1
Program Review Self Study
English Department
2004-05
2
Table of Contents
I.
II.
III.
Departmental/Unit Mission and Goals
A.
General description of department that provides an overview
and context for the rest of the self-study
B.
List programmatic goals
C.
Centrality/Essentiality – present an assessment of the centrality
and/or essentiality of your unit to the university’s mission or to
the extent to which the unit is essential to the expected
operations of a comprehensive university.
1.
Describe how each of the relevant six strategic goals for
the university are being promoted within the department
5
5
D.
11
Describe departmental governance system (provide
organizational chart for department, if appropriate)
Description of programs
A.
Describe currency of curricula in discipline
B.
Describe process for reviewing curriculum and making
alterations
C.
Effectiveness of instruction
1.
Innovative instructional methods
2.
Describe the information technologies faculty regularly
and actively utilize in the classroom
D.
Required measures of quantity for academic programs for the
last five years.
1.
FTES
2.
Number of graduates from each department based
degree program
E.
Required measures of efficiency for each department for the last
five years
1.
Average class size
F.
Planning and assessment of programs
1. Describe and provide results of how students are assessed as
they enter the program
2. Describe and provide results of how students are assessed as
they exit the major/program
3. Describe faculty involvement in assessment
4. Describe faculty involvement in program planning
5. Describe and provide evidence of how programs are
assessed in department and how these assessments results
are used to change or adapt program/major curriculum,
faculty, or resources
Faculty
A.
Faculty profile
B.
Faculty professional records for the past five years
C.
Departmental teaching effectiveness – report a five-year history
of the “teaching effectiveness” department means as reported on
6
7
7
12
16
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
22
22
22
22
23
25
25
26
27
27
28
28
3
D.
E.
SEOIs, indexed to the university mean on a quarter-by-quarter
basis
Scholarship per T/TT FTEF – Report scholarly activities per
tenured and tenure-track FTEF
Service per T/TT FTEF –
1. Report the number of department faculty memberships on
university, college, department, Center for Teaching and
Learning, State-level committees per tenured and tenuretrack FTEF in the preceding calendar year.
2. Report the number of department faculty leadership
positions in professional organizations per tenured-andtenure-track FTEF for the preceding calendar year.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
25
30
30
30
F.
Faculty Awards for Distinction
Students – For five years
A.
Numbers of majors/program
B.
Numbers served in general education, education, supporting
courses
C.
Student accomplishments (include SOURCE, McNair Scholars,
career placement information, etc.)
D.
Advising services for students
E.
Other student services
30
31
31
31
Library and technological resources
A.
Describe program’s general and specific requirements for
library resources in order to meet its educational and research
objectives. Indicate ways in which the present library resources
satisfy and do not satisfy these needs
B.
Describe information literacy proficiencies expected of students
at the end of major coursework.
1.
What instruction in information literacy is provided?
2.
How are these proficiencies assessed?
33
33
Reflections
A. What has gone well in the department? What accomplishments
have occurred in the past five years?
B. What challenges exist? What has the department done to meet
these challenges?
34
34
Future directions
A. Describe ways the department or unit might increase quality,
quantity, and/or efficiency. Provide evidence that supports the
promise for outstanding performance.
B. Based upon the self-study what future directions should the
department pursue? What resources would the department need to
pursue these future directions?
37
37
32
32
32
34
34
34
35
38
4
VII.
Appendices (See Notebook Tabs)
A. Writing Program Goals and Outcomes
B. Major/Minor Handbook
C. Graduate Program Goals
D. Department Policies and Procedures Manual
E. Proposed Professional Writing Specialization Curriculum
F. Washington State English/Language Arts Endorsement
Competencies
G. M.A. English: TESOL Curriculum
H. Literary Backgrounds Courses: ENG 105 and ENG 247 Outcomes
I. Senior Colloquium Outcomes Assessments: Form and Results
J. Template Checklist for Composition Syllabi
K. Lists of B.A. and M.A. Graduates for 1999-2004
L. Institutional Survey data on Graduate Student Experiences and
Satisfaction (2000)
M. Developmental English Data
VIII.
Exhibits: (Available in English Department Conference Room)
A. Manastash Literary Magazine Sample Copies
B. Washington English Journal Sample Copies
C. Sample Senior Portfolios
D. Sample Graduate Theses, Projects, Superior Papers (Literature,
TESOL)
E. Faculty Vitae
5
Program Review Self Study
English Department
Central Washington University
1999-2004
I.
Department Mission and Goals
A.
General description of department that provides an overview and context
for the rest of the self-study
In accordance with the university's motto Docendo Discimus, through
teaching we learn, the department is committed to improving our students' and
our own writing, reading, reasoning, and communication skills in an inclusive,
enriching environment of teaching and learning. As teachers and students
working together, we develop reasoning skills and literary awareness within
the larger goal of fostering human, social, and cultural understanding. We
promote interpretive abilities which enable us, by developing and applying
our knowledge of the powers and possibilities of the language, to recognize
and share insights regarding the characteristics and significance of our
individual and cultural expressions. We participate in collaborative research
with our students and provide opportunities for community-based civic
engagement projects and internships to promote their successful and
productive interactions with the worlds of work. As teachers of future
teachers, we combine our immediate aims of developing critical literacy,
language competence and literary awareness with current training and practice
in research-supported pedagogies. We also help prepare general majors for
careers requiring oral and written communication skills, such as law,
publishing, library and information science, and journalism.
Our ability to function and thrive in civil, diverse communities requires that
we communicate effectively across personal, social, political, religious,
national, and cultural boundaries. That communication is made possible
through language, identification, and empathy. By developing shared
vocabularies of words, images, and symbols, we can learn to identify and
empathize with each other through the imaginative experience of literature.
Because our most important decisions cannot be made on the basis of fact
alone, we must learn to reason with each other in shared discourse. To insure
that we continue to learn, we must make certain that creativity is free to find
new forms of expression and vision. We must acknowledge the role of art in
sustaining a sense of human purpose and possibility. And we must recognize
that language—the language of creative vision and imaginative reasoning--is
the only alternative to violence and war.
We are committed, as well, to disciplinary, community, and professional
enhancement. Our scholarly and artistic projects contribute to the body of
ideas and expressions which constitute our disciplinary knowledge base. As
6
part of a regional education center, we provide classes and sponsor literary,
artistic, and cultural events that feature our faculty and guest lecturers and
artists. Our graduate programs in literature and Teaching English to Speakers
of Other Languages provide professional development for students seeking
careers as writers, scholars, and educators. We also support, strongly and
directly, the development of excellence in K-12 education by serving as
advisors, consultants, and directors for projects designed to enhance the
quality and effectiveness of public school education.
Within a friendly, supportive atmosphere, we strive for excellence in our
teaching, our curriculum, our professional and artistic productivity, and our
work both inside and outside the university. We feel that our subject
matter--language, literature, and pedagogy--is absolutely central to the culture
at large; conveying knowledge about this subject, therefore, is at once deeply
important and exhilarating, connecting us at once to the long tradition of study
in the humanities and to the rapidly changing world of the new millennium.
B.
List programmatic goals
The twelve goals below articulate our shared commitments across all
programs. These help us prioritize the governance and planning work of the
department as a whole. Each program, in addition, has specific curricular
goals that delimit and inform course outcomes. These are reflected in
Appendices A, B, and C.
1. Our composition curriculum will provide high quality, successful learning
opportunities in rhetorical strategies and critical literacy.
2. Our course contributions to the Literary Backgrounds requirement in the
CWU general education program will introduce reading and interpretive
strategies and encourage imaginative exploration honoring the commonality
and diversity of human experience across time and culture.
3. Our major programs will provide learning opportunities in literary,
linguistic, visual, and creative awareness requiring students to engage
responsibly with and compose a wide range of texts while developing their
repertoire of skills in interpreting, analyzing, writing, and evaluating texts and
non-print media.
4. Our creative writing program will guide and support student writers as
they practice composing in different genres and as they produce the annual
literary magazine, Manastash. (See Exhibit A. for sample print copies.)
5. Our teaching programs will provide training and practice for both preservice and inservice teachers in research-supported pedagogies. We will
insure that all English Teaching majors meet the expectations for the
preparation and endorsement of English/Language Arts teachers established
by NCTE/NCATE and the competencies identified in the Washington State
Administrative Codes.
6. Our graduate programs will provide opportunities for students to extend
7
and enrich their exploration of the disciplines of literature and language,
specifically to strengthen their preparation for doctoral study, for careers in
teaching writing and literature, and for teaching English to speakers of other
languages.
