Notre Dame de Namur University
BA English PLO Findings
2008-2013
PLO 1: Demonstrate broad knowledge of world literature
ENG1041 Classics of World Literature, Part 2, is a sophomore-level requirement of the English major. It is
a continuation of ENG1040 Classics of World Literature Part 1, a freshman-level General Education
requirement.
This course was targeted to meet the first of the undergraduate English student learning outcomes:
Demonstrate broad knowledge of world literature. During the fall 2008 semester the English faculty met
several times to develop specific learning outcomes and a five- point scoring rubric for this course (both
documents attached). The following learning outcomes were identified:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Demonstrate familiarity with representative great works of English and world literature
Demonstrate ability to evaluate the aesthetic aspects of literary works
Demonstrate ability to participate in literary discourse
Demonstrate understanding of English and world cultures through the study of literature
The five-point scoring scale of the rubric, designed to measure students’ ability to demonstrate these
outcomes, was the following: Scale: 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = satisfactorily; 4 = proficiency; 5 =
exceptionally.
English faculty originally thought the final exam would be the assessment tool, but because we wanted
to assess learning outcomes of this course as soon as possible, the midterm was chosen of the tool. This
midterm (attached) required students to write an essay considering two major Renaissance writers.
The instructor of the course, Steven Williams, gave copies of the student midterms to the Department
Chair, Marc Wolterbeek, who distributed them among faculty. Because student learning outcomes for
two other courses were being assessed this semester, English faculty decided to hold a single meeting
on Thursday, May 14, 2009, to discuss all three courses.
At this meeting faculty discussed seven student midterms, considering specific learning outcomes for
each one. Five of the eight students demonstrated satisfactorily or better than satisfactory grasp of a
broad knowledge of world literature. Only two students received scores of 2; none received a score of 1.
During the discussion of these essays, faculty reached consensus about student performance. Faculty
agreed that only one student did not meet the expected learning outcomes.
The tool itself proved to be an effective one for measuring these outcomes. Faculty discussed the
possibility of having a two-part midterm or final, one part requiring students to identify passages, the
other to identify characters based on descriptions of them, but faculty agreed that the assessment tool
should not be so specific as to hamper the freedom of an instructor to design an assessment tool of his
or her own.
Faculty also agreed that the criteria should be defined. (What, for instance, does “satisfactory” really
1
Notre Dame de Namur University
mean?)
Faculty concluded that this course is successfully fulfilling the first stated learning outcome of the
program and that the tool is a good one to use in the future.
PLO 2: Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of American literature
In fall 2009 the English Department began assessment of Learning Outcome Two (Demonstrate
in-depth knowledge of American literature) in ENG2200 Survey of American Literature, Part One. The
following rubrics were developed:
1. Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of several periods of American literature
2. Demonstrate ability to identify and analyze distinctly American themes in American literature
3. Demonstrate ability to place individual works in the context of American literary tradition
4. Demonstrate ability to participate in literary discourse germane to American literature
Vince Fitzgerald, instructor of the course, provided copies of midterms and finals to the Department in
the spring 2010 semester, when we undertook formal assessment of learning outcomes in this course.
Three instructors meet and each completed the rubrics form for four students. A section of the final
exam (identification) and an essay on Huckleberry Finn provided the basis for assessment. During
discussion, some instructors modified their scores, and at the end of the meeting, there were no
variances of more than one number for each of the four sub-categories.
The basis for the assessment (the final exam and essay) was very effective. There was a decision
to change the five-point scoring scale (1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = satisfactory; 4 = proficiency; 5 =
exceptionally). The descriptor for a score of 2 (“somewhat”) will be changed to “insufficiently” to reflect
the five-grade A-F scoring scale. There was also discussion about the difficulty of measuring “in-depth
knowledge” and the need to emphasize a single period, both in the course and in the assessment tool;
however, there was a lack of consensus on these issues.
