Master of Arts in English

• Graduate Certificates

  Students completing the Rhetoric and Writing Studies Graduate Certificate will:

  • LO1: Gather, analyze, and communicate information and insights creatively and critically
  • LO2: Cultivate skills in close reading, critical thinking, creative expression, and persuasive writing
  • LO3: Understand and apply various theoretical perspectives and discipline-specific terminology to interpretations of texts and/or analysis of data
  • LO4: Acknowledge and articulate the significance of key text(s) in specific genres, periods, cultures, styles, or theoretical perspectives
  • LO5: Demonstrate knowledge of current scholarship and practices
  • LO6: Employ discipline-specific conventions and protocols for written or multimodal presentations

   

• Associate Degree (Not Applicable)

   

• Graduate Degree

  Students completing the Master of Arts in English will:

  LO1: Gather, analyze, and communicate information and insights creatively and critically
  LO2: Cultivate skills in close reading, critical thinking, creative expression, and persuasive writing
  LO3: Understand and apply various theoretical perspectives and discipline-specific terminology to interpretations of texts and/or analysis of data
  LO4: Acknowledge and articulate the significance of key text(s) in specific genres, periods, cultures, styles, or theoretical perspectives
  LO5: Demonstrate knowledge of current scholarship and practices
  LO6: Employ discipline-specific conventions and protocols for written or multimodal presentations

  Students completing the Master of Arts in English Literature Emphasis will:

  1. Gather, analyze, and communicate information and insights critically.
  2. Closely read and analyze texts within historical contexts and critical frameworks.
  3. Apply theoretical and critical perspectives in their own writings.
  4. Apply current scholarship and practice in their own writings.
  5. Employ discipline-specific terminology and conventions in their written, oral, and/or multimodal presentations.

  For the Master of Arts in English Creative Writing Emphasis, students will demonstrate:

  1. The ability to gather, analyze, and communicate information and insights critically.
  2. The ability to closely read and analyze texts within historical contexts and critical frameworks.
  3. A highly developed and honed voice, as evident in polished and professional creative works.
  4. An understanding of their aesthetic place in the continuum of literary traditions.
  5. Sophisticated revision and editing tactics.

  Students completing the Master of Arts in English Literature Emphasis will:

  1. Gather, analyze, and communicate information and insights critically.
  2. Closely read and analyze texts within historical contexts and critical frameworks.
  3. Apply theoretical and critical perspectives in their own writings.
  4. Apply current scholarship and practice in their own writings.
  5. Employ discipline-specific terminology and conventions in their written, oral, and/or multimodal presentations.
   

The Master of Arts in English program provides advanced education in the English discipline, with tracks in creative writing, literature, TESOL, and teaching, and a certificate in rhetoric and writing. We offer small class sizes providing personal contact with faculty and staff, evening and online classes providing access for working adults, and numerous funding opportunities. The MA program affords students professionalizing opportunities in teaching and research, preparation for further study, and a variety of career pathways, in an environment that is student-centered, encourages free expression, and values diverse identities and ideas.

Contact Information:

Dr. David Hartwig, graduate program director
Kate Johnson Lyons, program administrative specialist
Weber State University
1395 Edvalson, dept. 1404
Ogden, UT 84408-1404
Elizabeth Hall, rm. 413
801-626-7179
masterofenglish@weber.edu

The MA Steering Committee evaluates all syllabi the semester prior to a course being offered, emphasizing the scope and focus of the course, the quality, quantity, and currency of course readings, the clarity of the relationship between course assignments and the course learning outcomes, the workload, and compliance with university guidelines on syllabi.
Students in their final semester submit the final paper from the 6010: Intro to Graduate Studies course, which is their report on the research project they designed and implemented in that course, and is written to be delivered at a scholarly, professional, or creative conference. Additionally, students submit a portfolio of three additional written products of their choosing which are representative of their work in the program. The MA Steering Committee assesses all of these artifacts each fall against the program learning outcomes.
The program asks students to report on all publications they achieve that began as academic work in the program. This can include review articles, work delivered at scholarly, professional, and/or creative conferences and symposia, creative publications, and scholarly articles. The program emphasizes the importance of publication to the success of graduate students, and has the goal of encouraging students to publish at increasing frequency and in high-quality outlets.