7. We will establish and maintain recruitment, advising and achievement
recognition activities that will increase the quality, diversity and number of
majors and the probability of their continuation and success in our programs.
8. We are committed to diversity as an enriching fact of life. We promote
it in our faculty and student body and in the programs of study which
incorporate a broad range of perspectives. Our goal is to prepare
students to live and work creatively and compassionately in a global
society, and for us to do the same.
9. We will work to involve ourselves through research, performance,
presentations, workshops, participation and leadership in professional
organizations, and collaboration with colleagues and with our students to
contribute to disciplinary knowledge and to enrich the learning environment.
10. We will seek opportunities to extend our expertise and resources to
off-campus organizations and communities.
11. We will increase our literary and global knowledge as we participate in the
international community, seeking, creating, and sponsoring opportunities for
academic interaction with teachers and learners both here and abroad.
12. We will work together--fully and functionally--as a department in which
trust and openness are expected and maintained, through which can evolve the
kinds of superior work of which we are capable, and out of which will emerge
our best, our most generous and participatory selves.
C. Centrality/Essentiality: Describe how each of the relevant six strategic goals
for the university is being promoted within the department.
The English department participates in all aspects of university achievement
and fosters excellence through its reflective, research-based, student-centered
and inclusive practice. We provide for an outstanding academic and student
life on the Ellensburg campus (Strategic Goal 1) by monitoring, instructing,
and mentoring over 1800 students per academic quarter, accounting for over
25% of the FTE generated by the College of Arts and Humanities. Our
mentoring and support of student excellence extends from admission to
graduation in that we provide individualized developmental coursework based
on appropriate diagnostic information; we participate in state and regional
initiatives related to writing expectations at the intermediate and graduate
level; and we organize and support extracurricular events on campus that
extend aesthetic and cultural understanding across the university and larger
community including sponsorship of performances, readings by visiting
writers, the Classic Film Series, and forums on topics related to the way we
imagine and conduct ourselves as members of a world community such as the
challenging and critically reflective “Symposium on Terror and Torture in the
American Mind” and the President’s Symposium on Globalism (2003). We
8
serve as residence hall mentors, advise student groups, and organize events
such as the Black Student Union Poetry Slam. Members of our department
have been instrumental in creating and offering innovative learning
opportunities that cross disciplinary boundaries and continental borders.
Finally, we provide high quality, informed, current programs of study in
literature, language, pedagogy and professional writing, as well as rational,
accessible advising programs for graduate students, majors and composition
students through our program coordinators. (For descriptions of coordinator
responsibilities, see Appendix D., Department Policies and Procedures
Manual). Our students consistently report their appreciation for our class
sizes, our accessibility, and our commitment to their success.
We provide for an outstanding academic and student life at the university
centers (Strategic Goal 2) in that we work with center program faculty to
assess and support student writing and reading competence. English faculty at
the Lynnwood Center and the SeaTac Center provide discipline-specific
writing instruction as well as individualized tutoring. We have designed and
taught courses via distance education and on-line formats, and we are
contributing to the development of the new B.A.S. degree through the design
of elective upper division courses to be made available at the Centers. We are
also in the process of developing online access to tutoring support which will
be available to students at all centers.
Through our active participation in initiatives related to education, we have
enhanced the visibility of and knowledge about the university and its
programs, developing a diversified funding base to support our academic
and student programs (Strategic Goal 3). One of our most innovative ways of
encouraging prospective student interest is the frequent participation by
faculty in programs designed to celebrate writing skill and accomplishment,
including the NCTE Program to Recognize Excellence in Student Literary
Magazines, the PTSA Student Writing Contests, Washington Poets
Association Student and Adult Writing Contests, NCTE Achievement Awards
in Writing, Washington PRIDE Foundation Student Scholarships, Washington
PRIDE Foundation Grants, Allied Arts Regional Poetry Contest, and the
NCTE Promising Young Writers Program. We are also collaborating with
other departments in the College of Arts and Humanities and with our college
fundraiser to nurture visibility and support of our excellent arts programs by
conceptualizing a Center of Achievement in the Arts, which should become a
base for grant and foundation support. Our faculty have recently been
recipients of grants from the National Writing Project, the Fulbright-Hays
foundation, the East-West Center’s AsiaEd Program, and the National
Endowment for the Humanities.
The English Department actively works to build mutually beneficial
partnerships with industry, professional groups, institutions, and the
communities surrounding our campus locations (Strategic Goal 4) both in
9
the context of our disciplinary expertise and beyond. Department faculty serve
on key organizations and boards related to environmental issues, arts
advocacy, civic and community enterprises, and education, including the
Larson Gallery Guild Board of Directors, the Educational Service District
#105 Board of Directors, the Hospital Board, and APOYO, which provides
services to the Hispanic community ranging from operating a food bank to
providing court-related translation and client advocacy.
As key partners in CWU’s major GEAR UP grant, the English department has
organized opportunities for our teachers in training to develop and teach
workshops for students in schools with large populations of Hispanic, low
income, migrant, and ESL students. The partnership not only serves the larger
purposes of the grant but also orients our students to the diverse populations
they will encounter in their classes. Our students are regularly lauded by
principals and program administrators for their teaching. In prior years, our
methods students set up a GED instructional program for the HEP program on
campus, preparing students for their reading and writing tests. Those HEP
students who persisted in the program passed the GED exams and went on to
college. The highest GED scores in reading and writing in the state were
attained by the HEP students working with our majors.
Currently, our technical writing courses serve the public interest in that they
permit students opportunities to be involved with agencies and institutions,
writing proposals, brochures, and other public documents. We hope to build
on these opportunities as our new Writing Specialization gains momentum.
Practicum experiences and industry liaisons will be created to serve the needs
of the students. We also work with area institutions on literary projects,
sponsoring visiting writers and participating in literary events such as the
recent regional celebration of the work of Raymond Carver.
We have helped to strengthen the university’s position as a leader in the
field of education (Strategic Goal 5) in that our faculty participate in national
education associations and scholarly and public dialogues related to the
teaching of literacy, literature, linguistics, and pedagogy. A third of our
tenure-line faculty are members of the Center for Teaching and Learning, the
coordinating body through which we align our research-based practice with
state requirements, NCATE accreditation, state evaluation and assessment
efforts, and the education reform process. Our colleagues present at national
and regional conferences and are asked frequently to consult with state and
regional agencies related to educational reform and best practices.) Our
faculty also take prospective and practicing teachers to regional and national
meetings including the Washington Middle School Association, National
Council of Teachers of English, Washington Council of Teachers of English,
and the National Writing Project meetings.
10
We celebrate in particular the work of the Central Washington Writing
Project, an affiliate of the National Writing Project, which has influenced the
success of teachers and districts throughout the state and has rightly earned a
national reputation for excellence in the areas of multiculturalism and
educational uses of technology. We have also been the site of publication for
and have lent faculty expertise to the editorship of the Washington English
Journal (see Exhibit B.), a regional NCTE affiliate journal featuring articles
related to the teaching of English/Language Arts. CWWP takes teachers to the
NCTE and NWP Annual meetings, thus expanding their staff development
and voices in national conversations about teaching and learning. CWWP
teachers have also have attended technology institutes at Marshall University
and presented innovative curricula at the Washington State Educational
Reserach Association, the Northwest Cultural Museum, and at OSPI meetings.
Our department was the co-recipient of a grant with philosophy and history to
take K-12 teachers to Cambodia and Vietnam for curricular research. This
Fulbright Hays grant will mentor and support middle and high school teachers
as they return to their school districts to infuse Southeast Asian studies into
their social studies and language arts curricula. In addition, the department
was a participating partner in the East-West Center's AsiaEd program, which
took teachers to China and Southeast Asia to revise courses and support the
Asian Studies curriculum infusion projects.
We work directly and specifically to create and sustain productive, civil, and
pleasant workplaces (Strategic Goal 6) and will present evidence of our effort
through multiple assessment measures including the productivity data
included in this report and the student program evaluations conducted through
ENG 489: Senior Colloquium (I.). We maintain a current and regular presence
as members and leaders of key university committees including the Faculty
Senate committees on Curriculum, Assessment, Technology, Faculty
Development, Academic Affairs, General Education, and Budget, as well as
campus initiatives like the President’s Diversity Council. The department
environment itself has undergone, to the extent allowable, a welcome and long
overdue redecorating effort. Gone is the orange vinyl that, as one student
commented in program evaluations, made “the department feel like a drivers’
license bureau.” Many such adjustments, facilitated by the creative and
enterprising office staff, have made our workplace more welcoming and
pleasant for all.
