Department of English and Comparative Literature
College of Humanities and the Arts
Program Planning Committee Report to the Provost
October 4, 2013
The Department runs the freshman-composition program and serves approximately 500 majors, minors,
credential, MFA, and MA students. Its four undergraduate and two graduate degree programs generate
approximately 2,000 FTES per year. The composition program is comprised of English 1A and 1B and serves
some 3,000 students per semester. The Department offers eight lower division GE courses and eleven upper
division GE courses, including 120 sections of freshman composition every semester. Yet the Department
manages to keep its average class size down to 25 in the undergraduate program and 12 in the graduate program.
It has 74 faculty members, only 21 of whom are tenured or tenure-track (and 3 of those are on FERP).
Currently, the Department of English and Comparative Literature offers the following programs:
B.A. English Literature
B.A. English, Concentration in Career Writing
B.A. English, Concentration in Creative Writing
B.A. English, Preparation for Teaching (Single Subject)
M.A. English
M.F.A. Creative Writing
In addition the Department offers Minors in English Literature, Comparative Literature, Creative Writing, and
Professional/Technical Writing, as well as a Certificate Program in Professional and Technical Writing.
Strengths of the Program:
Teaching and Research: the Department maintains rigorous academic requirements with a low class size. Along
with careful and continuous advising, the department offers students a wide variety of awards for scholarly and
creative work. The graduate program includes a TA program that prepares students for teaching careers.
Faculty Productivity: since 2006 the faculty has published 20 books, 40 peer-reviewed journal articles, and 109
creative works in various forms. The faculty has also secured 63 grants (including a $200,000 grant in 2011 to
establish Iranian studies at SJSU) and 15 awards (including the 2009 SJSU President’s Scholar Award for
Scholarly Excellence).
Creative Writing Track: since the recent introduction of the B.A. concentration in creative writing, it has
attracted an increasing number of students. In addition to literature courses, the program offers students the
opportunities to take writing workshops, to edit a literary magazine (Reed), and to take a course with a
distinguished visiting writer.
English Subject Matter Preparation Program: the SJSU English Subject Matter Preparation for Teaching
Program was approved in December 2006 by the CA Commission on Teacher Credentialing, a status enjoyed by
20 out of 23 CSUs and no UC institutions.
Challenges Facing the Program:
Staffing: Over the last four years, the Department has had no office manager, putting a heavy burden on the
Chair and Associate Chair. The Department is currently seeking to hire a new office manager.
Faculty Hiring: The Department’s low tenured/tenure-track density (18 permanent faculty vs. 53 temporary
faculty) has led to increased workloads for all faculty. More hires are needed to provide some relief, particularly
since the impact on shared governance (including committee assignments and curriculum) is reaching a critical
point. Most severely impacted has been the Career Writing Concentration, and upcoming retirements are likely
to challenge the English Education Program as well.
1
Office and Teaching Facilities: This large Department lacks both office space and a “headquarters” building
common to programs of its size. The Faculty Offices Building is not big enough for the faculty housed there and
lacks adequate classroom spaces. Some offices have between four and six faculty members assigned to them.
The lack of instructional spaces for the English 1A and 1B courses is another significant facilities challenge for
the Department.
Assessment:
Assessment of student learning in the English degree programs falls mostly in the Developed range on the
WASC rubric for Program Learning Outcomes, except for the BA in Creative Writing program, which falls
primarily in the Emerging category. This is understandable because the program is relatively new; however,
steps should be taken to bring it up to the level of the other programs. The Assessment Facilitator in the college
and the Director of Assessment are available to help address the few other weaknesses identified in Appendix B.
Program Planning Committee Recommendations
● Address the declining number of tenure and tenure-track faculty:
● Address the Department’s inadequate teaching and office facilities;
● Streamline the curricula in the face of severe budgetary and faculty constraints. The Career Writing
concentration is very lightly enrolled and should be revitalized.
● Explore reasons for possibly lower than average 3-year graduation rates in the graduate programs.
● Advance assessment of student learning in all degree programs, particularly in the creative writing
concentration; map Program Learning Outcomes to University Learning Goals
The Program Planning Committee recommends acceptance of the Program Plan. The Program Plan provided a
thorough examination of the issues and explanation of plans for subsequent reviewers. The next Program Plan
for all programs in the department will be due to the Program Planning Committee in spring 2017.
