Appendix 6: Assessment Instruments
M.A. Portfolio Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
| Learning Outcome #1 Demonstrate an advanced understanding of the major periods, trends, authors, and texts that comprise the Western and non-Western literary, linguistic, filmic, and/or rhetorical traditions. | |||||
| Aspects Assessed | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Significantly Below Standards | Below Standards | Meets Standards | Exceeds Standards | Significantly Exceeds Standards | |
| Awareness of historical, artistic, theoretical, and/or cultural contexts and influences upon the subject matter | The writer fails to situate the papers’/projects’ topics within their historical, artistic, theoretical, or cultural contexts | The writer situates the papers’/projects’ topics within their historical, artistic, theoretical, or cultural contexts, but does not discuss the influence of those contexts on the papers’/projects’ topics | The writer expertly situates the papers’/projects’ topics within their historical, artistic, theoretical, or cultural contexts, and develops nuanced discussion of the influence of those contexts | ||
| Participates in or questions the scholarship on relevant literary, filmic, rhetorical, critical, and/or linguistic traditions (as applicable) | The writer does not attempt to contribute to or question the scholarship on relevant literary, filmic, rhetorical, critical, and/or linguistic traditions (as applicable) | The writer discusses the scholarship on relevant literary, filmic, rhetorical, critical, and/or linguistic traditions (as applicable), but does not make an independent contribution to scholarly discourse in the field of study | The writer expertly discusses the scholarship on relevant literary, filmic, rhetorical, critical, and/or linguistic traditions (as applicable), and makes a significant independent contribution to scholarly discourse in the field of study | ||
| Learning Outcome #2 Produce a portfolio of three graduate seminar papers and/or projects reflecting the student’s strongest work as well as their breadth of knowledge. In consultation with the portfolio director, determine revision goals and target audiences (such as journals and/or academic conferences) for each paper and/or project that will influence these goals. | |||||
| Aspects Assessed | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Significantly Below Standards | Below Standards | Meets Standards | Exceeds Standards | Significantly Exceeds Standards | |
| Grammar & Punctuation; Structure; Usage & Diction; Argumentation | Significant number of mechanical errors and/or misspellings; sentence-level structure is unclear; paragraphs lack cohesion; intelligibility of prose is limited; relies heavily on idiomatic expressions; use of phrases and wording that are inappropriate in an academic context; macro-level structure is disjointed; presence of logical fallacies, lack of supporting evidence; claims are contradictory | Few mechanical errors; sentence-level structure is appropriate; basic- and macro-level structure may be discerned; usage is appropriate for academic context, diction is varied; provides effective supporting evidence; few contradictory claims or logical fallacies | Prose is engaging and motivates audience to read; no grammatical errors; wide variety of sentence structures are used correctly; diction is varied and appropriate for academic context; supporting evidence is detailed and persuasive; sophisticated and persuasive strategies of argumentation; no contradictory claims or logical fallacies | ||
| Extent and quality of research | Revised papers/projects show no additional research beyond the research for the originals; gaps in the review of criticism in each paper/project; Bibliography and/or Works Cited for each paper/project is incomplete and/or missing major relevant primary and/or secondary works, as appropriate | Review of criticism in each paper/project shows breadth and depth of research; Bibliography and/or Works Cited for each paper/project includes major and some minor primary and/or secondary works, as appropriate | Review of criticism in each paper/project is elegantly and persuasively organized; lengthy Bibliography and/or Works Cited for each paper/project that includes major and minor primary and/or secondary works, as appropriate | ||
| Ability to analyze and synthesize sources or data into a compelling, extended argument | Paper/project shows little or no revision based on additional research; poorly organized and/or developed argument in each paper; writer shows little ability to analyze and/or synthesize data in each paper/project | In each paper/project the writer creates an argument based upon the analysis and synthesis of additional sources, but the argument could be more persuasive with closer attention to the analysis and synthesis of the data in the source materials | In each paper/project the writer compellingly argues a thesis based upon close analysis of additional primary and/or secondary text(s), as appropriate, and synthesis of multiple cirtical perspectives | ||
| Quality meets the standard of a peer-reviewed, academic press | Papers/projects do not meet the standards of a peer-reviewed, academic press or digital venue | With substantive editing and revising, each paper/project could be accepted for publication by a peer-reviewed, academic press or digital venue | With minimal editing and revising, each paper/project could be accepted for publication by a peer-reviewed, academic press or digital venue | ||