Finally, though it is not reperesented specifically in the Strategic Goals, CWU
is clearly committed to diversity and internationalism, and the English
department has contributed consistently and productively to those ends. Three
of our faculty have served as members of the President’s Diversity Council,
three serve as mentors and advisors to ethnic student groups, and four are
directly involved in interdisciplinary studies program development involving
cross-cultural studies.
11
In the past five years, our international exchange faculty visitors have
included Antal Bokay and Agnes Suryani of Hungary, Tongle Zhang and
Shule Zhong of China, Tetsushi Takemori and Hidemi Masamura of Japan,
and Barriera Winters of Brazil. In that same time period, our faculty members
have taught in Hungary, Greece, Mexico, Chile, China, Japan, Russia, Great
Britain, Ireland, Georgia, Uzbekistan, and India. In all cases, writing has
emerged—new work, work in translation, collaborative projects—which have
enriched the classes and extra-curricular opportunities our students and public
audiences have enjoyed. Three of our faculty members have participated in
East-West Center Institutes on Infusing Chinese Studies into the
Undergraduate Curriculum and Infusing Southeast Asia Culture into the
Undergraduate Curriculum.
Beyond formal exchanges and institutes, our faculty are regularly called upon
to contribute their expertise in international settings. One has earned honorary
degrees from two Chinese Universities, three have visited and collaborated on
literary projects with Japanese professors, and five have given scholarly
papers, lectures or presentations at international universities. This
commitment to global participation and cultural competence is evident in our
program goals as well as in the contributions cited within other areas of
centrality and essentiality.
D. Describe departmental governance system. (See Appendix D., Department
Policy and Procedures Manual for full presentation of department
governance.)
The department is governed by the Chair in collaboration with elected
program coordinators and an elected personnel committee. Personnel
committee members act on behalf of the department faculty on all personnel
procedures related to annual performance reviews, reappointment, promotion,
tenure, and merit. They also serve as or assign mentors for new faculty
members. Program coordinators oversee the general education, undergraduate,
teacher education, and graduate curricula. They consult with the chair on
matters of schedule planning and program assessment. Issues emerge from the
program committees and the personnel committee for placement on
department meeting agendas by the department chair. We have found that this
structure promotes effectiveness, accountability, and maximum involvement
in decision-making.
12
Department Chair
Department Secretary
Personnel Committee
General Education
Coordinator
English Education
Coordinator
Graduate Coordinator
Undergraduate Coordinator
General Education Committee
English Education Committee
Graduate Committee
Undergraduate Committee
II.
Description of Programs
Undergraduate Programs
(See Appendix B. Major/Minor Handbook for full description of
undergraduate program outcomes, rationale, and expectations.)
During the period of review, the department offered three undergraduate
majors, one in English, one in English Teaching, and one inLanguage Arts
Teaching. Recently, the state competencies for endorsement were revised
requiring the integration of the English and Language Arts Teaching majors
into one program which is currently under review by the university curriculum
committee. Requirements for all programs are outcomes-based. Program
outcomes are organized into seven areas of competence or “strands,” and
multiple courses satisfy the outcomes for each strand. The Major/Minor
Handbook is distributed in an introductory course, English 303: Principles of
English Studies, and students self-monitor their progress toward completion of
the outcomes in that handbook. The culminating experience for all three major
programs has been the Senior Colloquium, ENG 489, in which students
participate in a peer revision process to compile a portfolio of writings which
illustrate their competence in the program strands. The revised program for
English/Language Arts teaching will require a separate portfolio colloquium
in which students will complete an e-portfolio using LiveText software.
The English Major is designed to promote intellectual and critical
engagement, an aptitude for delight through aesthetic awareness, a facility
with various forms of written expression, and an appreciation of the diversity
and universality of human experience. Those ends are achieved by developing
a knowledge of literary traditions and forms, by practicing ways of reading
that engage us with literary experiences through various perspectives, and by
practicing forms of expression that both reflect literary understanding and that
build an appreciation of the art and craft of writing.
13
Critical thinking skills are thus nurtured in the rich environment of the literary
imagination as students identify and analyze interpretive problems, articulate
and explore the basis of their responses, position themselves in critical
dialogues on questions at issue, identify assumptions and evidence, consider
historical, cultural, and social contexts, and draw implications and conclusions
in an atmosphere of shared discourse. In pursuit of literary and aesthetic
competence, students will practice these tools and techniques of literary study
as they read closely the works of great writers, acquire knowledge of literary
traditions, read and compose using the conventions of various genres, explore
community and cultural connections and disconnections, and analyze
linguistic elements and functions. Through these lenses, readers and writers
develop sensitivity to the possibilities of language, an awareness of the ways
meaning is shared imaginatively, emotionally and intellectually; and an
aptitude for continuing their explorations of meaning beyond their college
experience and throughout their lives.
Note: The department has approved a proposed new writing specialization
which will focus on the analysis and practice of various genres of writing and
allow students to concentrate their study in creative writing or professional
writing..
See Appendix E. Proposed Writing Specialization for detailed presentation.
Teacher Education Contributions
The English/Language Arts Teaching Major shares the strands and outcomes
of the English Major and adds to them the specific pedagogical competencies
defined by the department, the National Council for the Accreditation of
Teacher Education, and the Washington State Administrative Codes (See
Appendix F.).
Certification-Only students have already earned bachelor’s degrees and enroll
in our programs to complete pedagogy and other classes that address required
teaching competencies in English/Language Arts. These students must
demonstrate all of the competencies required of students in our
English/Language Arts major program.
Graduate Programs
The department offers two options for the Master of Arts degree: Literature
and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.
The Literature program offers a rigorous, individualized program of advanced
study of literatures in English. Students choose from an array of courses and
14
select a thesis/project or exam option. Although allowed flexibility in their
course of study, students are required to include graduate classes in British,
American, and World literature, as well as literary and critical theory. Those
choosing the thesis/project option complete a research thesis, a pedagogical
project, or a creative writing project and are required to pass an oral defense
over the subject matter of the thesis/project and over a reading list compiled
with a three-member faculty committee. Students choosing the exam option
take eight credits of additional coursework and are required to pass a written
examination administered by a three-member faculty committee over an
individualized reading list of the material covered in the student's course
work. Students enter our literature program for a variety of reasons: to further
their understanding of literature, to strengthen their teaching competence, or to
prepare for doctoral work.
The TESOL program has recently undergone a significant, research-based
revision to address issues of scholarly currency, to focus and integrate
instruction, and to strengthen the required practicum experiences. The
program fosters the awareness, understanding, and skills necessary for
effective Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. It prepares
educators to work with adult language learners both in the United States and
abroad through study in the areas of language, pedagogy and culture.
Graduates of this program are qualified to work in American colleges and
universities, private ESL institutes, and programs and schools abroad that
provide instruction in English. (See Appendix G.)
General Education Contributions
Unlike many comprehensive regional universities, our entire department
faculty is involved in planning and delivering the general education
curriculum. We see this as one of the strengths CWU has to offer prospective
students in that it demonstrates our commitment to serve all university
students. In this context, we want to acknowledge the contributions to the
general education program of our highly capable adjunct instructors, who
bring professionalism, intellect and vitality to their courses.
All of us see the general education program as the context in which critical
thinking skills are developed. Our composition curriculum and our writing
requirements in the literary backgrounds courses include outcomes that reflect
current research on critical thinking and rhetorical competence. Students
practice identifying and analyzing questions at issue, exploring their own
assumptions and biases, discovering alternate perspectives, critiquing the
assumptions and biases of other writers, identifying and evaluating evidence,
considering context(s), and drawing justifiable conclusions. (See Appendix A:
Writing Program Goals and Outcomes.)
15
General Education Writing Requirements
The English department is responsible for two core courses in writing required
of all graduates, ENG 101 and ENG 102, as well as a developmental
curriculum that offers a clear and appropriate transition for students who lack
sufficient language experience to succeed in the college level courses. These
courses are informed by a specific and research-based set of outcomes that
incorporate critical literacy, rhetorical strategies, and writing process
competence. (See Appendix A: Writing Program Outcomes)
A first set of outcomes address knowledge, skills and processes that relate to
writing and collaboration in general. A second set identifies the competencies
assigned to ENG 100T, the transition course. The third and fourth sets specify
the skills and abilities which will be monitored and assessed in the college
composition courses.
Two years ago, the English department assumed curricular (not budget)
authority for the developmental writing and critical literacy curriculum.
Previously, the program consisted of several courses taught through the
Academic Skills Center. The curriculum was revised and updated both in
terms of content and pedagogy, dramatically improving both efficiency and
effectiveness, in that students gain faster access to and experience greater
success in ENG 101. See Appendix M. for relevant data.
