Data-Based Decisions: Literature
2021-22 2020-21 2019-20 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11
2021-22 Data-Based Decisions
Data-based decisions correlated to direct measures
In our Assessment Report for 2021, the Literature committee noted that in contrast to recent previous years, the assessors that year judged several essays to fall into the “marginal” range in objective #1, “reach compelling conclusions,” and objective #2, “weigh alternative systems of thought.” We speculated that various short-term factors might have contributed to this decline in students’ level of command of these crucial skills, including disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and a sudden staffing shortage among the tenure-track literature faculty.
That speculation would seem to be confirmed by this year’s evaluation, in which all but three of the papers were judged by both evaluators to be “acceptable” or “exceptional” in terms of their fulfilling the objectives in all three categories. Moreover, the two evaluators diverged in their judgment of which essays achieved only marginal command of the objectives —all of the essays were judged acceptable or exceptional in all categories by at least one of the two reviewers.
While we are gratified to see our students’ written work demonstrating command of key critical thinking and communication skills at a level we regularly saw before the pandemic, there is obviously still room for improvement. Last year, we resolved to “discuss and perhaps recodify the expectations and objectives for student writing in our emphasis courses.” This year we have begun that process, and this coming spring semester we plan to revisit and revise our goal and objectives for Literature courses at all levels, as well as talking about how to most effectively meet these goals and objectives through our pedagogy.
Data-based decisions that rely on indirect measures
In the several years that the committee has been conducting either in-person polls or written surveys of students graduating with a Literature emphasis in the English major, students have generally expressed satisfaction with their courses and with faculty/student interaction in and beyond the classroom. That continues to be the case this year, with several students praising the “wonderful” and “amazing” professors in the emphasis and expressing gratitude for what they’ve learned in their Literature courses. One student also appreciated that we encourage students “to study a broad variety of topics, and try things that you don't know anything about.”
For other students, however, the laissez-faire approach to course requirements that we implemented a couple of years ago has left them feeling like the curriculum was aimless and lacking coherence. One student said in their exit survey: “classes do not build upon previous material--each lives in their own bubble.” This is the second year in a row in which we have received similar criticisms of the new curriculum requirements. In Fall 2022 we hosted a conversation of students interested in the Literature curriculum, shared this criticism with them, and learned that some students appreciate the freedom to navigate their own paths through the vast worlds of literary history. Nevertheless, the committee was concerned that a subset of our students finds our curriculum so confusing and frustrating. Accordingly, we spent Fall 2022 discussing how to construct pathways through the curriculum—courses clustered according to students’ career interests, course themes, or methodological approaches, for example. These conversations will continue into Spring 2023; we hope to find a solution that retains the flexibility and choice that some students value, while also making the underlying logic of our curriculum more visible to students.
Another student comment from the exit survey hit home for the committee: “I feel as though I'm lacking the knowledge to succeed in the world. I am currently struggling to find a job that fits the education I have.” This reinforces the importance of the recent college-wide mandate to create career development plans for humanities and social sciences students. Last year, the Literature committee conceived of the outlines of such a plan; this coming semester, we will begin developing content in the form of short “modules” that faculty can insert into their classes at every level of the curriculum. We know that our students have the writing, speaking, research, and critical thinking skills required to become leaders in almost any field; what we need to do now is become better at helping students make the case for those skills to future employers.
2020-21 Data-Based Decisions
Data-based decisions correlated to direct measures
All the essays in the representative pool at least met the primary essay-writing objectives of the Literature emphasis. Several essays went further and showed full mastery of the objectives. But in contrast to recent previous years, the assessors judged several essays to fall into the “marginal” range in objective #1, “reach compelling conclusions,” and objective #2, “Weigh alternative systems of thought.”
Several factors might help account for this. One is the obvious pandemic factor: the entire academic year was unsettled and anxious and taught in a confusing diversity of mediums. Another was churn and turnover in the Literature faculty in the last two years; several professors moved into administrative roles and taught fewer courses, a couple were on sabbatical and/or had course reassignments, and a few retired or took other jobs. All this meant more literature courses were staffed by postdoctoral fellows and lecturers who might have been less attuned to the declared objectives than the tenure-line faculty.