Next Steps:
The final step in the program planning process is a meeting with Provost Junn (or her designee), AVP of
Undergraduate Studies Jaehne, AVP of Graduate Studies and Research Stacks, Dean Vollendorf, and
Department Chair Engell to develop the departments action plan. The Chair may invite directors of programs
within the department. The Department should contact staff in the Office of Undergraduate Studies to schedule
the final meeting.
Fall 2013 Program Planning Committee members:
Jinny Rhee, Chair
Mary Calegari
Diana Wu
Anthony Raynsford
Andrew Feinstein
Nadia Sorkhabi
Adrienne Eastwood
Brandon White
Dennis Jaehne
Wenbin Wei
Sutee Sujitparapitaya Jeffrey Hummel
Pam Stacks
Amy D'Andrade
Lili Luo
CC:
2
Mary Wilson
John Engell, Chair, Department of English and Comparative Literature
Lisa Vollendorf, Dean, College of Humanities and the Arts
William Street, Associate Dean, College of Humanities and the Arts
Stacy Gleixner, Chair, Curriculum and Research
Dennis Jaehne, AVP Undergraduate Studies
Pam Stacks, AVP Graduate Studies and Research
Appendix A. List of Action Items from Program Planning Process
External Reviewer (Key Points)
● The Department has “a strong and vibrant faculty deeply committed to teaching, service, and scholarly
and creative activity.”
● The Department needs to engage in collaborative decision making to address current and projected
budgetary constraints.
● The Department should continue its pursuit of standardized and assessable Student Learning Outcomes
in its composition program.
● In consultation with the College and University, the department should consider reviving its
undergraduate Career Writing track.
● Given the Department’s faculty constraints, it should consider ways to make its curricula more flexible,
such as special topics courses, paired graduate and undergraduate courses, team-taught courses, or
interdisciplinary collaborations.
● The Department should develop Student Learning Outcomes for its graduate programs.
● The Department needs to hire tenure-track faculty for almost all of its programs.
● The Department suffers from a lack of administrative staff support.
● The Department needs regular access to and/or control of classrooms with adequate computer technology
to maintain currency in all of its programs. “Electronic publication, graphic design and Career Writing
technology and social media, and online support systems for Composition have become critical.” There
needs to be faculty and staff development support for the use of technology as well.
● Among other drawbacks, the Department’s heavy reliance on shared office space makes it uncomfortable
for students to meet with faculty.
● The Department should consider supplementing its two undergraduate major advisors with additional
ways of reaching out to and mentoring students.
External Reviewer
Sheree L. Meyer, Ph.D.; Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies; California State University, Sacramento;
Sacramento, CA, 95819
Summary of Department’s Response
The Department is already improving its pursuit of standardized and assessable learning outcomes in its
composition program; is revitalizing the Career Writing track; is combining and realigning major courses to
make the curriculum simpler and easier to cover with current faculty; and is trying to improve advising and
assessment generally.
The Department agrees that it needs better access to and control of classrooms with adequate computer
technology and that its office space is completely inadequate. It was taking to heart the suggestion of
collaborative decision making with a faculty retreat planned for the Fall of 2013.
Dean’s Report Summary
Dean Vollendorf overall commends the Department for its teaching, scholarship, and service under stressful and
challenging fiscal and faculty constraints. She emphasizes three pressing needs:



3
More tenure-track hires to reduce the Department’s heavy reliance on temporary faculty;
A short- and long-term plan to address the lack of office space and of an adequate “headquarters”
building;
A longer term solution for coordinating the composition program, which is currently capably
administered by an interim lecturer director.
Appendix B. Program Evaluation
Program Description
The English Department offers a BA degree program in English with the option of no concentration or one of
three concentrations (career writing, creative writing, and teacher prep); four minors are offered (concentration
in literature, comparative literature, creative writing, technical writing); an MA in English; and an MFA in
creative writing; and a certificate in technical communication. Please be sure that the certificate program
complies with Senate Policy S13-10.
The department teaches 8 lower division and 11 upper division GE courses as listed in Section 12 of their
program planning review. The GE Program Plan has been submitted to UGS and is currently under review.
Summary of Changes and Actions
The department has recently introduced the creative writing concentration and the English subject matter
preparation concentration, which is a credentialed program with the CCTC.
Assessment
Evaluation of each degree program using the WASC rubric from Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) is listed
below. In most cases, plans for advancing assessment practice are indicated. A general suggestion is to
examine the VALUE rubrics by AAC&U as a starting point for developing common rubrics to assess outcomes
across instructors. Although data is diligently gathered, evidence of “closing the loop” is less available. In
addition, all degree programs should map PLOs to the University Learning Goals approved by the Senate in S13
moving forward, and all PLOs (currently called Student Learning Objectives) should be posted more
prominently on the department website.