Literary Backgrounds Courses
The English department also offers two courses that meet the Literary
Backgrounds requirement in the General Education Program, ENG 105,
Introduction to the Literary Imagination, and ENG 247, Multicultural
Literature. We see these courses as very important to the university experience
and to the students’ sense of their preparedness as informed citizens of and
participants in a global society. In no other required course do students bring
together their intellectual, imaginative, aesthetic, and emotional competence.
Rarely will they have the opportunity to observe as directly their preconceived
cultural, aesthetic, political and social perspectives in light of alternatives. As
they embrace, and/or resist literary experiences and perspectives, they come to
understand themselves and their world in complex, intellectually and
imaginatively rich ways. Both courses provide opportunities for students to
read and respond orally and in writing to works that vary in time, place,
culture, and genre.
Service Course Contributions: Technical Writing
Our technical writing course focuses on the ability to address the specific
requirements of rhetorical situations in science, business, technology, and
public writing and communication. Students learn that within disciplines and
16
professions, rhetorical conventions evolve for reasons, and that to meet the
requirements of writing expectations within specific situations is to address
the needs of an identifiable audience. Thus they learn not just how to match
forms, but how to create and manage communication across rhetorical
boundaries, how to present information—both textual and visual—in effective
formats, and how to work collaboratively to solve problems and reach
agreements. Students work with real-world audiences, often applying their
learning to address the communications needs of on and off-campus
organizations in exercises that promote public service and civic engagement.
The English department offers between ten and fourteen sections of technical
writing per year to students in Family and Consumer Sciences, Business,
Computer Science, Industrial Engineering Technology, Education, and the
sciences for a total of 250 to 350 students served annually.
A. Currency of Curricula in Discipline
Department course listings, book orders and syllabi may be the best evidence
of our department’s continuous development as a community of scholars. In
part through our informal interactions and certainly through the annual
Performance Review process, we are made aware of our colleagues’
innovations and discoveries and are thus inspired to seek fuller knowledge and
broader understanding of texts, theories, strategies, and teaching practices.
Recent focuses include Post-Colonial studies of both texts and films, memoirs
of World War II by authors of several cultures, postmodern fiction, linguistic
approaches to literature, and literary investigations into the relationship of
reason and emotion.
English department faculty maintain currency by participating in a variety of
disciplinary conversations through the publication and presentation of
scholarship and research; creative productivity and public performance of
creative works; participation in institutes, grant-funded projects, workshops
and inservice opportunities; membership and leadership in professional
associations; service as consultants to and judges of scholarly and creative
events and contests; and subscribing to, editing, or reviewing professional
publications. These forms of professional involvement enrich and inform our
students’ classroom success and our own regular discussions of curricular
effectiveness and innovation.
It is the responsibility of English department program coordinators and their
committees to monitor and manage program quality, currency, and success.
All of our programs go through regular updating based on our attentiveness to
and participation in discussions of relevant research on the multifocal
discipline of English studies. Examples follow.
17
1.
2.
3.
4.
A department retreat on the scope and sequence of our
literature curriculum last year was precipitated by
assessment information, recent reading, and an ongoing
faculty discussion on the changing nature and
expanding commitments of English studies. The retreat,
the focus of which was a proposed revision in the
structure, numbering system, and rationale for the
undergraduate majors, elicited broad and specific
discussion both during the retreat and in a series of
whole group and sub-group e-mail dialogues during the
winter and spring. The original proposal is undergoing
modification and will be reconsidered; however, the
documented discussions themselves presented a model
of scholarly dialogue that measures our offerings and
intentions against some of the most recent and
progressive research in our field.
The curricula of ENG 101, ENG 102 and 105 were
reviewed and revised in the past two years. The
composition committee adopted a new text for ENG
101 that strengthened the critical literacy and rhetorical
basis for the outcomes. In the case of 102, the course
changes responded both to research on cognition and
information literacy and to the assessments of teachers
and students about the course’s challenges. The
outcomes for ENG 105 were made more specific to
strengthen its connection to the critical literacy and
global awareness goals of the general education
program.
Department members regularly attend and contribute to
sessions on pedagogy, literature, and language at
national conferences including the Modern Language
Association, the Conference on Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages, and the Conference on
College Composition and Communication. New ideas
are contributed, through the department’s program
committee system, to ongoing monitoring and revision
of our program curricula.
The local site of the National Writing Project, the
Central Washington Writing Project, has earned
national attention for its teacher-research model, its
attentiveness to technological innovation and diversity,
and its extensive influence on writing competence in a
region beset by the most challenging of factors facing
public education, including a high incidence of poverty,
large migrant populations, and language barriers. The
project is based on the concept that best practice is
18
5.
always research-based, and its successes have
influenced the evolution of our own undergraduate
major in English/Language Arts Teaching.
We meet as a faculty on a quarterly basis to discuss
scholarly materials on an issue of general interest,
including, for example, how we teach writing and
poetry, or how we can best incorporate technology into
teaching for effectiveness and efficiency.
B. Describe Process for Reviewing Curriculum and Making Changes
The process for reviewing the curriculum is ongoing and responsive to our
practice of program assessment and peer review. Program committees, as
described in section I.D. of this document, are responsible for reviewing
assessment data and discussing proposals for improving programs. Changes
are not undertaken lightly or in response to situations that could be regarded
as transitional or temporary. In response to problems observed or
opportunities introduced, the committees fully discuss the implications of
change prior to forwarding a recommendation or proposal in the form of a
motion to the department chair for inclusion on a department meeting agenda.
Necessary background information is provided with department agendas a
week prior to meeting dates for review and informal discussion. Proposals for
change are discussed at one or more meetings, and a vote is taken at the
subsequent meeting. Program coordinators and the department chair
collaborate to complete the processes and procedures required for
implementing the change.
C. Effectiveness of instruction
1. Innovative instructional methods
Faculty in the English department regularly use the following instructional
methods:









Inquiry-based and guided discussion
Lecture/presentation
Collaborative learning, research, and presentation
Peer-review
Field and practicum experiences
Film and video presentations
Workshops utilizing campus computer labs
Online presentation
Interactive television
19
2. Describe the information technologies faculty regularly and
actively utilize in the classroom
Information technologies used infrequently include interactive
television and online course delivery. Increasing numbers of
faculty are taking advantage of the campus Blackboard course
management system which allows faculty to post course
material (syllabus, assignments, grading rubrics, PowerPoint
lectures, sample student work, announcements, links to websites),
offer online reading quizzes, provide threaded discussion boards
and email communications, conduct online peer-editing groups,
have students submit papers in digital format, and post evaluated
papers with comments and grades.
In recent years, the availability of technology has increased, but
not sufficiently to respond to the level of interest. The mediaequipped “smart classrooms” in our building are in high demand,
and access is augmented by a portable “smart-cart” equipped with
computer and digital projector. We also have access to two
classrooms equipped with big-screen televisions. Our departmentmanaged media room is shared by all faculty and is in constant
use. Limitations to our use of technology include not only
insufficiency of equipment but also the recent application of roomassignment software which, as a result of our mediated class sizes,
frequently locates our classes outside of our own building where
even our department-owned equipment cannot be accessed.
D. Required measures of quantity for academic programs for the last five
years.
