The literature concentration

 BA with a major in English, Literature Concentration   School:  College of Art & Sciences College of Art & Sciences  Department:  English & Rhetoric English & Rhetoric  Degree Coordinator:  Elaine Whitaker Elaine Whitaker   Degree Mission:  The primary purpose of the major in English is to introduce students to their own literary and linguistic heritage and to acquaint them with representative works of major world writers, and, in the case of the Creative Writing concentration, to foster students* creative skills to enable them to participate as practitioners in that heritage. Such an introduction is made possible by offering them a wide range of courses in English and American literature, including survey, genre, and major-figure courses, as well as survey courses in world literature. Courses in creative and expository writing, the history and structure of the language, critical theory, and composition theory help students sharpen their critical awareness, encourage clarity of thought and expression, and stimulate and develop the creative imagination. In short, the degree in English develops critical thinkers and effective communicators, people whose skills are applicable in a wide range of careers. The major was internationalized in  Degree Goals & Outcome:  Courses in the English major, literature concentration, are designed to fulfill the liberal-arts mission of developing students with inquisitive and analytical minds, a respect for human diversity and individuality, a sense of civic and global responsibility, and sound ethical judgment, as well as preparing students for a wide range of careers. These mission goals are addressed in the following student-learning outcomes for courses taken in pursuit of a degree in English:  *Students can apply understanding of the literary traditions in the English language to the interpretation of text;  *Students can apply understanding of the English linguistic tradition in analysis of text; While every course in the English major may not address all of these outcomes, every course does address one or more. And all of the above outcomes are addressed in full program of study. 

 *Students can demonstrate that knowledge of other world literary traditions has enriched understand of their own;  *Students can apply concepts related to aesthetics, language, and literature in appropriate literary discourse;  *Students can demonstrate an appreciation for creative  imagination in literary discourse;  *Students can apply informed critical awareness in the generation of argument;  Students can demonstrate clarity of thought;  *Students can express themselves in standard academic modes of writing and speech.

 ENGLISH 4900 SYLLABUS  Fall Semester 2010   Course:English 4900: Seminar in Language & Literature  Instructor: Peter M. Carriere, Ph.D.  Office:Arts & Sciences 3-13  Hours:T/Th 11:00-12:00/ W 11:00-12:00/ & by appointment  Telephone:  Required Texts: See attached list   COURSE DESCRIPTION  ENGL 4900 replaces the traditional exit exam at GCSU and is required for the Bachelor’s Degree in English. The focus of the course is on the department’s program goals for students majoring in English with a literature concentration. Assignments are designed to reflect these goals and to require students to demonstrate proficiency in applying them. The goals reflect the department’s focus on helping students acquire tools, strategies, sensitivities, and abilities for applying critical thinking to problems of analysis, interpretation, and the understanding of literary language. The foundation of ENGL 4900 and the focus of the course is on the program goals listed below:   1. Students can apply concepts related to aesthetics, language, and literature in appropriate literary discourse.  2. Students can apply informed critical awareness in the generation of argument.  3. Students can demonstrate clarity of thought.  4. Students can express themselves in standard academic modes of writing and speech.  5. Students can demonstrate an appreciation for the creative imagination in literary discourse.  6. Students can apply understanding of the literary traditions in the English language to the interpretation of texts.  7. Students can apply the understanding of the English linguistic tradition in the analysis of texts.  8. Students can demonstrate that knowledge of other world literary traditions has enriched understanding of their own. 

 #1: Formalist analysis of British poem  #2: Formalist analysis of American poem  #3: Bahktin, Blake, or Modernism applied to Big Sur  #4: Allusions in Big Sur  #5: Popular vs. Serious Fiction “The Swimmer” short story vs. Hollywood version  #6: 2 nd compare/contrast using short stories  #7: Linguistics (etymological history of a word)  #8: Myth & culture Kawabata’s Snow Country  #9: Expanded research paper

 3 Raters were used for assessment of how well our students met our performance standards for each of the 8 department goals.  Raters were chosen who had never taught the course in order to eliminate prejudice for or against the course.  Raters all had PhD’s in Anglo-American literature. All came from the Department of English & Rhetoric.