• 2021-2022

  1) Review and comment on the trend of minority students enrolling in your classes (particularly lower-division, GEN Ed) and in your programs. 

  We have seen an increase in students identifying as minority students in the past two years, particularly students from minoritized ethnic populations, non-traditional students (although this has long been the case for our graduate program), and students who identify as LGBTQIA+. We offer a diversity scholarship of $500 per semester to students who apply, represent diversity, and have unmet financial need. We have managed to retain and graduate nearly all of these students in the past two years, only losing one who decided to transfer to a program at another institution after their first year.

  2) What support (from enrollment services, advising, first-year transition office, access & diversity, etc.) do you need to help you recruit and retain students?

  Any support we can get in terms of recruiting students would be wonderful. Currently, the entirety of our recruitment efforts have been conducted by the program faculty and staff.

  3) We have invited you to re-think your program assessment. What strategies are you considering? What support or help would you like?

  We have already begun to implement a more holistic assessment process. Firstly, the revision of our LOs to be emphasis-specific will help provide stronger feedback to the program faculty regarding our curricular successes. We will continue to do LO-based program assessment utilizing 6010 and portfolios as we have done for the past two years. Secondly, we continue to assess courses before they are offered through our syllabus review process. This has been very successful in encouraging faculty to engage with the most recent and most relevant research in their respective sub-fields as learning materials for our graduate students. Finally, we consider student publication to be an essential element of our program. We have begun asking students to self-report their success in publication to the program, and are encouraging faculty to work with students on co-authored projects. These will be the three pillars of our self-assessment going forward: LO assessment, syllabi review, and student-authored publication.

  4) Finally, we are supporting our Concurrent Enrollment accreditation process. Does your program offer concurrent enrollment classes? If so, have you been able to submit the information requested from the Concurrent Enrollment office? Staff from OIE will reach out to you in the next few months to assist in finalizing that data submission as well as gather information for concurrent Gen Ed assessment.

  Not applicable.
   

  The full report is available for viewing.

• 2019-2020
   
• 2017

  1) Based on your program’s assessment findings, what subsequent action will your program take?                                                    

  • 2017-18: Share the assessment data with MENG faculty, encouraging them to take measures, so students achieve threshold in LOs where they seem to lag.  Use the revised rubric and emphasize norming, perhaps spend more time in norming session to reach agreement on the meaning of outcomes, particularly LO 3.
  • 2018-19: Depending on the results of 2017-18, gather faculty input regarding their interpretation of LO 3 and other outcomes if the Steering deems necessary. Revise the LOs based on faculty input and revise the assessment rubric used in norming.
  • 2019-20: Implement the revised LOs and use the revised rubric for next few cycles, and take appropriate measures to ensure the LOs align with course objectives and faculty consensus on the interpretation of the outcomes.
     

  2) We are interested in better understanding how departments/programs assess their graduating seniors or graduate students. Please provide a short narrative describing the practices/curriculum in place for your department/program. Please include both direct and indirect measures employed. Finally, what were your findings from this past year’s graduates?

  3) At regular intervals, we conduct surveys with our existing students to assess their interest in new areas of study, mode of instruction delivery, preference among the three Weber campuses, and other issues.  The survey results helps to make changes accommodating the needs of students.

  • At the end of each semester, the Steering Committee reviews syllabi for all our courses to ensure leaning outcomes are incorporated, and rigorous and consistent expectations regarding reading and writing are included across all courses.
  • Course evaluations are done at the end of each semester.
  • Exit interviews are done with the graduating students every semester.
  • The last exit interview of graduating students with the program director was done Spring 2017.  Questions regarding the strength and weakness of the program revealed highest satisfaction among the students in terms of variety of course offerings, quality of learning, and faculty excellence.     
  • All these initiatives continue to drive improvement initiatives at the individual class and program level

  The full report is available.