1. FTES
Academic Years 1998-1999 through 2003-2004
FTES
1998-99
Lower
Division
Upper
Division
Graduate
Overall
Average
Total
Credits
English
Department Attempted
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
223.2
242.2
246.2
318.5
359.8
373.4
148.7
17.2
136.5
16.1
96.0
17.7
98.4
18.1
99.6
19.2
117.6
18.7
389.2
394.8
359.8
435.1
478.6
509.7
17,254
17,524
15,928
19,307
21,250
22,655
20
1998-99
Lower
Division
Upper
Division
Graduate
Overall
Average
College of Total
Arts and Credits
Humanities Attempted
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
1,044.6
1,081.4
1,121.8
1,256.2
1,309.6
1,327.2
621.6
47.0
572.6
44.9
529.8
45.6
540.8
49.6
557.8
64.1
631.2
60.0
1,713.2
1,698.8
1,697.2
1,846.6
1,931.5
2,018.4
76,389
75,775
75,689
82,351
85,956
89,927
1998-99
Lower
Division
Upper
Division
Graduate
Overall
Average
Total
Central
Washington Credits
University Attempted
1999-00
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
3,239.6
3,352.6
3,392.4
3,645.1
3,858.6
4,021.7
3,866.6
360.8
3,731.8
366.4
3,571.7
323.9
3,689.5
336.9
3,906.2
341.1
4,254.9
372.8
7,467.0
7,450.8
7,288.0
7,671.5
8,105.9
8,649.4
330,601
329,789
323,105
340,165
359,648
383,631
2. Degrees Conferred, Academic Years 1998-1999 through
2003-2004
Degree
Level
Majors
19981999
19992000
20002001
20012002
20022003
20032004
Total
Bachelor's
Total English
Bachelor's
Degrees
English
14
22
18
11
11
20
96
English
Teaching
Language Arts
11
12
13
7
12
9
64
3
3
2
2
2
12
28
37
20
25
31
172
31
21
Total CAH
Bachelor's
Degrees
English as
Percent of
CAH
Bachelor's
Degrees
Total CWU
Bachelor's
Degrees
English as
Percent of
CWU
Bachelor's
Degrees
Degree
Level
Master's
Major
275
294
272
291
265
308
1705
10.2%
12.6%
11.4%
6.9%
9.4%
10.1%
10.1%
1,982
2,077
1,866
1,963
1,859
2,167
11914
1.4%
1.8%
1.7%
1.0%
1.3%
1.4%
1.4%
19981999
19992000
20002001
20012002
20022003
20032004
Total
English
2
6
5
8
3
6
30
English
TESL/TEFL
English
Teaching
3
5
1
1
5
2
17
1
1
Total English
Master's
Degrees
5
12
6
9
8
8
48
Total CAH
Master's
Degrees
English as
Percent of
CAH
Master's
Degrees
Total CWU
Master's
Degrees
English as %
of CWU
Master's
Degrees
21
34
25
35
35
31
181
23.8%
35.3%
24.0%
25.7%
22.9%
25.8%
26.5%
178
219
162
226
211
183
1179
2.8%
5.5%
3.7%
4.0%
3.8%
4.4%
4.1%
22
E.. Required measures of efficiency for each department for the last five years
1.
Average class size
1998-99 1999-00
Lower
Division
Upper
Division
English
Overall
Department Average
23.7
24.1
24.9
24.9
25.2
18.5
16.5
15.4
18.5
19.5
20.9
21.7
20.7
21.2
23.1
23.6
24.1
F.
2000-01 2001-02
2002-03 2003-04
26.6
26.5
26.4
29.0
29.1
30.0
15.7
15.2
14.5
15.9
16.5
17.8
20.9
21.0
20.8
23.1
23.6
24.6
1998-99 1999-00
Lower
Division
Upper
Division
Central
Washington Overall
University Average
2002-03 2003-04
24.1
1998-99 1999-00
Lower
Division
Upper
College of Division
Arts &
Overall
Humanities Average
2000-01 2001-02
2000-01 2001-02
2002-03 2003-04
31.5
32.3
31.9
34.8
34.6
35.6
20.3
19.6
19.1
21.3
22.3
22.9
24.1
24.1
23.6
26.2
27.0
27.6
Planning and assessment of programs
1. Describe and provide results of how students are assessed as they
enter the program
Undergraduate Programs: Student entrance into the undergraduate
programs is permitted with successful completion of the general
education English and literary backgrounds requirements. Two
courses, ENG 302, Poetry and Poetics, and ENG 303, Principles of
English Studies, serve as prerequisites and gateway courses to all other
upper division courses. ENG 303 focuses on strategies for reading and
23
writing about literature as an introduction to the evolving and inclusive
field of English Studies. ENG 302 was more recently (1995)
established as a prerequisite in response to assessment information
from students who felt that the instruction in 302 would be helpful for
many other classes in the curriculum to strengthen their confidence
and capabilities in relation to close reading and understanding of
poetic elements. In both courses, assessments of student skill levels are
conducted and, when necessary, recommendations for remediation are
offered. Students whose writing and interpretive skills are not adequate
do not progress in the major beyond these courses. Together, the two
courses provide critical contexts for disciplinary knowledge and
specific strategies for and methods of reading and analysis.
Graduate Programs: Student entrance into the MA English:
Literature graduate program is based on application portfolios
including a Statement of Purpose, a 5-10 page writing sample,
transcripts of undergraduate and graduate coursework, cumulative
Grade Point Averages, recommendations from past instructors, and
scores on the Graduate Record Examination. For entrance into the MA
English: TESOL program, non-native English speakers must take the
TOEFL and achieve a minimum score of 580 paper-based (237
computer-based) or have a baccalaureate degree from an accredited
U.S. university. Native English speakers must take the GRE.
Composition Program: Student entrance into the composition
program is based on standardized test scores. The SAT, ACT and
COMPASS scores used for admission to ENG 101 have been
correlated with probability of achieving a “C” or better grade as an
indicator of competence in the course outcomes. Students whose
scores do not permit entrance to ENG 101 are admitted when they
complete a course of individualized study in prerequisite skills through
ENG 100T (transitional English). Students whose scores are marginal
have one opportunity to re-take the COMPASS test on campus.
Our faculty have also been involved in local and state efforts to design
and implement assessments of composition skills at the intermediate
point in and conclusion of their college careers. Over the past five
years, sample student papers have been read and assessed in multiple
disciplines according to rubrics developed by teams of readers from
writing programs, discipline areas, and professional fields.
2. Describe and provide results of how students are assessed as they exit
the major/program
Undergraduate Programs: In the ENG 303, Principles of English
Studies course, students are provided with copies of the Major Minor
24
Handbook (Appendix B.) The handbook includes program descriptions
and rationales, processes and procedures, outcomes, rubrics, and
writing samples which exemplify the exit standards.
Upon completion of the course of study, students enroll in ENG 489:
Senior Colloquium, in which they work with peers to assemble and
revise a set of representative written works into a portfolio that
demonstrates their achievement. Portfolios are assessed using rubrics
for prose and poetry published in the Major/Minor Handbook. All
portfolios which meet the standards are published and bound. Students
receive copies and second copies are retained by the department.
Program exit assessment consists of portfolio quality, in combination
with student self-assessments of the degree to which the program
outcomes were addressed in their coursework. (See Appendix I: Senior
Colloquium Outcomes Assessment Results.)
Note: Beginning in the fall of 2005, students in the English/Language
Arts teaching endorsement program will begin submitting online
portfolios of their work using LiveText software. We hope to institute a
process of involving practitioners from the field in the assessment of
the e-portfolio content. In addition to the local assessment of their eportfolios, students will be required to pass both the pedagogy and the
content area Praxis II exams to receive a Washington State teaching
endorsement. They will also undergo a performance review during
their student teaching experience which will be measured using a
newly developed tool for observing and evaluating the success of preservice teachers in terms of student learning.
Graduate Programs: To complete the M.A. English: Literature,
graduate students are assessed through their completion of
thesis/project or exam requirements. Those choosing the thesis/project
option are required to complete a research thesis, a pedagogical
project, or a creative writing project and pass an oral defense over the
subject matter of the thesis/project and over a reading list compiled
with the student's committee. The oral defense is conducted by three
members of the English faculty and observed by an outside member
chosen by the Office of Graduate Studies. Students choosing the nonthesis option take eight credits of additional coursework and are
required to pass a written examination administered by three members
of the English faculty over an individualized reading list of the
material covered in the student's course work.
.
25
To complete the M.A. English: TESOL, students also select thesis or
non-thesis options. Students writing theses are assessed in an oral
defense by three department faculty members and an outside observer
appointed by the Office of Graduate Studies. Non-thesis students
complete additional practicum experiences and approved coursework.
3. Describe faculty involvement in assessment
Faculty involvement in major assessment has changed over time.
When the senior colloquium and portfolio assessment program was
initiated, faculty met annually to conduct a holistic grading session of
randomly-selected student papers from 300-level courses to
“recalibrate” our grading in relation to our approved rubrics. Faculty
also volunteered to mentor individual students in the colloquium and
to collaborate on portfolio assessment. These elements of assessment
proved too complicated and time-intensive to sustain, though the
faculty found both activities valuable. Now, the responsibility for
portfolio assessment is shared by colloquium students whose
familiarity with the rubrics equips them to review each other’s work
for adherence to the standards with direct guidance from the
Undergraduate Program Coordinator. Faculty continue to reference the
handbook rubrics in their assessments of class papers and to mediate
readings and revisions of portfolio papers when their assistance is
requested by the coordinator or an individual student.
Faculty members of the General Education Committee are involved in
composition program assessment. This group conducts observations of
and subsequent in-class interview assessments of all composition
sections taught by teaching assistants to enrich and augment the results
of Student Evaluations of Instruction (SEOI’s). They also review the
syllabi of all faculty teaching composition for adherence to the
department curriculum and to professional expectations for course
planning and organization as referenced in our Policies and Procedures
Manual. (See Appendix J: Template Checklist for Composition
Syllabi.)
