English Assessment Report 2023 - 2024 (Graduate Programs)

Academic Year Assessed

2023 - 2024

Program(s) Assessed

Major:  English of Masters of Arts (MA) and English Masters of English Education (MAEE)

• Past Assessment Summary. Briefly summarize the findings from the last assessment report conducted related to the PLOs being assessed this year. Include any findings that influenced this cycle’s assessment approach. Alternatively, reflect on the program assessment conducted last year, and explain how that impacted or informed any changes made to this cycle’s assessment plan.

This is the first assessment of the graduate program since the year zero assessment.

•  Action Research Question. What question are you seeking to answer in this cycle’s assessment?

MA: How well are students demonstrating their reading, understanding, and synthesizing their research in their papers submitted for their degree?

MAEE: How have writers situated themselves within the field of English Education and/or literacy studies in their papers submitted for their degree? 

•  Assessment Plan, Schedule, and Data Source(s).
  • Please provide a multi-year assessment schedule that will show when all program learning outcomes will be assessed, and by what criteria (data).

• • What are the threshold values for which your program demonstrates student achievement?

What Was Done

Self-reporting Metric: Was the completed assessment consistent with the program’s assessment plan? If not, please explain the adjustments that were made.                               

       Yes                                                        

How were data collected and analyzed and by whom? Please include method of collection and sample size.

• • MA: Data were collected by the members of the graduate committee, who sought all the papers from the previous two years (in that time, there were three MA students completing).  They were only able to find two of those papers, however, and have based their assessment on those two papers.
  • MAEE: Two papers from each of the previous two years were chosen.

Please provide a rubric that demonstrates how your data were evaluated.

What Was Learned

Based on the analysis of the data, and compared to the threshold values established, what was learned from the assessment?

English Masters of Arts

• • • Professional paper 1 demonstrated that the writer had met the expectations of the program. It used relevant methodologies, theories and frameworks, but was not organized in a manner that developed the textual connections and cross-interpretations. While it met the standard, it did not exceed the expectations.

      Professional paper 2 exceeded the expectations of this PLO. It focused on a musical analysis, blending together musical lyrics, musicality, and critical texts in a way that offered careful exploration of the ways that a music scene evolved in a particular way. The writer included as one means of exploring the text his own personal experience and perspective in a way which illuminated the disciplinary networks.

English Masters of English Education

• • • Professional paper 1 exceeded the expectations by using several up-to-date methodologies, synthesizing multiple theories, showing a deep and engaged attention to disciplinary texts. Relevant, critical, and deeply researched.

    • Professional paper 2 exceeded expectations. It presents original empirical research on LGBTQ students in rural Montana high school. The paper includes a thorough lit review that draws clear connections and creates intersectionality. Strong empirical research demonstrated with a complex and emotionally wrought subject matter, handled professionally but with incredible empathy. Extremely impressive.

    • Professional paper 3 exceeded expectations. The paper demonstrated complex theoretical writing that took the abstract and makes it quite practical. It attempted to undermine the logics of canonical texts in classrooms by arguing for the need to include the literary works of People of Color into Montana’s public schools. The paper’s focus on praxis demonstrates how master’s research extends beyond MSU and into the secondary classroom.

    • Professional paper 4 exceeded expectations. It explored the literature surrounding student support at the community college level, seeking to highlight how instructors and programs could identify gaps and needs and address them in practice. It recognized the challenges the community college students and faculty face, based on close analysis of one community college in specific, and it offered cogent and practical means of addressing those challenges institutionally.

What areas of strength in the program were identified from this assessment process?

English Masters of Arts:  We see that our students are performing relatively strongly in this PLO. They are using a wide variety of primary and secondary texts and critical/theoretical texts to perform their analysis.

English Masters of English Education: Our students are doing deep and extensive research and demonstrate a complex understanding of the relevant disciplines and the value of their own analysis within them.

What areas were identified that either need improvement or could be improved in a different way from this assessment process?

Most notably, we learned that we were not doing well enough in the transition from paper copies of students texts, because we were unable to locate one of the papers in question. While this was disappointing, we have since created a system in the department that will ensure this does not happen again, and that will make our papers more accessible to students and faculty in the program. We also learned that our assessment at the graduate program works most effectively when handled by the graduate committee. We also were able, in the conversation, to look ahead to other PLOs and think more critically about whether we have met those standards and how we should organize classes and curriculum to do that more effectively. (For example, one PLO calls for students to engage in activities that connect their scholarship to the public, and we realized that we need to make that priority more central in our program.) The conversation led to a thoughtful reflection on the PLOs in both programs, with a future conversation pending about whether they should be revised in any way. .

How We Responded

Describe how “What Was Learned” was communicated to the department, or program How did faculty discussions re-imagine new ways program assessment might contribute to program growth/improvement/innovation beyond the bare minimum of achieving program learning objectives through assessment activities conducted at the course level?

• • The conversation about the PLOs within the graduate committee was one of the most engaged assessment sessions I have been involved in, raising thoughtful questions and ideas. The graduate coordinator and the chair of the assessment committee will present the results of this assessment to the full department in the November faculty meeting.

How are the results of this assessment informing changes to enhance student learning in the program?

• • They have made us organize the handling of student work more effectively and have helped us begin to create better curricular coherence and faculty-wide attention to PLO expectations.

If information outside of this assessment is informing programmatic change, please describe that.

• • NA

What support and resources (e.g. workshops, training, tec.) might you need to make these adjustments?

• • We are always interested in learning about how graduate programs in the humanities are evolving in ways that address the changing professional needs and ambitions of students. Workshops with the American Association of Departments of English would be especially helpful in this regard.

Closing the Loop

Reflect on the program learning outcomes, how they were assessed in the previous cycle (refer to #1 of the report), and what was learned in this cycle.  What action will be taken to improve student learning objectives going forward?

Self-Reporting Metric (required answer):  Based on the findings and/or faculty input, will there be any curricular or assessment changes (such as plans for measurable improvements, or realignment of learning outcomes)?

• • • Yes.  Not huge ones, but we’ll work to address the PLOs across the graduate faculty more particularly and focus on how our classes are designed and linked to develop the outcomes we expect from our students and our program.

In reviewing the last report that assessed the PLO(s) in this assessment cycle, what changes proposed were implemented and will be measured in future assessment reports?

• • • We are in the first assessment after year zero.

Have you seen a change in student learning based on other program adjustments made in the past? Please describe the adjustments made and subsequent changes in student learning.

• • • We’ve been revising the curriculum and class designs to better prepare students for the theoretical and critical scholarship they will need to engage in their papers. We’re seeing this giving our students a deeper facility with using these texts for their inquiry and analyses.