B.A. English: The assessment of PLOs in the BA English program are Developed for all categories of the
WASC rubric, except for Assessable Outcomes which are Emerging. The next step to advancing this category
to the Developed stage is to demonstrate how the outcomes link to assignments in the curriculum.
B.A. Creative Writing: The assessment of PLOs in this program fall in the Emerging range for all categories.
A list of program learning outcomes exists, but 3 of 5 of them are assessed through course grades, which often
reflect considerations other than outcome achievement. The general suggestion to find or develop a rubric that
specifically addresses learning outcomes should be followed. A schedule of outcome assessment should be
developed and followed. Outcome 3 is assessed using a portfolio. The WASC portfolio rubric could be
examined for suggestions to advance its use for assessment, as well as to assess proficiency.
M.A. English: The assessment of PLOs in this program fall in the Developed range for all categories except for
Assessable Outcomes, which is Emerging. The department has a good grasp of what is required to advance to
the next levels.
M.F.A. English: The assessment of PLOs in this program falls in the Developed range for all categories except
for Student Experience, which is Emerging.
Required Data Elements
College and university averages were evaluated in the 2011-12 AY, or the most recent cohort. The department
RDEs are taken from the department’s program planning report.
English
The English program ran 58 classes with 193 sections in Fall 2010. The average headcount per section is 24.5,
which is comparable to the college (21.6) and university (25.8) averages. The SFR is 21, which is also
comparable to the college (20.9) and university (22.2). The English department is very large, with 962 FTES
and 45.8 FTEF.
The induced load matrix indicates a large range of majors in the English department courses as would be
expected for a department teaching many GE courses.
4
UG and graduate enrollment in the major is healthy with about 300+ undergraduates and about 79 graduate
students in Fall 2010. Show rates for UG and graduate admitted students are comparable to college and
university averages.
The majority of the students are in the English track without a concentration (263 in Fall 2010), followed by
creative writing (95), teacher prep (60), and career writing (16). The program plan mentioned that the career
writing track has declined due to a faculty retirement. There are about 108 graduates of the program per year,
and the proportions mirror the enrollment.
In Fall 2009, the 1st year retention rate for first-time-freshman was 91.4%, which is above the college (84.2) and
university (82.9) averages. For UG transfers, it was 87.1%, which is comparable to college (90.5) and
university averages (86.3). For graduate students, it fluctuates between 65 and 85%, which is somewhat lower
than the college (86.5) and university (83.5).
The 6-year graduation rate for first-time-freshmen is 62.5%, which is well-above the college (48) and university
(45.9) averages. For UG transfers, the 3-year graduation rate is 39.1%, which is comparable to the college (41)
but somewhat below the university (52.2). The 3-year graduation rate for graduate student s is 35%, which is far
below the college (50) and university (69.5) averages. This rate seems to have declined over the past 5 years (or
exhibits a large amount of fluctuation) and warrants further investigation.
English Ed
The English Ed program was extremely small in Fall 2010. There were 3 classes and 3 sections in Fall 2010.
The average headcount per section is 7. The SFR is 9.1, with 4.8 FTES and 0.5 FTEF. However, the data for
the department indicate that 60 students are enrolled in the teacher prep concentration, which might indicate that
the majority of their classes are not in the teacher prep concentration.
The induced load matrix indicates student majors in the concentration from 4 other programs.
Program Resources
The English department currently has 34.6% of T/TT instructional faculty to temporary lecturers. This is far
below the college (46.3) and university (51.6) averages. The Department’s low tenured/tenure-track density (18
permanent faculty vs. 53 temporary faculty) has led to increased workloads for all faculty. More hires are
needed to provide some relief, particularly since the impact on shared governance (including committee
assignments and curriculum) is reaching a critical point. Most severely impacted has been the Career Writing
Concentration, and upcoming retirements are likely to challenge the English Education Program as well.
Over the last four years, the Department has had no office manager, putting a heavy burden on the Chair and
Associate Chair. The Department is currently seeking to hire a new office manager.
This large Department lacks both office space and a “headquarters” building common to programs of its size.
The Faculty Offices Building is not big enough for the faculty housed there and lacks adequate classroom
spaces. Some offices have between four and six faculty members assigned to them. The lack of instructional
spaces for the English 1A and 1B courses is another significant facilities challenge for the Department.
5