Notes on assessment in the English Department The problems: Although our discipline is organized around a very large body of content knowledge, what we most value is developing students’ ways of thinking rather than their descriptive knowledge of content Defining what we want students to learn in terms of concrete, measurable outcomes requires us to oversimplify core knowledge and narrow our focus in ways that violate the divergent, open-ended, contested nature of our discipline The kinds of complex learning that we value resist measurement through traditional tools; learning in the Humanities is fundamentally qualitative and performative Most Humanities scholars question the value of quantitative data and doubt claims of objective truth; this adds to our resistance to traditional forms of assessment, which seem to offer little useful data and to operate in ways that do not fit our worldviews We worry that systematic strategies for analyzing qualitative data, such as coding or rubrics, leave out the nuances, “between the lines” and “against the grain” insights, and surprises that we most value; to put it differently, we believe that the meanings and patterns of texts emerge through the reading process and should not be imposed a priori The kinds of data that we most value – written texts – can be extremely time-consuming to evaluate We are highly individualistic; because our discipline values divergence, we are even more committed than most college faculty to the idea that we have the right to teach however we wish A general aversion to external requirements and a sense that official bodies – state legislatures, accrediting organizations, even our own administrations – don’t understand or value what we do makes us resistant to assessment in general, and this attitudes makes it difficult to engage faculty in any assessment activity that is either unpleasant or does not directly benefit us Opportunities: The humanities cultivate strong critical reading skills and the ability to develop arguments based on qualitative analysis, usually of some specific problem or text; as scholars, we can apply our disciplinary reading and analysis skills to students’ texts We view written texts as representations of people’s thinking; a good critical reading of a text can tell us much about the nature and quality of the author’s thinking Our students generate written work that provides evidence of their thinking skills as well as their understanding of the materials and concepts of the field, and we review this work as a normal part of the teaching process We value conversation and argument as strategies for generating and evaluating knowledge; we don’t trust rubrics or other seemingly-objective measures because we see knowledge as socially-constructed and inherently subjective We are generally engaged in teaching, interested in improving our teaching, and happy to talk with each other about teaching An assessment method that helps us improve our teaching will be judged as worthwhile by many English faculty What we need to learn through the assessment process: How to articulate the learning outcomes of an English major; one of our challenges is that we are not accustomed to describing our work in these terms – rather than doing this first, I would propose that we articulate outcomes as we examine and discuss students’ work How much agreement and variation exists about learning goals and pedagogy; while we have informal conversations about teaching, we don’t have a means for working together or comparing notes, and we cannot make collective decisions about how to have an effective program if we don’t have shared knowledge about how we teach and how we think about teaching – note that this need not mean consensus; it does mean mutual understanding (rather than assumptions) What others are doing that works well What “working well” looks like; what does it look like when students are learning the ways of thinking that we value? How well our assignments fit with our learning goals, and how well our teaching strategies prepare students to do those assignments What difficulties our students encounter, and what we can do to address those difficulties What our students learn most successfully, and why What most of our students do after they graduate How students view their own experiences; we hear anecdotal reports, but we don’t know how representative they are How to respond effectively to the needs of students from different programs or with different emphases – English ed vs. preparation from graduate student vs. professional writing, etc. What we need: Forms of assessment built around analyzing students’ written work rather than tests; we need to use our existing analytical skills rather than trying to become insufficient social scientists or educational researchers Strategies for collecting, reviewing, and analyzing students’ work that are manageable, intentional, and reflective Strategies for assessment that help us improve our teaching and provide opportunities for us to have productive conversations about teaching and learning Strategies for assessment that engage students in thinking critically about their own learning A two-part strategy: Student e-portfolios, in which they would collect samples of their work, write reflectively about their own work, and discuss the connections between their coursework, other experiences, and their goals Students would comment directly on how well they are achieving the goals of the major, and they would support their self-assessment with concrete examples from their experiences and their work Students would begin building these portfolios in the gateway course, Introduction to Literary Studies, and complete them during the Senior Seminar The Assessment Committee would review a sample of these each year, identifying patterns that suggest areas of strength as well as concerns for the department to discuss Collaborative faculty course portfolios, in which small groups of faculty who teach the same course or type of course (surveys, capstones) discuss learning goals, teaching strategies, and examples of student work; faculty teams would also identify problems to address, questions to explore, and areas of strength for their courses Each year, a few faculty would work together to complete a collaborative course portfolio on one course or set of courses; this would distribute participation in and responsibility for assessment across the department These teams would not necessarily develop common syllabi, although they could choose to do so, nor would they require everyone to teach in the same way; rather, they would discuss their strategies, examine student work to define both the qualities of appropriate learning and to evaluate how well their courses are working, and identify strategies that work especially well One member would coordinate each team, taking responsibility for calling meetings, constructing the portfolio (from material written by team members), and consulting with the assessment coordinator about using the course portfolio process The Department’s assessment coordinator would guide the team through the process, oversee the review of student e-portfolios, and serve as the Department’s liaison with the Assessment office and the College Assessment council Challenges: Finding effective ways to fit student portfolio-building into our courses Determining a manageable and meaningful strategy for reviewing student portfolios Exploring connections among courses without erasing the distinct roles of courses of different kinds; can the findings of one course portfolio team become resources for subsequent teams? Developing leadership so that the process is not dependent on one person’s commitment and knowledge; can we set up a succession plan, so that the person who coordinates the team during one year becomes the Assessment Coordinator the next year? Or could we identify early on someone who would agree to take over the role of Assessment Coordinator after two years and who would begin “training” now? Building trust and protecting individual choice; we need to set up the course portfolio process in a way that encourages faculty to share their ideas and does not force anyone to teach in ways to which they object –- making the process collaborative and persuasive rather than coercive Determining the best technical format for online portfolios and training department members and students to use it well