Mitigating factors notwithstanding, Literature faculty should discuss and perhaps recodify the expectations and objectives for student writing in our emphasis courses. If these are the objectives we have collectively decided on as important outcomes of the education we give our students, is every class assigning essays that help students reach them?
Data-based decisions that rely on indirect measures
Overall, students who returned their survey expressed high satisfaction with their courses and with faculty/student interaction in and beyond the classroom. Students expressed how valuable they find the mentoring by dedicated faculty who are passionate about what they teach.
The mitigating factors of pandemic disruption and faculty short staffing also account for some of the survey comments that convey dissatisfaction. For example, the students who wanted more exposure to world literature came through the program during a period when the specialist in postcolonial world literature was on sabbatical and teaching fewer courses due to a course release. Some of the staffing problems will fix themselves as we fill empty Literature lines in the next two years.
Regardless, the survey comments might lead the faculty to discuss whether the more laissez-faire approach to course requirements implemented in recent years have left some students feeling lost at sea in the Literature curriculum. One student, for example, feels like they “have unconnected pieces of knowledge” and no ability to synthesize it. The committee might have a discussion about the student’s suggestion of a capstone course, abandoned long ago by the emphasis. The Literature faculty might also coordinate with the English peer mentors to communicate context and strategies for navigating the curriculum.
The department- and college-wide initiatives already in progress to develop career development plans for humanities and social sciences students will also address some of the students’ requests for a more intentional foregrounding of the skills they develop through Literature courses. The faculty will continue discussing how this can happen at every level of the Literature curriculum.
2019-20 Data-Based Decisions
Data-based decisions correlated to direct measures
This entire group of graduating seniors at least met—and in many cases, fully mastered—the primary essay-writing objectives of the Literature emphasis. The assessors judged all the student work to fall into the “acceptable” or “exceptional” ranges.
In order to improve student mastery of objective #2, “Weigh alternative systems of thought,” which had slightly lower scores than the other two, faculty should discuss what is meant by this objective. In addition, faculty can discuss whether the choice of some of the writing samples were written for writing assignments that weren’t designed to demonstrate this objective as strongly as the other two objectives.
Data-based decisions that rely on indirect measures
Overall, students who returned their survey expressed high satisfaction with their courses and with faculty/student interaction in the classroom. Students expressed how valuable they find small classroom sizes, class discussion, and the analytical and thinking skills they have developed.
Students expressed a number of suggestions for improvement, and these have been shared with faculty. Some of the suggestions have been hard to implement (such as meetings with Literature students to build community) due to Covid-19 restrictions. Other we are hoping will be addressed by our new curriculum which is being rolled out this fall; this curriculum allows students more flexibility in choosing classes that interest them at the 3000-5000 level. Specific suggestions are addressed below:
- Solicit student input on special topics courses or authors courses. This is not something the Literature faculty have done on a formal basis, but the student suggests that if the Literature students were to have a semester meeting to build community, this would be a good place for them to suggest potential special topics courses. The Literature emphasis is planning to hold a meeting with Literature students once a semester to build community.
- Create more opportunities and emphasis on real world experience. Show students how apply classroom knowledge and skills to jobs. Prepare students better for the job market. This is a suggestion that has arisen in previous years’ assessments, and many faculty have developed lessons or assignments in their courses to address this. For example, in ENGL 2600, Dr. Christine Cooper-Rompato introduced a series of ten video interviews with former English majors called, “What I did with my English major,” to broaden students’ awareness of potential career paths. Dr. Paul Crumbley required his students in an upper-division class to mount an exhibit in the library’s special collections, as well as to attend the USU Research Symposium. Students recommended that faculty continue to encourage (or require) students to present at the Symposium. In addition, faculty will continue to discuss how best to nurture students’ job skills and to help them make a successful transition from college to work force. One suggestion faculty can consider is offering a CV/Resume workshop every year for Literature students.