Student scores ranged from 3’s to 5’s with the exception of a single score (one instructor gave a
score of 2 to rubric #3), demonstrating that students were performing satisfactorily or better in each
area. These rubrics have been retained as Department records. This course and its rubrics are meeting
the program’s goals.
PLO 3: Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of British literature
Also in spring 2010, the following rubrics were developed for ENG2412 Survey of English Literature: The
Age of Elizabeth, which was offered in fall 2010:
1. Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of one period of English literature
2. Demonstrate ability to identify and analyze distinctly English themes in English
2
Notre Dame de Namur University
Literature
3. Demonstrate ability to place individual works in the context of the English literary tradition
4. Demonstrate ability to participate in literary discourse germane to English Literature
At the end of the spring 2011 semester, faculty met on 5/9/11 to assess learning outcomes for ENG2412
using these rubrics. Three student essays were assessed by three faculty. The first essay (a study of
nature poetry) received scores of 3 and 4; the second essay (a study of two seventeenth century
polemics) received scores of 2 and 3; the third essay (s study of Herrick’s erotic poetry) received scores
of 3 and 4. During discussion, faculty agreed that the three essays were not adequate tools to measure
the stated learning outcomes because they explored the works of one or two specific writers; instead of
using essays based on specific studies of individual writers, assessment should employ a tool (such as a
midterm or final exam) that measures cumulative knowledge, as emphasized by the rubrics.
Also, this learning outcome (#3) should measure “breadth” of knowledge instead of “in-depth”
knowledge, as a survey course should cover an extensive time period and a broad range of readings. The
first specific outcome should therefore read: “Demonstrate breadth of knowledge of one period of
English literature.”
Also during the spring 2011 semester, tentative rubrics were developed for ENG2656 Literary Theory,
which will be assessed in the fall 2011 semester.
Students taking this course should demonstrate the following:
1. Familiarity with a number of major literary theories
2. In-depth knowledge of one literary theory
3. Application of literary theory to a primary text
4. Incorporation of secondary sources into literary analysis
What student work is assessed for each outcome? (e.g., what signature assignments in which courses
are assessed?)
The Department examines the syllabus for each course from which the student work will be examined
and agrees on which assignments should be assessed. In the year preceding each course offering, the
Department meets to discuss specifics of the assignment to ensure that it addresses the intended
learning outcome. For 2009-10, the assignments to be assessed are the midterm and final exam for
ENG2200 Survey of American Literature I. In fall 2010 the Department will determine which assignments
in ENG2412 Survey of English Literature will be used as a basis for assessment.
The Department reviews course syllabi during the semester previous to the course offering and reviews
student progress on learning outcomes during the semester after the course offering. All full-time
faculty are expected to attend and part-time faculty are offered stipends to participate.
Rubrics are developed on a course-by-course basis during the semester previous to the course offering.
During the semester after a given course is offered, English faculty meet to review rubrics assessing
individual students’ performances in that course and reach a consensus about each student’s progress in
a single learning outcome. Suggestions are also made at this time for making changes in curriculum (i.e.,
syllabi, assessment tools, etc.) and in the nature of the learning outcome.