| Learning Outcome #3 Recognize and adhere to the expectations for professional and ethical practices – with a particular emphasis on proper source citation and respect for intellectual property – that are followed by the discipline of English studies (broadly defined). | |||||
Aspects Assessed |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Significantly Below Standards | Below Standards | Meets Standards | Exceeds Standards | Significantly Exceeds Standards | |
| In-text Citation | Few, if any, added citations are present; in-text citations that are present are not formatted correctly; errors in format of in-text citation result in misattribution of sources; citations to sources not found on the Works Cited/Bibliography | In-text citations are present for all added references that require them; in-text citations are formatted correctly; errors in format of in-text citations do not result in misattribution of a source | All in-text citations are present and formatted properly | ||
| Works Cited/Bibliography | Works Cited/Bibliography displays any of the following characteristics: Lack of any new entries reflecting new research; haphazard format; failure to adhere to required citation standards; missing/non-existent sources | All original and newly added sources are included; formatting is correct; any formatting errors are minor and do not result in misattribution of sources | Works Cited/Bibliography is complete and formatted properly throughout | ||
| Intellectual Property | Student’s work shows little to no understanding of the essential concepts of intellectual property; often cannot discern between the student’s ideas and the sources’ ideas | Student’s work demonstrates a grasp of essential concepts associated with intellectual property and adequately discerns between “common knowledge” and ideas requiring citation | Student’s work demonstrates an understanding of advanced concepts associated with intellectual property such as requirements for citing visual aids and graphics, digital sources, and open access resources | ||
Ph.D. Preliminary Exam Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
| Outcomes | Fail (0) | Low Pass (1) | Pass (2) | High Pass (3) |
| Ability to compose a reasoned and sustained response to the question | Absence of a reasoned or sustained response to the question | Responds to the questions, but lacks clear connection or cohesion of ideas | Provides a direct response to the question but misses obvious opportunities to develop or complicate the response | Provides a direct response to the question with clearly pursues a reasoned path, may uncover additional questions or complications |
| Accuracy, breadth, depth of knowledge | Does not demonstrate adequate knowledge of primary works | Demonstrates general knowledge of primary works with some inaccuracies and oversimplification; does not reference any secondary literature | Demonstrates strong knowledge of primary works, perhaps with minor inaccuracies, but has few references to secondary scholarship | Demonstrates mastery of the area by discussing primary and secondary literature accurately and with an appreciation for complexity |
| Ability to establish a critical position | Response is limited to showing knowledge of primary works without any critical evaluation of primary and/or secondary works | Exhibits elements of independent thinking with regard to primary and/or secondary texts but without development or sustained discussion | Provides some limited discussion of independent perspectives on primary and/or secondary works | Shows independent thinking through sustained critical evaluations of primary and/or secondary literature |
| Writing quality | Poorly organized or replete with intrusive sentence-level and typographical errors | Passably organized, but with some abrupt transitions and sentence-level and/or typographical errors | Organized and less fluid, with few abrupt transitions and sentence-level errors, and a minimum of typographical errors | Well-organized and fluid, with no sentence-level errors, and a minimum of typographical errors |
Ph.D. Dissertation Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
| Learning Outcome #1 Demonstrates an expert-level understanding of the major periods, trends, authors, and texts that comprise the Western and non-Western literary, linguistic, and/or rhetorical traditions. | |||||
| Aspects Assessed | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Significantly Below Standards | Below Standards | Meets Standards | Exceeds Standards | Significantly Exceeds Standards | |
| Awareness of historical, artistic, theoretical, and/or cultural contexts and influences upon the subject matter | The writer fails to situate the dissertation’s topic within the topic’s historical, artistic, theoretical, or cultural contexts | The writer situates the dissertation’s topic within the topic’s historical, artistic, theoretical, or cultural contexts, but does not discuss the influence of those contexts on the topic | Writer expertly situates the dissertation’s topic within the topic’s historical, artistic, theoretical, or cultural contexts, and develops nuanced discussion of the influence of those contexts | ||