- Create better balance in the coursework between the levels (i.e. rethink 3000 level courses that have the work of a 5000 level, and vice versa). The Literature faculty are continuing to reassess their level objectives (including formal writing page requirements) for the 3000-5000 level courses.
- Offer more classes on genres and authors; teach more about literary theory. With our new curriculum model, students have more opportunities to take classes at the 4000-level in genres and authors. In addition, we have added several new courses at the 4000-level, including U.S. Latinx Literature, Native American Literature, and African American Literature. As a faculty we will continue to revisit the importance of discussing literary theory within our classes. At the moment we do not plan to create a separate literary theory class. One option we can consider is making sure to include literary theory in classes at a specific level (for example, the 5000-level) so that we can be certain that Literature students are being exposed to it.
2018-19 Data-Based Decisions
Data-based decisions correlated to direct measures
This group of graduating seniors at least met—and in half the cases, fully mastered—the first two primary essay-writing objectives of the Literature emphasis. Objective 3 was a bit weaker, with more Acceptable than Exceptional scores. This difference shows up regularly: the quality of the prose, on a sentence level, generally does not quite reach the same level as the structure of the argument or the strength of the analysis. The Literature faculty will continue discussing this issue and sharing techniques for improvement.
Data-based decisions that rely on indirect measures
In response to student feedback, we will begin offering the new 5000-level seminars on Gender and Sexuality, Race and Ethnicity, and Multimedia Literature next semester (Spring 2020). There are now 5 such seminars: one will be offered each semester.
To further diversity the curriculum, the faculty created three new courses at the 4000 level: U.S. Latinx Literature, African American Literature, and Native American Literature. Subject to approval, those courses will start being offered in Fall 2020.
The faculty is currently discussing changes to the 3000-level literary history courses, considering whether to make them less like surveys and more like topics courses, focusing on a narrower set of texts.
The faculty is also currently discussing a new 3000-level course, entitled “Critical Lenses” or “Ways of Reading,” that would introduce English majors (especially those in the Literature and Teaching emphases) to literary theory.
Finally, this year the faculty is considering additional ways to restructure the curriculum requirements, making the path to graduation more flexible for students.
2017-18 Data-Based Decisions
Data-based decisions correlated to direct measures
This cohort of graduates of the Literature emphasis overwhelmingly achieved “Acceptable” or “Exceptional” performance in all three categories. In categories 1 and 3, three of the 22 possible rankings were “marginal,” suggesting that the faculty should continue to stress the importance of clear, emphatic thesis statements and lines of logic that make the argument more visible, and of writing clear, direct, concrete prose.
Data-based decisions that rely on indirect measures
We have made a number of changes to the curriculum that should reinforce what students already see as a strength of the emphasis: the variety and diversity of courses they are required to take. For example, we recently voted to eliminate ENGL 4300 (Shakespeare) as a specific requirement for Literature emphasis students (instead counting it as one of the courses that fulfills the “Authors/Genres” requirement); the three credits thus freed up were transferred to the “Electives” column, giving students more flexibility to move within the curriculum and shape it to their needs and interests.
We are also planning to create a new “Digital English” course that will help meet student demand for technological innovation in the curriculum.
Finally, the Literature curriculum committee has been having a discussion about the structure of our curriculum, hoping to strike a better balance between the two considerations students have expressed appreciation for: coverage of large swaths of the literary canon, and in-depth looks at special topics and problems in literary studies. By the end of the 2018-2019 academic year, we are likely to vote to create a number of new courses (and possibly eliminate or redesign the 3000-level Literary History courses at the bedrock of our current curriculum) that we think will re-invigorate the emphasis while preserving the aspects of the program that students value.
2016-17 Data-Based Decisions
Data-based decisions correlated to direct measures
In sum, this group of Literature graduates at least met and in some cases mastered the primary essay-writing objectives of the Literature emphasis. The weakest category was #3, which suggests that the faculty should continue to stress the importance of writing clear, direct, concrete prose even as the critical arguments become more complex and abstract.