3
Notre Dame de Namur University
PLO 4: Demonstrate familiarity with literary theory
Also during the spring 2011 semester, tentative rubrics were developed for ENG2656 Literary Theory,
which will be assessed in the fall 2011 semester. Students taking this course should demonstrate the
following:
1. Familiarity with a number of major literary theories
2. In-depth knowledge of one literary theory
3. Application of literary theory to a primary text
4. Incorporation of secondary sources into literary analysis
On May 8, 2012, full-time faculty (Jackie Berger, Vince Fitzgerald, Marc Wolterbeek) met to assess four
essays by four students who were enrolled in ENG2656 Literary Theory. Using the five-point scoring
scale (1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = satisfactory; 4 = proficiency; 5 = exceptionally) to assess the four
learning outcomes, instructors reached the following results:
Students:
xx
xx
xx
xx
Learning
Outcome #1
1, 1, 1
1, 2, 1
1, 1, 1
1, 2, 1
Learning
Outcome #2
1, 2, 2
1, 4, 5
1, 2, 2
1, 3, 3
Learning
Outcome #3
1, 2, 2
1, 4, 5
1, 2, 2
1, 3, 3
Learning
Outcome #4
1, 1, 1
2, 2, 2
1 1, 1
1, 1, 1
It became immediately apparent that the tool for this assessment, critical essays of Toni Morrison’s Sula
and Herman Melville’s Benito Cereno (attached), did not measure the intended learning outcomes. None
of the papers demonstrated satisfactory familiarity with a number of major literary theories (learning
outcome 1); two demonstrated some proficiency applying a single literary theory to a work of literature
(learning outcomes 2 and 3), but there was no explicit consideration of that literary theory; none of the
students incorporated secondary sources effectively into the essays (learning outcome 4). Faculty
agreed that the learning outcomes were sound, but the tool was inadequate. In order to assess these
four outcomes, alternate tools should be developed (for example, using both exams and essays as the
bases for assessment, or requiring students to submit portfolios). Faculty also agreed that when learning
outcomes are formulated for specific courses, the English Department should also suggest specific tools
(signature assignments) for instructors to consider in assessing student learning.
The Department examines the syllabus for each course from which the student work will be examined
and agrees on which assignments should be assessed. In the year preceding each course offering, the
Department meets to discuss specifics of the assignment to ensure that it addresses the intended
learning outcome. For 2009-10, the assignments assessed were the midterm and final exam for
ENG2200 Survey of American Literature I. In fall 2010 the Department determined that sample student
essays would form the basis of assessment in ENG2412 Survey of English Literature; the same was done
in spring 2011 for ENG2656 Literary Theory.
4
Notre Dame de Namur University
PLO 5: Demonstrate proficiency in written communication
On May 8, 2013, two full-time faculty (Vince Fitzgerald and Marc Wolterbeek) and three part-time
faculty (Sandra Bernhard, Kerry Dolan, and Justin Lotspeich) met to assess six essays by six students who
were enrolled in two sections of ENG2018 Advanced Writing. This course was designated to assess
learning outcome five: (demonstrate proficiency in written communication), and the assessment tool
was the final paper, a lengthy, thesis-driven critical essay. Faculty used the five-point scoring scale (1 =
not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = satisfactory; 4 = proficiency; 5 = exceptionally) to assess the following
learning outcomes:
1. Presents an original thesis and clear supporting arguments
2. Incorporates well-chosen quotations and effectively relates them to the thesis
3. Composes clear and logical sentences/paragraphs
4. Documents researched materials, showing an understanding of MLA style
Instructors reached the following results:
ENG2108-01 Advanced Writing (Lisa Villarreal, the instructor of this section, also submitted rubrics but
did not attend the faculty meeting of 5/8/13.)
Students:
Learning
Outcome #1
Learning
Outcome #2
Learning
Outcome #3
xx
4, 4, 4.5, 3, 4, 2
4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4
4, 4, 4.5, 4, 4, 4
xx
2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 2
2, 1, 2, 3, 2, 3
2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3
xx
2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 4
2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 4
1, 2, 3, 1.5, 2, 4
Learning
Outcome
#4
3, 4, 4, 4, 2,
4
3, 2, 4, 5, 5,
4
1, 3, 4, 2, 4,
2
ENG2108-02 Advanced Writing (Instructor: Justin Lotspeich)
Students:
xx
xx
xx
Learning
Outcome #1
4, 2, 3, 5, 3
2, 1, 2, 2, 2
4, 4, 4, 4, 3
Learning
Outcome #2
4, 3, 3, 4, 4
1, 1, 2, 1, 2
5, 4, 5, 5, 4
Learning
Outcome #3
3, 3, 3, 3, 2.5
1, 2, 2, 3, 2
5, 4, 4, 4.5, 4
Learning
Outcome #4
2, 3, 3, 3.5, 3
1, 2, 2, 2, 2
5, 4, 4, 4, 3
The assessment tool (the final paper, a lengthy, thesis-driven critical essay) proved successful in
measuring the learning outcomes, and faculty reached close consensus in all areas. Faculty spent some
time discussing the nature of a thesis, and they agreed that there should be a fifth outcome assessing
grammar, diction, and syntax. The first outcome ("presents an original thesis and clear supporting
arguments") should be rephrased ("presents a compelling argument"), and the second ("incorporates
well-chosen quotations and effectively relates them to the thesis") should be changed to "incorporates
evidence and effectively relates it to the thesis." The fourth outcome should include the possibility of
5
Notre Dame de Namur University
APA documentation ("showing an understanding of APA or MLA style"). Faculty also discussed the logic
of the scoring scale (should 3 be "satisfactory" or "average"?). Finally, faculty agreed that the prompt for
the assignment should have been submitted by the instructors of the courses.
