Skip to main site navigation
Skip to main content
Switch to text-only view
Switch to default view

Assessment of the undergraduate English program occurs every spring and involves all faculty members who teach courses that count toward the English major and any other interested faculty.   The following describes the assessment procedure. 

1)      If you have not already done so, place electronic copies of your student papers into the assessment holding area, H:\AssessmentHolding.  Instructions on how to do this are here.

2)      The assessment procedure occurs in two steps, involving two meetings:

a)      Calibration meeting:  All participants first read and evaluate a common set of three papers—one for each category of Educational Goals—and then meet in order to calibrate the assessment evaluation criteria.   

b)      Full program assessment meeting:  All participants next read and evaluate an independent set of five papers and then meet in order to discuss the results of this evaluation and implications for the program and for assessment.

3)      For the calibration meeting:

a)      The Director of Assessment will make available the common set of three papers and corresponding assignments by email.

b)      The Director of Assessment will make available the rubrics for evaluating the three papers on the department website.  There is a separate rubric for each category of Educational Goals.

c)      Read each paper and evaluate it according to the Educational Goals using the appropriate rubric; enter your scores on the rubrics.

d)      On the rubric, the “assigned” column pertains to whether the Educational Goal was explicitly targeted by the paper assignment, as indicated by the annotation in the footer of the assignment.  If there is no annotation, just leave this field blank.

e)      On the rubric, the “rating” column is for your evaluation of how well the paper meets each Educational goal.  Use “not applicable” for any goal that does not appear relevant to the pertinent assignment.  Use “weak” if the goal was explicitly targeted but does not appear in the paper.

f)       Take notes on (a) what features of the student writing qualify as evidence of which Educational Goals, and (b) what aspects of these features qualify as strong, competent, or weak evidence of these goals.  Also record any thoughts you have about whether the Educational Goals themselves need any further annotation or revision, or ideas for how the assessment procedure may be improved.

g)      Bring hardcopies of the completed assessment rubrics and your notes to the calibration meeting in early March.

4)      For the full program meeting, the Director of Assessment first moves the student papers in the assessment holding area into the student portfolio archive  The Director of Assessment will then create a folder for each participant in H:\AsssessmentReading and place in each folder a selection of five papers (that were added to the archive that year), along with associated assignments.  Generally, the Director of Assessment will choose papers written by the participants’ respective advisees, but when this isn’t possible, or when a greater variety of papers or students is desirable, the Director will select papers written by other students.  The overall aim of the selection is to represent, proportionally, the range of course types and student GPAs.

a)      The Director of Assessment will make available the rubrics for evaluating the three papers on the department website.  There is a separate rubric for each category of Educational Goals.  You will complete one rubric per paper.

b)      Find the folder designated for you in H:\AssessmentReading.

c)      Read the papers in that folder, and evaluate them according to the Educational Goals using the appropriate rubric; enter your scores on the rubrics.  Be sure, also, to enter the paper number (in the folder name for the paper) on the rubric.

d)      On the rubric, the “assigned” column pertains to whether the Educational Goal was explicitly targeted by the paper assignment, as indicated by the annotation in the footer of the assignment.  If there is no annotation, just leave this field blank.

e)      On the rubric, the “rating” column is for your evaluation of how well the paper meets each Educational goal.  Use “not applicable” for any goal that does not appear relevant to the pertinent assignment.  Use “weak” if the goal was explicitly targeted by the assignment but does not appear in the paper.

f)       Take notes on (a) your overall impression of how well the student papers are meeting the Educational Goals, (b) your sense of how well the Educational Goals are covered by the papers, (c) thoughts about whether the Educational Goals themselves need any further annotation or revision, and (d) ideas for how the assessment procedure may be improved.

g)      Bring hardcopies of the completed assessment rubrics and your notes to the full program assessment meeting in late March.