Dixie State University
English Department
5-Year Program Review
External Reviewer Report
Kyle William Bishop
English Department Chair
Southern Utah University
12 March 2015
Randy Jasmin, DSU English Department Chair
Assunta Hardy, DSU Internal Reviewer
Addison Everett, DSU Interim Dean of Humanities
2
Executive Summary
Overall, I am impressed with how effectively the English program at Dixie State University has
grown and developed, especially over the most recent years of rapid expansion. The facilities in
the Holland Library are very impressive and overall well designed, and I was impressed by the
quality of the faculty I engaged with during my site visit. The students are bright and dedicated,
and they expressed to me a high level of satisfaction with the program; recent growth in
enrollment numbers further supports this positive reception of the program and its new
emphases. New developments in faculty and curriculum assessment are key to take the programs
forward, as progress in both areas will be essential for continued success.
I do, however, have a number of specific suggestions and recommendations to improve the
quality and effectiveness of the English program at DSU. If at all possible, the four English
major “emphases” should be repackaged and presented as separate degree programs, which
would mean separate mission/goal statements and at least some discipline specific learning
outcomes. The curriculum for the four programs could also be revised to reduce the number of
common core coursework—allowing for more discipline-specific courses—along with the
number of specialized courses that are offered infrequently or (perhaps) result in unsustainably
low enrollments. General education courses could be more overtly included in the assessment
process and GE status should probably be removed from any courses required of English majors.
The faculty members in the English Department are qualified and effective. However, as Dixie
State is now a University and the Department offers four 4-year degrees, I would encourage
adding a research and publication requirement for tenure and rank advancement. At the very
least, the policies and procedures for annual review, rank advancement, and tenure need to be
more clearly articulated to the faculty and available for perusal. Having student advising in house
and facilitated by a faculty member is a great idea, and the students confirmed they are very well
advised in their academic work. The facilities, as stated, are top notch, although the classrooms
in the Holland Library are not conducive for film screenings or potentially noisy activities and
group work. The Writing Center is well designed and properly staffed.
Overall, the English program has a clear assessment plan, especially with the identification of
three key common-core courses and the proposed use of key signature assignments, reflective
writing, and pre- and post-tests. The assessment plan could be more specific, however,
concerning the nature of these assignments, how the assignments will function differently based
on discipline focus, exactly what data will be gleaned from those assessment methods, and how
changes in the curriculum will be determined and implemented.
Finally, the English Department homepage should be slightly redesigned with a more logical and
prioritized list of links on the left side, links that include things such as the missions/goals
statements, Department policies and procedures (such as the annual review and tenure/rank
advancement procedures), consistent and thorough faculty information (including adjuncts), and
a current database of course syllabi, not to mention student organizations and resources, such as
the Sigma Tau Delta chapter and the DSU journals and publications.
3
Program Mission and Goals
The English Department program mission is appropriately student centered and emphasizes the
program’s focus on student learning and student success. However, the use of “appreciation”
conveys more of a “general education” feel to the educational efforts of the program instead of a
more pointed “understanding” or a phrase conveying a greater sense of professional engagement
and disciplinary mastery. That is, the sentence could be recast to put greater emphasis on
comprehending the broader forms and functions of literature as culture and in society, along with
developing the professional skills necessary to engage with literary texts in a variety of different
ways. The second sentence, while doing much of this work, is in fact written as an outcome
statement, not a mission; again, a simple rewording of the sentence could easily recast the focus
on what the program is trying to do, not what the students will do.
The main mission statement is focused on traditional literary studies and doesn’t clearly embrace
the missions of the other emphases; of course, the additional statements do address those
subprograms directly. However, I recommend breaking the four emphasis missions out so the
Department has a single, unifying mission statement for the broader program and individual
mission statements for each emphasis. These emphasis statements should be exclusively
missions oriented; right now, they are also largely descriptive (yet not parallel). More concise
language could be used to articulate mission only; additional statements could address thing such
as program and emphasis descriptions, goals, and discipline-specific learning outcomes.
While the program learning outcomes are accessible on the English Department web site, I
cannot find a link to the mission statements. I recommend linking to a program and emphasis
mission and goals statements page from the main English Department webpage, perhaps as the
first link on the left side of the screen (the emphasis statements, if broken out, could be
integrated into the existing “Degree Emphasis” page, which should probably be listed second in
the series of links). Regardless, current and prospective students—along with faculty and
administrators—should be able to access the various mission and goals statements easily.