4 Describe faculty involvement in program planning
As is evident in the department Policies and Procedures Manual and
in section II.B. of this document, all faculty are involved in program
planning through their participation on the department’s program
committees. Review of program assessment data and
recommendations for change emerge from the committees through
their coordinators to the department chair who, in collaboration with
the coordinators, shapes department meeting agendas.
26
5. Describe and provide evidence of how programs are assessed in the
department and how these assessment results are used to change or
adapt program/major curriculum, faculty, or resources
Department program assessment measures include our annual Faculty
Performance Review, in which professional portfolios are reviewed for
evidence of excellence in teaching, scholarship and service; the
undergraduate program outcome survey data which is reviewed for
adherence to and success in achieving program commitments; the
Office of Graduate Studies, Research and Continuing Education
Institutional Survey data on graduate student experiences and
satisfaction (2000) (See Appendix L.); and Alumni Office Surveys of
student satisfaction. (Data on the most recent Alumni Office survey
should soon be available.)
In addition, the department chair reviews SEOI data for all classes. In
cases where the collected data indicates a pattern of concern with the
practices of a particular faculty member, either the chair or the
assigned mentor meets with the faculty member in question to
contextualize the problem and when helpful, to develop an
improvement plan. In cases where the collected data indicates a pattern
of concern for a program as a whole, the department chair meets with
the appropriate coordinator to discuss a process for identifying
remedies.
The department Personnel Committee evaluates Performance Review
portfolios for all faculty at least every three years. In years during
which funds for salary adjustment or merit are available, the
Performance Review and the salary adjustment processes are
combined. The Performance Review process is also considered as a
form of post-tenure review. In the case that tenured faculty members
choose not to participate in the merit procedure, they are required to
submit Performance Review portfolios at least every three years. As is
specified in the Policy and Procedures Manual (Appendix D.), faculty
undergoing review for reappointment, tenure or promotion submit as a
component of their portfolios a narrative statement describing their
own professional growth, as well as areas of concern. They are
encouraged to reflect on particular successes, emerging interests, and
perceived problems and to develop a plan of action for building on
strengths and remediating concerns. We feel that this is a proactive
approach to assessing teaching which stresses that success requires
ongoing development and adjustment to new circumstances and
situations.
Department program committees have access to and in some cases
conduct the program assessment measures referenced by the
27
department. Recommendations for change come from those
committees, and minutes for committee meetings track changes.
Recent examples of changes based on program exit data include the
following:



III.
Students reported in the Program Outcomes Surveys and in the
Colloquium Interview Evaluations that they lacked confidence
in their grammar knowledge; as a result, ENG 320: English
Grammar, and ENG 304: English Linguistics were changed
from options to core program requirements for both
undergraduate major programs.
Students reported in the Senior Colloquium Interviews a desire
for an English major option that shifts the reading/writing
balance from literature to composing; the result of our
discussions in response to student needs is the proposed
Writing Specialization (Appendix E).
In a 2004 survey, graduate students reported dissatisfaction
with the “backloading” of program requirements which
delayed degree completion, as well as a disconnect between
course coverage and comprehensive exam reading lists; the
graduate committee recommended changes to program
requirements that were recently approved by the department.
Faculty
A. Faculty profile
Professors:
Laila Abdalla, English Medieval and Renaissance Literature
Liahna Armstrong, American Literature, Popular Culture, Film
Patsy Callaghan, Rhetoric, World Literature, English Education
Toni Culjak, American, World and Multicultural Literature
Bobby Cummings, Rhetoric, Teacher Education, Writing on Computers
George Drake, British Literature, English Novel
Loretta Gray, TESL/TEFL, Linguistics
Charles Xingzhong Li, Linguistics, TESOL, Linguistic Approaches to
Literature
Terry Martin, English Education, Women's Literature
Steven Olson, American Literature, Film
Paulus Pimomo, British Literature, Post Colonial Studies
Joseph Powell, Creative Writing, Modern Poetry
Sura Rath, Douglas Honors College Director, Literary and Critical Theory,
Literature of the South
Gerald J. Stacy, English Renaissance Literature, Humanities
28
Christine A. Sutphin, Victorian Literature, British Novel, Women's
Literature
Assistant Professors:
Christopher Schedler: American Literature, Ethnic Literatures
Katharine Whitcomb: Creative Writing
Karen Gookin, General Education, Cornerstone Writing Program
Judy Kleck, General Education, Creative Non-fiction
Virginia Mack, General Education, Assistant Director, Douglas Honors
College
Active Emeritus (Phased Retirement) Professors:
Robert M. Benton, American Literature, Technical Writing
Philip B. Garrison, Non-fiction Prose, World Literature, Mythology
Mark Halperin, Poetry, American Literature, Russian Literature
John L. Vifian, Eighteenth-Century Literature, English Novel
B. Faculty professional records for the past five years
English faculty vitae are on file in the department office and available in
the Program Review File online. (See Exhibit E.)
C. Departmental teaching effectiveness – report a five-year history of the
“teaching effectiveness” department means as reported on SEOIs,
indexed to the university mean on a quarter-by-quarter basis
English
Form A, Quest. 29
Fall
1999-00
English
Arts & Humanities
CWU
2000-01
English
Arts & Humanities
CWU
2001-02
English
Arts & Humanities
CWU
2002-03
English
Arts & Humanities
CWU
2003-04
English
Arts & Humanities
CWU
Winter
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.4
Spring
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
29
D. Scholarship per T/TT FTEF – Report scholarly activities per tenured and
tenure-track FTEF
The English department’s productivity in relation to scholarship and creative work is
remarkable in its consistency and diversity, as is represented in the following table. Total
department scholarly and creative accomplishments average over 100 per year.
Peer reviewed articles and book chapters
published
Articles under review
Book published as author or co-author
Book in progress, under contract
Article or creative work anthologized
Editing, associate editing or publishing a
national or regional journal
Serving on the editorial board of a national
or regional journal
Creative works published in national or
international venue
Creative works published in regional or
local venue
Attendance at professional conferences and
meetings (without presenting)
Presentation at professional conferences
Manuscripts reviewed for journal or edited
volume
Textbooks reviewed
Grant proposals reviewed for organization
or agency
Courses or workshops attended for
scholarly development
Intramural grants awarded
Extramural grants awarded
Book Reviews, published or in press
Encyclopedia Entries, published or in press
Prizes/Awards won for scholarly or creative
work
Annual Total Contributions
E. Service per T/TT FTEF –
99-00
7
00-01
6
01-02
6
02-03
3
03-04
6
6
3
3
1
2
5
2
3
1
1
5
0
2
1
2
4
1
4
1
3
7
3
3
2
2
3
3
4
6
5
7
4
6
4
9
2
6
2
4
1
7
7
14
12
9
15
14
13
8
16
8
25
2
17
3
2
1
3
1
3
1
15
6
9
1
17
13
14
22
12
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
0
0
2
1
2
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
3
2
5
1
0
4
108
92
85
118
101
30
1. Report the number of department faculty memberships on university,
college, department, Center for Teaching and Learning, State-level
committees per tenured and tenure-track FTEF in the preceding
calendar year.
2. Report the number of department faculty leadership positions in
professional organizations per tenured-and-tenure-track FTEF for
the preceding calendar year.
The English department faculty service record documents their prominent role in
institutional governance, disciplinary participation and leadership, and state and
institutional accountability efforts particularly in relation to writing and teacher
education. The English department’s university and community service
contributions average over 80 per year.
University Committee Memberships
University Committee Chair Service
Department Committee Memberships
Department Committee Chair Service
CAH Committee Memberships
Center for Teaching and Learning
Committees
State Level Committees or Task Forces
State Level Leadership Roles
National Committees or Task Forces
National Committee Leadership Roles
University Student Organization
Sponsorships
Discipline-related Community Service
Professional Organization Memberships for
03-04 ONLY
Faculty Leadership positions in
professional organizations for 03-04 ONLY
Totals
99-00
20
1
14
5
5
2
00-01
15
2
17
5
3
4
01-02
18
1
15
5
4
5
02-03
23
2
16
5
6
5
03-04
22
4
19
5
2
5
1
1
3
0
0
4
3
3
0
0
3
4
4
1
1
5
4
2
1
1
6
5
1
1
1
16
16
18
19
17
25
04
68
72
80
89
F. Faculty Awards for Distinction
2000: Prof. Patsy Callaghan, Distinguished Professor for Service
Prof. Terry Martin, Distinguished Professor for Teaching
Prof. Patsy Callaghan, Phi Kappa Phi Distinguished Scholar
2002: Prof. Patsy Callaghan, CAH Distinguished Chair
2003: Prof. Terry Martin, Washington State CASE Professor of the Year
2004: Prof. Joseph Powell, Phi Kappa Phi Distinguished Scholar
88
31
IV. Students – For five years
For lists of student graduates in all programs see Appendix K.