PLO 6: Demonstrate proficiency in research techniques
ENG2997 Senior Seminar in a senior-level requirement of the English major.
This course was targeted to meet the sixth of the undergraduate English student learning outcomes:
Demonstrate proficiency in research techniques. During the fall 2008 and spring 2009 semesters the
English faculty met several times to develop a five-point scoring rubric for this course (attached). This
rubric was designed to assess the students’ mastery of the following:
1. Research methodology and proper documentation and formatting.
2. Research, evaluation, and incorporation of secondary sources into literary analysis
3. A critical approach or approaches appropriate to the interpretation of literature.
4. Analysis and interpretation of the use and effect of literary genres and other literary and rhetorical
features of texts.
5. Situating and examining literary works within historical and cultural contexts
The five-point scoring scale of the rubric, designed to measure students’ ability to demonstrate these
outcomes, was the following: Scale: 1 = not at all; 2 = somewhat; 3 = satisfactorily; 4 = proficiency; 5 =
exceptionally.
Faculty agreed that the tool for assessment should be a senior thesis, a lengthy essay that allows
students to bring to bear what they have learned in the course of their study at Notre Dame.
The instructor of the course, Vince Fitzgerald, distributed copies of the senior theses to faculty before
our scheduled meeting on Thursday, May 14, 2009, to discuss them.
At this meeting faculty discussed six student theses, applying the five criteria of the rubric. One paper
did not include secondary sources (criterion 2) and another did not have a works cited page or
bibliography. Even though these papers were quite good, they did not meet the expectations of the
learning outcomes for this course (demonstrate proficiency in research techniques). They therefore
received low scores on the first two criteria. The other four papers received scores of 3 (“satisfactory”)
and higher.
In the ensuing discussion faculty agreed that only the first two criteria assess the stipulated learning
outcome measuring proficiency in research techniques. Faculty decided that the last three criteria,
which do not measure this outcome, should be eliminated.
The second criterion (Research, evaluation, and incorporation of secondary sources into literary
analysis) should be expanded to include assessment of use of primary sources (Research, evaluation,
and incorporation of primary and secondary sources into literary analysis). There should also be a third
criterion taking a broader view of “research techniques” (for example, Ability to conduct and integrate
research into a sustained and consistent thesis).
Faculty discussed the tool itself (the senior thesis). Students in the course also submitted an annotated
6
Notre Dame de Namur University
bibliography, which was not used as an assessment tool. There was agreement that senior theses should
integrate secondary sources. The next time this course is assessed (in spring 2010), perhaps there should
be two assessment tools, the senior thesis and the annotated bibliography.
Faculty also agreed that the criteria should be defined. (What, for instance, does “satisfactory” really
mean?)
Faculty concluded that this course serves its purpose as a capstone experience permitting students to
bring to bear accumulated knowledge and skills, but the rubrics need to be changed so that they address
only the sixth learning outcome of the program (proficiency in research techniques). Senior theses
should also integrate secondary sources and include works cited pages or bibliographies.
7