Closing the loop 2007

Student Learning Outcome Assessed:

Be able to write an essay that supports an interpretive thesis that is clearly supported.

Desired Outcome:

Successful Senior Thesis Projects should reveal the following goals and objectives:

Goals: The student will be able to

• Demonstrate analytical, critical, and communication skills (Objectives 1-8).
• Demonstrate the ability to read closely and argue persuasively (Objectives 5, 6, 7, 8).
• Demonstrate the ability to conduct research in the field of English (Objectives 1-6).
• Develop an appreciation for literary art and an awareness of the way that artistic expression is a vehicle for understanding the human experience (Objectives 6, 7, 8).

Objectives: Students will

• Develop knowledge of standard writing conventions.
• Develop flexible strategies for generating, revising, editing, and proofreading.
• Understand the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes.
• Demonstrate the ability to use appropriate documentation and citation.
• Be able to write an essay with a well-supported thesis and purpose clear to the reader.
• Make connections between literary texts and their historical and cultural contexts.
• Demonstrate an understanding of a text’s technical merits and its emotional impact.
• Recognize the ways in which literature expresses and confronts moral, ethical, economic, social, and political issues.

Data Collection:

Senior theses were evaluated using the following criteria:

• A Range (A-, A, A+) • An original and lively thesis that is at least partially successful. Thesis is argumentative and controversial, sensitive to the text and its contexts, working against a strong counterargument into the heart of the text and enriches the reader's appreciation of its artistic significance. Inventive or even simply sound choice and use of secondary materials. Strong evidence of having considered and re-considered both text and paper drafts. Plentiful and to-the-point close readings (but no lengthy quotations). Lively and grammatically correct prose. Strong sense of paragraphing, structure, logic and audience. Proper manuscript format, including notes and works cited list.
• B Range (B-, B, B+) • Original thesis that is partially successful, but is either under-ambitious or logically flawed. Contention with challenging counterargument. Sound use of secondary materials. Evidence of familiarity with nuances of the text. Evidence of multiple revision. Standard use of English (no more than, say, three errors per page). Some insightful close readings. Logical paragraphing. Good manuscript format.
• C Range (C-, C, C+) • Interpretive thesis, but one that is obvious, superficial, or not especially relevant to the core of the text's artistic meaning. Contention with counterargument unsuccessful or absent, or contention with weak counterargument. Minimal but relevant use of secondary sources. Mostly standard English (three to seven errors per page). Some references to text (not to plot). Inclusion of mostly proper notes and work cited list. Some sense of methodology, paragraphing. Evidence of some revision.
• D Range (D-, D, D+) • Thesis that is descriptive, illogical, provable (factual), obvious, or insignificant. No counterargument noted or implied. Minimal and/or irrelevant use of secondary sources. Substandard use of language (typos or errors exceeding seven per page consistently). No notes. Improper works cited list. No clear sense of methodology. No evidence of having sufficiently familiarized oneself with the text. Little evidence of revision. Improper manuscript format.
• F Range • Papers that lack thesis, that are grammatically unreadable, that are not research papers, or that lack evidence of familiarity with the text.

The second evaluation instrument was based on students’ evaluations of the course.

Following students’ oral defenses of their papers, faculty met for a final assessment of students’ papers, to review courses offered to support the senior thesis, and to discuss potential changes in program instruction and offerings.

Interpretation of the Data:

• ENG 499 course. ENG 499 as a class was implemented Spring 2003 to provide, alongside the senior thesis director, a support system for students working on their senior thesis. The department has a higher rate of completed capstone projects since the class implementation. Alongside this, the course has been particularly successful in meeting Objectives 2 and 3. No patterns of improved papers as a result of implementing the class have been determined. Student evaluations typically praise the peer group workshops and other collaborative projects as part of the class, and ask for more peer group workshops.
• Courses for English majors. Courses for English majors typically focus on close readings of texts with little or no research required. This focus allows students to hone critical thinking and interpretative skills and develop confidence in their academic voice. As a result of this emphasis, students are often not prepared to write the senior thesis because of its heavy research emphasis. Student evaluations of ENG 499 often state that previous literature courses did not prepare them sufficiently to write their thesis.

Changes to implement:

Courses should be modified to include more research-based papers, particularly if the department continues the present requirement of the senior thesis.