A. Numbers of majors graduated per program
English
English
Teaching
Language Arts
MA Literature
MA
TESL/TEFL
1999-2000
2000-01
2002-02
2002-03
2003-04
20
12
18
13
11
7
12
12
20
9
3
6
6
0
5
1
2
8
1
1
3
5
2
6
2
B. Numbers served in general education and certification-only supporting
courses
Note: The data below records the number of students served in general education
courses, in technical writing courses, and in our “Certification-Only” program
which leads to a state teaching endorsement in English/Language Arts. The
“Certification-Only” students are typically required to take our methods courses
and from one to seven additional courses as necessary to meet the state-mandated
competencies.
The following table indicates students served expressed in FTE in general education
courses for the past five years. These figures show a 100% increase in students served in
ENG 101 and 102 and a 65% increase in enrollments in ENG 105. Numbers for ENG
310, Technical Writing, are fairly stable despite the fact that sections offered at the CWU
Centers, funded by the Provost’s office since 2003, are not included in the data. If
enrollments for those sections are included, the numbers indicate increasing totals, an
indication of developing need across all CWU Centers.
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
ENG 101
ENG 102
ENG 105
ENG 247
ENG 310
ENG Cert
Only
Total
58.5 64.3
63.9 69.3
59.6 73.7
11.7
6.3
27.1 29.1
146.8 127.8
66.6 94.7 114.5 127.0
70.1 110.2 119.8 127.2
64.7 66.6 64.2 65.1
8.1
9.2 10.8 12.7
25.3 20.5 18.6 24.5
94.8 100.7 107.0 116.6
367.7 370.4 329.6 401.9 434.9 473.2
The following table indicates numbers of “Certification-Only” students completing
endorsement requirements.
32
English
Lang.
Arts
Total
1999-00
7
5
2000-01
9
1
2001-02
10
2002-03
9
2003-04
6
1
Total
41
7
12
10
10
9
7
48
C. Student accomplishments (include SOURCE, McNair Scholars,
collaborative research, etc.)
The following table indicates faculty service to students through mentoring research and
creative activity.
Student Research and Creativity Mentoring
SOURCE presentations Mentored
McNair Scholars Mentored
Co-authored publications with students
Graduate Committee Service
Graduate Chair Service
Other undergraduate projects mentored
Student Publications Mentored
DHC student theses mentored
DHC lectures given
Other:
99-00
0
1
1
15
5
0
1
0
5
3
00-01
0
0
1
5
3
0
1
1
7
1
01-02
0
0
0
7
3
0
1
0
7
1
02-03
0
0
1
10
6
2
2
0
10
1
03-04
1
1
2
9
9
1
2
3
12
4
D. Advising services for students
Students are advised by program coordinators. This system allows us to keep
accurate records of student progress and to feed into the scheduling process
information about student needs that will help us decrease time to graduation.
Students are also informally advised, however, by all faculty.
E. Other student services
Enrichment services to students:
a. English Graduate Student Association: Organization of English
graduate students which organizes activities and study sessions and
which discusses and reports on issues of concern and requests to the
Graduate Programs Coordinator.
b. Creativity Awards: Sponsored by the Dean of the College of Arts and
Humanities, one of these annual awards focuses on creative writing.
33
c.
d.
e.
f.
V.
The awards program is organized and conducted by English
department faculty.
Scholars and Scribes Luncheon/Conference: A spring gathering at
which students share work from their graduate theses or projects or
from undergraduate portfolios. (1998-02)
Travel funds to sponsor student presentation of research and creative
work or for attending conferences.
Field trips for performances.
Department-sponsored readings by visiting or local faculty, student
and professional writers.
Library and technological resources
A. Describe program’s general and specific requirements for library resources
in order to meet its educational and research objectives. Indicate ways in
which the present library resources satisfy and do not satisfy these needs.
The library is essential to the work of literature and language disciplines.
It is to the humanities what the lab is to the sciences. Library resources
must be kept current and materials must be accessible for our work to be
of significance to the larger world.
1. Professors and their students access the CWU collection on
CATTRAX from PCs for literature and language research.
2. Dr. Steve Olson is the department library representative. Dr. Olson
collects and forwards faculty endorsements of publications to the
library acquisitions department. He also works with Kirsten Erickson,
Periodicals, to evaluate appropriate journals for new subscriptions,
renewals of current acquisitions, or cancellation.
3. Individual professors cooperate with several professional librarians to
prepare tours for students and offer individual help with research
projects.
4. Professors use a variety of databases and world library catalogs as well
as Inter-library Loan services with Inter-library Loan Director Becky
Smith’s assistance.
5. Many upper division English classes require a research paper of
students. Modern Language Association research and documentation
policies and procedures are introduced in ENG 303: Principles of
English Studies. In the general education curriculum, research and
documentation practices are taught through ENG 102.
6. Instructors assign Reserve Reading at the library for courses.
7. Media services lends DVDs and videos appropriate to classroom
instruction.
Over the last decade, budget cuts have diminished acquisition of new
journals, books, reference materials, and microfilmed collections. The
34
English Department’s faculty commends the efforts of the library staff to
as they continue to facilitate research under these circumstances-particularly their responsiveness to specific requests, their acquisition of
computerized databases that provide scholarly journal articles and primary
sources, and the acquisition of supplementary materials by Friends of the
Library. We endorse all efforts to support the library, in that it is essential
to successful research by faculty and students in an institution that
increasingly emphasizes research.
B. Information Literacy Proficiencies expected of students at the end of major
coursework.
1. The English Department requires an introductory course of majors,
English 303, and a capstone course, English 489, both requiring
research skills for successful completion of the major. Proficiencies
are assessed through the evaluation of source-supported analytical
essays, not only for content but also for the sophistication of library
research, analysis of sources, and documentation of materials.
2. The Graduate Programs both include introductory courses that focus
on research strategies, materials, and documentation. Proficiencies are
assessed via writing assigned within the course of study until, finally,
their demonstration in the thesis.
3. The composition program retains a large responsibility for introducing
the responsibilities and strategies which constitute information
literacy. In ENG 101, students are introduced to the concept of
research as participation in an academic conversation, the conventions
for which include seeking out valid evidence, considering alternate
views, and giving credit for ideas through appropriate documentation.
In ENG 102, the study of information literacy includes strategies for
researching questions at issue in order to establish and support
particular positions. Introductions to library and internet resources are
a part of course content. Criteria for final papers include attention to
the quality and breadth of research and the correct use of
documentation conventions.
VI. Reflections
A. What has gone well in the department? What accomplishments have
occurred in the past five years?
1. Continued to hire promising, accomplished and productive
faculty members who understand the full definition of the
professoriate inclusive of teaching, scholarship and service.
2. Increased the number and quality of our graduate students
sufficient to enable us to uncouple several of our graduate
offerings from co-listings with undergraduate courses. This
35
will enable us to continue to clarify the separate missions
and functions of our graduate programs, a recommendation
cited in our recent NASC interim reports.
3. Increased and clarified our offerings at centers and
improved communication with and assessment of CWU
Center instructors.
4. Increased currency, effectiveness, and efficiency of
developmental curriculum. (See Appendix M.)
5. Maintained and improved a high quality, diverse
curriculum, inclusive of texts generally considered within
and outside of the traditional "canons" of literature.
6. Created and supported extra-curricular events and activities
through which students and faculty can interact as a part of
their disciplinary orientation and scholarly involvement.
7. Participated positively and productively in Washington
State education reform efforts.
8. Participated positively and productively in Statewide
writing assessment efforts.
9. Encouraged faculty to pursue enrichment opportunities
including professional leaves and exchanges, grants, and
faculty development seminars, and travel to professional
conferences and performances, within the department's
capacity to accommodate the costs and scheduling changes
such opportunities require.
10. Sponsored literary, artistic, and cultural events that featured
our faculty and guest lecturers and artists.
B. What challenges exist? What has the department done to meet these
challenges?
1. Keeping up with education reform and accreditation
requirements related to teacher education; we have
reviewed and revised our assessments for Washington State
English/Language Arts Competencies.
2. Integrating visual rhetoric into teacher preparation
program; we have designed and approved a new course
which focuses on reading and viewing strategies in the
context of critical theory.