The other data visible here is the low number of graduates in the Literature emphasis. To attract more English majors into the department and especially its Literature courses, we are now adding General Education literature courses taught by tenure-line faculty. With the addition of two new hires in the Literature area, we should be able to offer 2-3 sections of Gen Ed literature each year. The new, more flexible requirements should also help us to attract and retain more students in the emphasis.
Data-based decisions that rely on indirect measures
We have already increased the flexibility of the curriculum by adding free elective credits into the requirements. We are also proposing to add ENGL 4630: American Nature Writers to the Authors/Genres requirements, which will add further flexibility.
As the previous year’s group also recommended, students would like a greater diversity of non-English/American and ethnic literature in the curriculum. In response to this student feedback, we are now proposing to incorporate both ENGL 3520: Multicultural Literature and ENGL 3620: Native American Studies within the Literary History options.
To further diversify and update the curriculum, we are also proposing three new 5000-level courses: Race and Ethnicity in Literature, Gender and Sexuality in Literature, and Multimedia Literature.
This year, we have begun a discussion of how best to revise ENGL 2600, so that it connects more clearly to the upper levels of the Literature curriculum. The best idea so far is to have faculty visit the course, introducing themselves and their interests/methods to students, explaining how skills learned in 2600 will translate into their upcoming courses.
2015-16 Data-Based Decisions
Data-based decisions correlated to direct measures
In sum, this group of Literature graduates at least met and in most cases mastered the primary essay-writing objectives of the Literature emphasis. Based on this data, we will continue in our courses to stress the importance of not only developing but also questioning your own arguments. We will also continue to share with one another creative assignments that offer different means of accomplishing this critical end.
The other data visible here is the shrinking number of graduates in the Literature emphasis. To attract more English majors into Literature courses, we are now discussing how best to increase General Education literature courses taught by tenure-line faculty. One option is to offer ENGL 2300 instead of ENGL 4300 as our Shakespeare requirement, which would serve the added purpose of attracting and recruiting first-year students into the department.
Data-based decisions that rely on indirect measures
The responses from the student interviews revealed that, while they did understand the careful structure of the curriculum, they would appreciate a bit more flexibility in choosing courses, both within Literature and across the English department.
In response to this student feedback, we are now (Fall 2016) discussing increasing the elective credits from 3 to 9, with 6 of those being open to any English course at the 3000 level or above. (The other 3 would be restricted to a Literature course.)
The responses from the student interviews also revealed that they would like a greater diversity of non-English/American and ethnic literature in the curriculum.
In response to this student feedback, we are discussing how best to reconfigure our world literature offerings. We also plan to incorporate Multicultural Literature within the Literature curriculum. In the longer term, we have been discussing the possibility of revising the 4000-level of the curriculum to emphasize issues of cultural difference and diversity.
2014-15 Data-Based Decisions
Data-based decisions correlated to direct measures
In sum, this group of Literary Studies graduates met or exceeded all learning objectives. In general, the readers observed that the students were best at identifying and focusing on key questions at outset of their essays, although many of them struggled at times to express their ideas in clear, direct language.
Data-based decisions that rely on indirect measures
We will change the 5000-level of the curriculum to include more contemporary literature than we currently teach--a wish that many of our students have expressed in the interviews.
2013-14 Data-Based Decisions
Data-based decisions correlated to direct measures
In sum, this group of Literary Studies graduates met or exceeded all learning objectives.
Data-based decisions that rely on indirect measures
The committee decided to implement indirect assessment measures beginning in 2015.
2012-13 Data-Based Decisions
Data-based decisions correlated to direct measures
In sum, this group of Literary Studies graduates met or exceeded all learning objectives.
Data-based decisions that rely on indirect measures
No indirect measures used this year.
2011-12 Data-Based Decisions
Data-based decisions correlated to direct measures
In sum, this group of Literary Studies graduates met or exceeded all learning objectives.
Data-based decisions that rely on indirect measures
No indirect measures used this year.
2010-11 Data-Based Decisions
Data-based decisions correlated to direct measures
In sum, this group of Literary Studies graduates met or exceeded all llearning objectives.
Data-based decisions that rely on indirect measures
No indirect measures used this year.