Program Curriculum
The English program lists a large number of diverse courses in the General Catalog, but I cannot
clearly discern if all of these topics are being offered every year. My impression is that, for the
size of the program, a bit too much specialization may be offered here, which could result in low
individual class enrollment. Since required curriculum is relatively focused, the program may
wish to consider more variable topic courses to decrease the number of different classes offered
each semester to bolster enrollment and to facilitate student progress towards graduation.
Major Emphases
As an outside observer, one of my first responses to the English program curriculum is to ask
why the major emphases aren’t packaged and presented as individual English majors. On the one
hand, I recognize the potential advantages of having a common core of 24 credits shared by all
the degrees, but on the other, I would think separate majors might better serve the students,
especially in terms of their diplomas and transcripts. Differentiation of mission, goals, learning
outcomes, and curricula would also be easier with separate majors.
4
Most of the courses in the “Core Discipline Requirements” appear relevant to all four of the
available emphases, excepting ENGL 3810: History and Structure of the English Language,
which in my experience represents the specialization of a graduate-program; I do like that all
majors, regardless of emphasis, take a grammar course. The core courses are understandably
literary studies focused, while simultaneously providing students a broad foundation.
However, the new emphases should have more specialization to differentiate them more fully
from the literature program and to prepare students better for the workforce or graduate studies.
For example, the creative writing program offers an advanced course in fiction writing but not
any in poetry or creative nonfiction writing; similarly, students may take an advanced course in
screenwriting, but not an introductory one (which I understand is offered by the Communication
Department). For the education emphasis, I would recommend making the creative writing
course an elective option to allow for a period/topic studies course and a major authors course,
and I suggest making ENGL 3520: Young Adult Literature more overtly a teaching and methods
course (in case creative writers enroll hoping the class will teach them to write young adult
literature). I found it somewhat confusing that ENGL 4500: Methods of Teaching Writing is
listed under the “Professional Requirements” section instead of with the “Emphasis
Requirements” list, but that may be tied to the education course block.
While having every English major complete a capstone course is essential, I recommend having
separate capstones course (or at least sections) for each emphasis. As the capstone projects and
the professional development efforts should be substantially different for each emphasis, I
imagine specialized instruction would make all of the courses more effective, while also
facilitating more specific and focused assessment efforts.
GE and Composition
The English program appears to offer twelve courses that can fulfill the Literature/Humanities
GE requirement (but this designation is not consistent in the General Catalog), and five of these
GE courses double as required courses or options for the core major requirements. First, I
wonder if offering so many courses for GE doesn’t diffuse the enrollment, resulting in smaller
class sizes or even cancelled courses. Second, and more importantly, I think a GE class and a
major course should employ substantially different content, curriculum, pedagogy, outcomes,
and deliverables. Are these courses primarily geared towards the “general” student and thus not
rigorous enough to prepare English majors for their advanced coursework, or are they tailored to
the needs of the major and thus inappropriately focused for a general education of the material?
Without a careful review of all the course syllabi, outcomes, and assignments, I cannot say for
sure, but I would recommend the English program remove the GE designation from any course
required for the major.
The composition program appears to be well structured and organized, with substantial online
resources for the adjuncts (but why not market those materials and the wiki to all instructors of
composition?). Giving each specialized version of composition an independent, dedicated
number must facilitate scheduling and assessment, while helping student more easily identify
which course they should take. I was particularly impressed with the ENGL 1010D program,
which not only integrates the lab time necessary for students with low placement scores, but also
ensures continuity in the instructor and classmates.
5
Class Visits
As part of my campus visit, I was able to attend two classes as an observer. The first was Dr.
Wrede’s ENGL 2201: Literature and the Land, a very interesting interdisciplinary course that
certainly needs the chance to grow and develop further. It obviously has a low enrollment, which
is potentially a problem for both SCH calculation and space utilization. Concerning the latter, the
classroom was quite large for the number of students; at the very least, the students could have
been grouped around a smaller table or set of tables (the modular furniture in the room would
easily have accommodated this rearrangement) to facilitate closer, more immediate interaction.
That said, I found Dr. Wrede’s pedagogy to be excellent, with great use of class time divided into
presentation material, lecture, group work, and broader discussion. Based on student comments, I
found them to be very well prepared and knowledgeable, and all but one were actively engaged
in the conversation and had insightful things to say.