The assessment of student assignments is on a 1-4 scale. A 4 is the highest level of performance; a 1 is the lowest. Criteria for each level is listed below.  The 4 evaluation indicates the highest level of achievement for the assignment. An assignment receiving this evaluation will be identified by work that clearly shows superior analysis, superior ability to synthesize material from critical and/or literary sources, and superior written presentation.  The 3 evaluation indicates high achievement, but not overall superior achievement. An assignment receiving this evaluation will be identified by work that clearly shows good analysis, good synthesis of material from critical and literary sources, and good presentation.  The 2 evaluation indicates achievement that is either only adequate or is so inconsistent in quality that it cannot be seen as superior or high level work. An assignment receiving this evaluaiton will be identified by work that shows only adequate analysis, adequate synthesis of material from critical and/or literary sources, and adequate presentation. Or the assignment may be inconsistent: of high quality in one area but low quality in another.  1. The 1 evaluation indicates achievement that is mostly inadequate in terms of its analysis, synthesis of material from critical and/or literary sources, and presentation. The evaluator may have to read between the lines to see evidence that analysis and/or synthesis has occurred. Analysis or synthesis may be shallow. The presentation may be unclear and/or weak.

 ONLY 4 ASSIGNMENTS IN THE PORTFOLIO WERE USED TO ASSESS THE 8 GOALS OF THE LITERATURE CONCENTRATION:  Goal # Assignment #2 (formalism)  Goal # Assignment #7 (linguistics)  Goal #3, #6, #8.... Assignment #8 (Snow Country)  Goal #4, #5, #7.....Assignment # 3 (Big Sur)

 FIRST PORTFOLIO EVALUATION  NOTE: Some of the data is missing from the initial assessment of our students' abilities using ENGL We do, however, have the averages of the raters' judgements for all goals.  EVALUATION AVERAGES FOR ENGLISH GOALS Goal 1: Anglo- Ameri- can tra- dition Goal 2: LinguistIc tradi- tion Goal 3: Aesthet- ics, lan- guage & Lit Goal 4: Apprec- iation for creative imagina- tion Goal 5: Informed critical Aware- ness Goal 6: Ability to think clearly Goal 7: Use of correct English Goal 8: Other World literary tradition

Goal 1: Anglo- Ameri- can tra- dition Goal 2: Linguist-ic tradi- tion Goal 3: Aesthet- ics, lan- guage & Lit Goal 4: Apprec- iation for creative imagina- tion Goal 5: Informed critical Aware- ness Goal 6: Ability to think clearly Goal 7: Use of correct English Goal 8: Other World literary tradition SECOND PORTFOLIO EVALUATION 2006 NOTE: Some of the data is missing from the initial assessment of our students' abilities using ENGL We do, however, have the averages of the raters' judgements for all goals. EVALUATION AVERAGES FOR ENGLISH GOALS 2006

 THIRD PORTFOLIO EVALUATION 2008 NOTE: Some of the data is missing from the initial assessment of our students' abilities using ENGL We do, however, have the averages of the raters' judgements for all goals. EVALUATION AVERAGES FOR ENGLISH GOALS 2008 Goal 1: Anglo- Ameri- can tra- dition Goal 2: Linguist-ic tradi- tion Goal 3: Aesthet- ics, lan- guage & Lit Goal 4: Apprec- iation for creative imagina- tion Goal 5: Informed critical Aware- ness Goal 6: Ability to think clearly Goal 7: Use of correct English Goal 8: Other World literary tradition

Course Addressing the Outcome Core Prefix and Number Course Addressing the Outcome Means of Assessing the Outcome Desired Standard of Achievement Results of Assessment Evaluation and Changes Resulting from Assessmen t COURSE #1: Seminar of Language & Literature Assignment number 1. NOTE: The other two courses used for this assessment did not use this course outcome. I am including it here because the low average rating of this item suggested that the assignmment needs modification. ENGL 4900 Program outcomes for the literature concentration in English are the same as the course outcomes for ENGL 4900 because the course was created around the outcomes. This assessment uses Program Outcome #2: Students can apply the understanding of the English linguistic tradition in the analysis of texts. For this outcome, students were required to trace the etymological history of a word, prepare an oral report on their findings, and submit a short essay describing the history of the word, its changes over time, its origins in the language, the length of time it has been part of English, etc. On a scale of 1- 4, with 4 being the highest, students should perform at a level of 3 or above. Student performance on this outcome was measured by 3 raters in the department who had not taught the course. Ratings for 2004, 2006, and 2008 were used. Student names were removed from the essays analyzed. The average Ratings, based on a rating scale of 4-1, with 1 being the lowest are as follows: 2004: : : 2.41 The scores for this outcome were the lowest of all the outcomes used as a foundation for ENGL The low scores became a subject of debate in the department meeting in the fall. While precise reasons for the scores did not emerge from the discussions, one suggestion that everyone seemed to agree to was that the assignment was not challenging enough for our majors. The department is in the process of changing the assignment so that it reflects the complexities of linguistics and requires from students a more challenging response.