3. Recruiting for and implementing the TESOL program; we
are planning and implementing our advertising efforts.
4. Moving forward on the proposed Writing Specialization;
new curriculum proposals have been submitted and are
under consideration.
5. Providing for the needs of students with learning
disabilities in literacy; the Director of DSS has been
contacted and is willing to provide a discipline-specific
orientation to effective teaching and learning strategies.
36
6. Addressing limitations on technology; we are working with
the Director of Instructional Technology to oversee the
continuing process of “smart classroom” upgrades.
7. Addressing negative pedagogical implications of room
scheduling procedures; we are working with the Dean and
Associate Dean of CAH to better understand and plan for
the limitations and possibilities of facilities management,
and to find ways to factor pedagogy and technology into
the software’s room management capabilities.
8. Seeking more stable and predictable support for general
education course instruction; we have discussed and will
continue to work on better models for accurate annual
predictions of general education course needs with the
Associate Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies.
9. Working to promote a collegial environment in which
diverse opinion and open dialogue are encouraged in the
pursuit of program excellence; we have encouraged more
specific discussion and debate of department issues through
e-mail to encourage deeper and more reflective decision
making than is possible through regularly scheduled
department meetings.
10. Devising a plan to accommodate leaves and reassignments
which insures that such opportunities are circulated among
all eligible and interested faculty in an equitable way; a
public record of leaves and leave eligibility will be posted
in the department’s files on the server.
11. Bringing closure to our curriculum conversation regarding
the undergraduate literature curriculum and its implications
for the graduate curriculum; revised proposals will be
considered in a timely fashion by the department committee
system and the department as a whole. The best, most
progressive approach to the field of English Studies is a
current focus of ongoing national and international
disciplinary conversations. Often, global awareness and
inclusion as values are wrongly and destructively set
against traditional curricula and pragmatic responses to
teacher preparation assessment plans. We have to find a
way to creatively and effectively balance new knowledge
with current demands to best prepare our graduates.
VII.
Future Directions
A. Describe ways the department or unit might increase quality, quantity,
and/or efficiency. Provide evidence that supports the promise for
outstanding performance.
37
1. In order to add coherence to our English/Language Arts
program, we should:
a. Collate our pedagogy outcomes with the Washington
State English/Language Arts Competencies.
b. Change the portfolio system for English/Language Arts
students to LiveText e-portfolios.
c. Systematize quarterly group advising meetings to insure
integration with Professional Sequence course
requirements.
2. In order to collect better data for improving our graduate
and undergraduate programs, we need to
a. Identify and systematize graduate program exit
assessment measures.
b. Track student accomplishments beyond graduation.
3. In order to maintain the consistency, currency and
appropriateness of our standards, we need to review and, if
necessary, revise the writing expectations across
undergraduate, graduate, and general education course
offerings.
4. To improve information dissemination and communication
in our graduate programs, a graduate handbook and/or
website parallel to the undergraduate resources should be
created and maintained.
5. In response to undergraduate major evaluations, we should
examine our assignments to encourage more variety in
writing experiences and more opportunities for teaching
majors to align assignments with lesson or unit planning.
6. To enrich our students’ extracurricular learning
experiences, we could expand our recognition and rewards
activities, seek to increase participation in SOURCE, and
join a disciplinary Honor Society.
7. Understanding that one of the most effective factors in
student learning is faculty availability, we should continue
to create opportunities for all members of the department—
faculty, students, and staff--to interact on disciplinary
issues in informal situations.
B. Based upon the self-study, what future directions should the department
pursue? What resources would the department need to pursue these
future directions?
Accountability leads to improvement. Improvement increases interest. Interest
increases need. This is a reality that all departments and, for that matter, all
higher education institutions, face. However, accompanying the changing
culture of accountability is the expectation, through performance-based
38
budgeting, that success will earn recognition and reward when efforts to
reflect and improve are undertaken with the sincere and informed intention of
improving student experience at Central and, thus, Central’s impact on the
larger community. Our hope is that as we embrace those assumptions and
adopt changes based on research, evidence and established need, we will be
situated to use the resources generated by our success to implement program
changes necessary to our continued pursuit of excellence.
The Challenges of Upper Division and Graduate Success
It is not an overstatement to say that the challenges faced by the discipline of
English Studies are global. To quote our colleague Dr. Pimomo, “English, the
language into which most of us were born, has become a diverse medium for
not only self-expression, national longings, and creative imagination of
peoples ‘native’ to English, but of the same things for other peoples around
the world, in addition to its privileged global position as the conduit for
cultural flows, the media, international dialog, the worldwide web and so
forth.” Our challenge is to craft and share a curriculum that builds rhetorical,
cultural and aesthetic competence which aligns our limited resources with the
limitless need for mutual understanding. Each decision we make assigns
precious resources to one or another form of praxis.
One of the most obvious challenges to the discipline of English Studies was
described in the 2004 report from the National Endowment for the
Humanities, “Reading at Risk,” which provides a snapshot of the role of
literature in the lives of Americans. The report indicates that the percentage of
adult Americans reading literature has dropped dramatically in the past two
decades across genres, ethnic groups, and educational levels. The concurrent
rise in participation in a variety of electronic media offers a strong message
about our need to explore new modes of sharing literary experiences. More
importantly, though, the report signals a need for departments of English to
consider carefully and seriously their cultural and civic functions in our postindustrial society. Our department will commit time within our regular
practice of reflection and development to considering the implications of this
report and other research on the evolution of literary culture for our programs
and practices.
While we have sufficient faculty expertise to bring the redesigned TESOL
program and the new Writing Specialization to fruition, significant growth in
any program will tax our faculty’s time, already a stretched commodity. As is
clear in the data reflecting class size and enrollment growth, we will be hard
pressed to accommodate the beneficial effects of conscientious strategic
planning. This year’s dramatic growth in the graduate literature program has
been cited as an institutional success, and our Dean has supported the
budgetary and scheduling adjustments made necessary by that success. This
experience illustrates that any area of success brings concomitant challenges.
39
As we create from the framework of the new Writing Specialization a
program that fulfills its promise as part of an emerging center of excellence in
the arts, we will need to identify sources of support to help us enrich our
course offerings with visits by professional writers, increase opportunities for
practicing the arts of publishing through an on-site small press, and create
events that take advantage of our environmentally advantageous site such as
summer institutes and community workshops. As we continue to define our
participation in the proposed Film Studies Program, we will need to integrate
the needs of our majors with the more specialized interests of those working
with films as texts, possibly displacing some faculty time in general education
courses, but at the same time generating new interest in our college and our
university.
The Challenges of University Success: Increased Enrollments
During the low enrollment years, especially 2000-2001, the English
department faculty increased their load in general education courses to 5566% of their totals. Because of the huge increase in enrollment since that time,
many more sections of composition and introductory literature have been
needed. The Provost and Dean have attempted to secure sufficient support for
the increased need, resulting in a steadily increasing adjunct budget. The
available support, though, has not been sufficient to rebalance individual
faculty loads to permit more course sections and options for undergraduate
majors and graduate students. If our major and graduate program enrollments
continue to increase based on current trends and as a result of our success and
enhanced recruiting efforts, we will need to provide for new students as well
as continue staffing sufficient sections of general education courses.
Building External Connections
We have reimagined our efforts to build foundation support in light of both
new curricular initiatives. The Writing Specialization will assist us in building
connections to the private sector through the establishment of internships and
practicum experiences; it could also attract contributions toward the visible
and attention-drawing activities of a small press publication or institutes
featuring celebrity writers. The TESOL graduate program will be of interest to
industry seeking international collaboration in a moment of global recognition
that English is and will be the language of commerce.
Our external connections are becoming stronger, as well, through our
participation in education reform efforts. As a response to public pressure for
high quality, accessible teacher training and professional development, we are
committed to continuing our site-based inservice through the Leadership
Team of the Central Washington Writing Project. This group is participating
with the Curriculum Division of Educational Service District #105 to seek
federal funding for instructional support. We hope, in the near future, to
40
develop opportunities for students to interact with K-12 students through
interactive media.
Developing the Teaching/Learning Climate
Our department commits itself to the ongoing pursuit of excellence in
teaching and learning. We will continue to work within our department,
college and university to create a campus climate attractive to and supportive
of students, faculty, and staff regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, nationality, religion, learning ability, economic background, or
institutional role. We will continue to seek student success through
maintaining high standards, adhering to our professional responsibilities and
ethics, supporting a range of learning styles, appropriately accommodating
disabilities, respecting differences, and, most importantly, continuing to be
learners ourselves.