I also visited Dr. Peterson’s ENGL 1010D class. As mentioned, I find the structure of the course
very effective, as it gives the students who need it additional attention and lab time to maximize
their potential in a composition course. Spending the time in an actual computer lab was clearly
useful for many of the students, who spent the majority of time working on their paper proposals.
For others, however, the computers were clearly a distraction, especially at the beginning when
Dr. Peterson was trying to explain the assignment (but, then again, at least two students were just
as distracted by their smart phones as others were by the computers). Perhaps have a “computers
off” period before opening things up to “free lab” time? Dr. Peterson clearly has a good rapport
with his students, and the lab time allowed him to work one-on-one with a couple of students.
Perhaps a tutor could be assigned to the lab periods to allow for more personalized attention?
Some of the students might have been more on task with more people observing and assisting.
Program Faculty and Staff
DSU has a number of highly qualified faculty members and the requisite staff to support studentlearning efforts. I was impressed by the dedication the faculty showed for the institution and the
program, and everyone I spoke with had almost nothing but positive things to share.
Faculty
Based on the English Department web page, the program is well supported by a variety of
qualified faculty, including a Writing Center director with appropriate responsibilities and
associated teaching load. I would strongly recommend, however, that the faculty pages be
standardized with matching formatting and the same kinds of information. It might be more
effective to group them by ranks, but, at the very least, all faculty entries should include all
earned degrees (locations and dates), a professional biography statement, and active links to
current syllabi (while I note the Department does have a syllabus archive page, it has not been
updated for two years—even though syllabi are available to registered students via Canvas, I
recommend those syllabi be accessible to anyone and kept current through the faculty entries). I
would also encourage similar faculty listings for adjunct instructors as well, partially to
demonstrate they are an equally valuable part of the Department but also because students rarely
differentiate between full-time and part-time faculty and may have need to find their instructors
on the Department web site.
6
Meeting with Faculty
During my site visit, I met with a number of faculty members at meals and in a dedicated
discussion session. For the most part, the faculty articulated they were satisfied with their jobs
and felt they had the support they needed to do their jobs. The adjuncts shared that they could be
included more in the Department, and I would note they are somewhat lowly compensated based
on the averages for adjunct faculty throughout the state. While the faculty acknowledged an
effective informal mentoring system, many suggested a more formalized mentoring program
could be helpful, especially for the adjunct instructors. They also appreciated the professional
development fund, but some expressed that the funding was too limited.
I was glad to learn that an annual review system is in place, but I was surprised how unfamiliar
the majority of the faculty was with the policy and the procedures. It was not clear from my
discussions if the “roll statement” was a new addition to the annual review or not—I received the
impression that faculty simply used to report on their annual activities but now they also set
goals for the coming year, but I’m not sure if that’s accurate. They agreed that some faculty
members are observed annually, while others are only observed voluntarily, but all are evaluated
by their students in every class. Part of the reason I am confused by the annual review and
evaluation process may be the same reason the faculty appear to be: the Department website has
no posted policy of annual review, nor was such a process included in the report I was given to
read. I recommend the Department codify the review process for adjunct, tenure-track, and
tenured faculty. Guidelines for a “mid-tenure” and a “post-tenure” review should also be
clarified (one tenured faculty member was unclear if DSU had any post-tenure review or whether
advancement to full professor was required or optional).
The faculty informed me research is not required for tenure, although many faculty members
participate in research, writing, presenting, and publishing nonetheless. (In fact, one faculty
member confided s/he was told by an unnamed vice president that if s/he wished to conduct
professional research, it could only be done after 5 p.m., on weekends, or during the summer, but
this information is only anecdotal.) Because Dixie is now a university, I strongly recommend a
research expectation be added to the tenure and promotion policy. A certain number of
successful publications (not self-published or “pay to play” work) should be required for tenure,
and something substantial (such as a book) should be expected for the rank of full professor.
Advising
I am very impressed that the English program has its own in-house advisor, who is also a faculty
member. My experience is that instructors in the discipline make the best and most effective
advisors because they understand the curriculum, the schedules, and the opportunities and pitfalls
better than an advisor trying to work with multiple departments and programs simultaneously.
This advisor/instructor position is one of the best things DSU is doing in their English program.
Facilities and Technology
The English Department is supported by excellent facilities that are, for the most part, well
designed and practical, although some changes could be made and more office space is clearly
necessary. The technology at DSU appears to be top notch.
