
inconsistently substantive in material selected for discussion
thin integration/synthesis of material, ideas, and/or concepts related to the question
and little or no attempt to draw on more than one area in the field
uneven use of specific, relevant and well-chosen examples and/or absence of sufficient
detail
some convincing argumentation
some balance between specific and general discussion
occasional misrepresentation of relevant concepts
1=Unacceptable/Fail
LESS THAN SATISFACTORY
Exam questions assigned this score show little or no ability on the part of the examinee to
provide a detailed, substantive, and insightful discussion about the area under focus in the exam
question. Exams assigned this score might also show absent or inaccurate understanding of
basic thinkers or basic concepts in the field. Exams in this category may be marked by all or
some of the following features:
•
•
•
•
•
absence of enough material to sustain a substantive discussion
superficial response to the question that does not integrate/synthesize material in
standard academic format
failure to provide details or specifics for claims made
frequent or egregious misrepresentation of ideas or concepts accepted in the field
weak writing skills that lead to difficulty in a reader processing the exam as a whole