| Participates in or questions the scholarship on relevant literary, filmic, rhetorical, critical, and/or linguistic traditions (as applicable) | Writer does not attempt to contribute to or question the scholarship on relevant literary, filmic, rhetorical, critical, and/or linguistic traditions (as applicable) | Writer discusses the scholarship on relevant literary, filmic, rhetorical, critical, and/or linguistic traditions (as applicable), but does not make a significant independent contribution to scholarly discourse in the field of study | Writer expertly discusses the scholarship on relevant literary, filmic, rhetorical, critical, and/or linguistic traditions (as applicable), and makes a significant independent contribution to scholarly discourse in the field of study | ||
| Learning Outcome #2 Produce a dissertation-length, original analysis of a text or texts that rests upon significant research and is of sufficient quality to be considered for publication by a vetted academic press. | |||||
| Aspects Assessed | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Significantly Below Standards | Below Standards | Meets Standards | Exceeds Standards | Significantly Exceeds Standards | |
| Grammar & Punctuation; Structure; Usage & Diction; Argumentation | Significant number of mechanical errors and/or misspellings; sentence-level structure is unclear; paragraphs lack cohesion; intelligibility of prose is limited; relies heavily on idiomatic expressions; use of phrases and wording that are inappropriate in an academic context; macro-level structure is disjointed; presence of logical fallacies; lack of evidence to support argument; claims are contradictory | Few mechanical errors; sentence-level structure is grammatically appropriate; basic- and macro-level structure may be discerned; usage is appropriate for academic context; diction is varied; provides effective evidence; few contradictory claims or logical fallacies | Prose is engaging and motivates audience to read; no grammatical errors, wide variety of sentence structures are used correctly; document flows well and argument can be clearly traced; diction is varied and appropriate for academic context; evidence is detailed and persuasive; sophisticated and persuasive strategies of argumentation; no contradictory claims or logical fallacies | ||
| Extent and quality of research | Gaps in the review of criticism; Bibliography and/or Works Cited incomplete and/or missing major relevant primary and/or secondary works, as appropriate | Review of criticism shows breadth and depth of research; Bibliography and/or Works Cited includes major and some minor primary and/or secondary works, as appropriate | Review of criticism elegantly and persuasively organized; lengthy Bibliography and/or Works Cited that includes major and many minor primary and/or secondary works, as appropriate | ||
| Ability to analyze and synthesize sources or data into a compelling, extended argument | Poorly organized and/or developed argument; writer shows little ability to analyze and/or synthesize data | Writer creates an argument based upon the analysis and synthesis of sources, but the argument could be more persuasive with closer attention to the analysis and synthesis of the data in the source materials | Writer compellingly argues a thesis based upon close analysis of primary text(s), as appropriate, and synthesis of multiple critical perspectives | ||
| Quality suitable for submission to a peer-reviewed, academic press | Does not meet the standards of a peer-reviewed, academic press | With substantive editing and revising could be accepted for publication by a peer-reviewed, academic press | With minimal editing and revising, could be accepted for publication by a peer-reviewed, academic press | ||
| Learning Outcome #3 Recognize and adhere to the expectations for professional and ethical practices – with a particular emphasis on proper source citation and respect for intellectual property – that are followed by the discipline of English studies (broadly defined). | |||||
| Aspects Assessed | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Significantly Below Standards | Below Standards | Meets Standards | Exceeds Standards | Significantly Exceeds Standards | |
| In-text Citation | Few, if any, citations are present; in-text citations that are present are not formatted correctly; errors in format of in-text citations result in misattribution of sources; citations to sources not found on the Works Cited/Bibliography | In-text citations are present for all references that require them; in-text citations are formatted correctly; errors in format of in-text citation do not result in misattribution of a source | In-text citations are all present and formatted properly | ||
| Works Cited/Bibliography | Works Cited/Bibliography displays any of the following characteristics: Haphazard format; failure to adhere to required citation standards; missing/non-existent sources | All required sources are included; formatting is correct; any formatting errors are minor and do not result in misattribution of sources | Works Cited/Bibliography is complete and formatted properly throughout | ||
| Intellectual Property | Student’s work shows little to no understanding of the essential concepts of intellectual property; often cannot discern between the student’s ideas and sources’ ideas | Student’s work demonstrates a grasp of essential concepts associated with intellectual property and adequately discerns between “common knowledge” and ideas requiring citation | Student’s work demonstrates an understanding of advanced concepts associated with intellectual property such as requirements for citing visual aids and graphics, digital sources, and open access resources | ||