7
Department Facilities
I was very impressed by the English Department’s physical facilities. The offices have a
dedicated reception space, which is essential as an intermediary zone between the public and the
faculty members while not preventing student access or walk-ins. The storage/work area is really
wonderful, frankly, with all the requisite office equipment, plenty of supplies, and a large island
on which to work or upon which to create materials for class. Having a faculty lounge with a full
kitchen and private faculty bathrooms might be considered a luxury at some institutions, but it is
vital to foster a sense of community and to provide faculty a place to relax, socialize, and eat (I
imagine faculty members save a lot of money because they can bring lunches from home and
even prepare food on site!). I was very happy to see the adjunct workspace in the same location
as the Department offices, and I thought they were well designed and relatively spacious. Having
a large and well-furnished room for students to congregate, collaborate, and socialize is a great
idea that must really foster camaraderie and a sense of community. More office space is needed,
however, as the Department is growing, and finding that space is likely a tricky prospect. I feel
that floor of the library has a lot of wide open space—ostensibly used for students to read and
study—which could be converted to additional office space (not within the English Department
suite, but certainly nearby), but I could understand if the library is reticent to give up that space.
Classroom Facilities
The classrooms on the third floor of the library are spacious and well furnished, with modular
furniture on wheels that easily facilitates different classroom configurations. The technology is
state of the art, with great instructor terminals, flat-screen televisions, ELMOs, and high-quality
projectors. The rooms could certainly accommodate more white boards, however, and it looks as
if they are designed for additional projector units (perhaps to be installed as funding becomes
available). My chief concern with the classrooms is the glass walls, which, while aesthetic,
undoubtedly complicate certain pedagogical approaches. In addition to putting those in the
rooms on constant “display,” which could be off-putting to some faculty members and students,
the rooms cannot be darkened enough to show dark images or videos/films. I’m guessing the
glass is not particularly sound proof either, so any kind of spirited debate, group work, or film
screenings would bleed out into the library and disturb the students trying to study in the hallway
area. Could the classrooms be retrofitted with blackout curtains of some kind along those walls?
Soundproofing? It might be worth investigating.
Writing Center
I was impressed with the Writing Center space, which appears very economical, with an office, a
conference room, and enough space for multiple simultaneous tutoring sessions. However, I see
no practical opportunities for growth; while three computers may be sufficient for student needs
now, if the University continues to grow and if more students begin to take advantage of the
tutoring services, the space could quickly become overwhelmed. (Providing online tutoring
services is a nice way to mitigate and address growth for now, but I suspect most students
respond best to face-to-face tutoring sessions.) I do think it’s good the space isn’t a busy and
noisy computer lab either—it’s clearly a place where students can meet one-on-one with a tutor
without too much distraction or disturbance.
8
Students Insights
In my meeting with a number of current DSU English majors, I learned the students are mostly
pleased with the organization of their programs, the quality of the faculty, and the opportunities
for them to learn and develop professionally. They were concerned, however, that with so many
specialized topics, certain courses often take a long time to come around in the rotation, and
some students are unable to take a desired course before they graduate. They were additionally
concerned that both the creative writing emphasis and the teaching emphasis do not offer enough
courses specializing in those specific disciplines, as I discuss above.
The students expressed satisfaction with most of the operations and opportunities within the
English Program. They like their instructors and consider them to be high-quality, effective
educators. They like the evaluation system they use and feel their voices are heard. They enjoy
the small class sizes and the opportunities for one-on-one attention and mentoring (all but one
student said they have a faculty mentor). They spoke highly of the Sigma Tau Delta honors
society, the honors program, the program scholarship opportunities, the support of undergraduate
research, and the technology on campus (especially the quality Wi-Fi). Thanks in large part to
the dedicated student lounge space (an excellent resource and wonderful use of space), they all
feel the program fosters a strong sense of student community.
Assessment and Plans
While the Program Review does a good job presenting the program learning outcomes and
laying out an assessment strategy, I do have some suggestions on how to make those aspects of
the review and plan more specific and detailed.
Learning Outcomes
The English program articulates clear learning outcomes for the English discipline as a whole,
which demonstrably align with both the University outcomes and the core curriculum. The
language for these five outcomes makes sense and is specific (with the possible exception of
PLO 3, which could provide examples of “varying collaborative activities”). However, while
these outcomes make sense with the core curriculum, no outcomes address the discipline-specific
learning that should take place in the various emphases. For example, the five PLOs fail to
address the creative work accomplished by students of fiction, poetry, and creative nonfiction
writing (references are to research and scholarly writing only), and they similarly fail to address
the outcomes needed for students training to be teachers of English in the public school system. I
recommend having PLOs for both the English program core and for each of the disparate
emphases. Additionally, while I can discern from the report the outcomes associated with the
composition program, the outcomes associated with the literature/humanities general education
courses are not as well articulated or addressed.
Assessment
The Department plan to track student learning and progress towards relevant objectives through
key core courses and common assignments is a solid one. ENGL 2600 and ENGL 3030 could
easily share common “signature assignments” to establish benchmarks (2600) and progress
9
(3030), but the use of such measures in the ENGL 4700 capstone course could be complicated
because of the four different emphases (as I discuss above). The Program Review doesn’t
provide a detailed description of these signature assignments, however, so I can’t tell if those
projects completed in 2600 are emphasis-specific or not, but it would seem that to assess
programmatic success effectively, some part of that benchmark would need to be geared towards
the skills specific to the emphasis (which underscores my recommendation for emphasis-specific
learning outcomes). I agree reflective writing is essential for all stages of the assessment process
but, again, the Program Review lacks in specifics about how these writings are constructed and
how (and what kind of) data will be derived from them.
“Assessment Form A” from the Program Review effectively presents the five PLO while
outlining the assessment cycle; however, the “Direct Evidence of Student Learning” descriptions
are all identical. If the outcomes are different and specific, I would expect some measure of
differentiation at the level of evidence, or at least detailed descriptions of what aspect,
component, or questions from the signature assignments, analytic rubric, pre and post tests, and
reflective work would most apply to which outcome. (Please note: the assessment form appears
to be designed in a landscape format, and the portrait printout I received is perhaps missing
additional columns of information).
While the Program Review does make clear claims about post-graduation placement (especially
in the education emphasis) and admittance into graduate programs, the English program would
benefit from an assessment plan that more thoroughly engages with students post graduation to
make sure student learning extends beyond the classroom and to ensure the different emphases
are sufficiently preparing students to enter the workplace successfully.
Finally, the Program Review could spend more time specifically addressing what assessment
data will be collected, how it will be recorded (how does TaskStream work?), how it will be
analyzed (and by what entities), and how changes to the program will be enacted.
Plans for the Future
The short-term goals for the English program look appropriate and manageable, although a more
specific timeline would be better. The assessment cycle is certainly the top priority, as it will
likely drive the goals and help determine the priorities. I concur additional office space is
essential, especially if members of the current English factuality are not located in the library.
Retention in composition courses is important, and I would only invest heavily in blended
classes if they contribute to bolstering that retention rate. The tracking of completion is key and
relatively easy to do, but how does the program propose tracking the career and advanced degree
accomplishments of graduates? Similarly, what concrete plans are in place to pursue additional
endowments and scholarships (an area somewhat neglected in the Program Review)?
I would recommend the use of predictive statistics in effective scheduling should be a short-term
goal; it is vital and could be implemented almost immediately by analyzing existing enrollment
data. If TaskStream is the software currently used by DSU for assessment, then its use should
also be a short-term goal, as its use would be essential for the current first short-term goal of
completing the assessment cycle. The remainder of the long-term goal list looks good as longterm goals, although the expansion of the creative writing faculty might become a higher priority
10
if student demand continues to increase and if my suggestions concerning an expanded
curriculum are deemed viable. As with the short-term goals, however, more specifics and details
are needed to focus the goals concerning increased retention and completion rates, graduate
donations, and new endowment and scholarship funding.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The English program at Dixie State University is doing a great job to ensure students receive a
quality education in creative writing, education, literature, and technical writing and have the
best opportunities to learn and progress. While the program could use some restructuring when it
comes to curriculum (separate majors and more specific required coursework) and assessment
(program-specific learning outcomes and a more precise system of assessment and program
revision), it has the facilities, technology, faculty, and resources to provide students what they
need to succeed. Since the program is currently growing in size and prestige, it needs additional
(faculty offices) and remodeled spaces (classrooms), along with a more precisely delineated and
rigorous policy and procedure for faculty annual review, tenure, and rank advancement. The
program is certainly headed in the right direction, as this Program Review demonstrates.