• 2016

  1) Reflecting on this year’s assessment(s), how does the evidence of student learning impact your faculty’s confidence in the program being reviewed; how does that analysis change when compared with previous assessment evidence?

  We assessed the learning outcomes we defined. We met learning outcomes 1, 2, 5, and 6.  Meeting outcomes 3 and 4 seems surprisingly elusive.  We need to identify the underlying issue(s) and appropriate measures to remedy the situation.  These issues do not, in any way, diminish our confidence in the program. Here are the reasons:

  • All students must do an exit review with the program director. These exit interviews are an opportunity for students to provide the director with constructive criticism and positive feedback.
  • We meet student needs by creating opportunities for them to do directed readings, thesis, and creative writing projects.  We also provide excellent professional development opportunities in teaching, research, publication of journals, and internships.
  • Our course evaluations are reviewed by the individual faculty member, the program director, the chair and the program assistant to identify areas for improvement within individual classes and across courses.
  • The Steering Committee individual syllabus review ensures all 5000-level and 6000-level syllabi include the MENG learning outcomes.
  • We anticipate 12 students graduating in the 2016-17 academic year.  Nine of these students will complete the thesis/project option.  The current tool used for assessment may need to be revised.  Only students who do not complete a thesis/project submit artifacts for the portfolio.

   

  2) With whom did you share the results of the year’s assessment efforts?

  • These findings will be shared with the MENG Steering Committee Nov. 20, 2016 and with the faculty at the next Department Meeting. The Program Director will share the details with faculty members who are currently teaching in the program by the end of November.  Sharing this information with the faculty at this time may indirectly turn out to be beneficial as students begin to work on their final papers around this time.   

   

  3) Based on your program’s assessment findings, what subsequent action will your program take?

  • The Steering Committee will continue to review syllabi for all our courses to make ensure learning outcomes are incorporated in them.  
  • MENG consistently meets learning outcomes 1, 2, 5, and 6.  The Steering Committee will discuss measures necessary to meet the threshold for outcomes 3 and 4.  Drawing faculty attention to meeting the two learning outcomes and proving better norming session for the review of artifacts in Spring 2017. 
  • Working with Dr. Scott Rogers, MENG will design a rubric that clearly defines Strong, Adequate, and Inadequate.  Dr. Rogers has extensive experience assessing the WSU Composition Program and MENG will tap into his expertise to improve.
  • The onus of assessment has fallen to the MENG Steering Committee.  After consulting with OIE, MENG may petition their office for funds to experiment with hiring readers to assist with the assessment review of artifacts.
  • Surveys, focus groups, exit interviews with students, and course evaluations will continue to drive improvement initiatives at the individual class and program level. 

   

  Please note:  MENG revised the learning outcomes to better aligned with the program objectives.  These revised outcomes were implemented in the Fall 2016 syllabi review.  Spring 2017 artifacts will be based on the revised outcomes.   Here is the list of revised outcomes to update the OIE website for the 2016-17 assessment.

  LO 1:  Gather, analyze, and communicate information and insights creatively and critically.
  LO 2:  Cultivate skills in close reading, critical thinking, creative expression, and persuasive writing.
  LO 3:  Understand and apply various theoretical perspectives and discipline-specific terminology to interpretations of texts and /or analysis of data.
  LO 4:  Acknowledge and articulate the significance of key text(s) in specific genres, periods, cultures, styles, or theoretical perspectives.
  LO 5:  Demonstrate knowledge of current scholarship and practices.
  LO 6:  Employ discipline-specific conventions and protocols for written or multimodal presentations.

  The full report is available for viewing.

• 2015

  1) Reflecting on this year’s assessment(s), how does the evidence of student learning impact your faculty’s confidence in the program being reviewed; how does that analysis change when compared with previous assessment evidence?

  • We assessed the learning outcomes we defined and are confident we are reaching our goals both at the course level and program-wide, because:
  • We have done assessment of the artifacts as discussed in this report; the result indicate that we are reaching our goals;
  • All students must do an exit review with the program director. These exit interviews are an opportunity for students to suggest improvements, make recommendations, and let the director know what is going well;
  • We are receptive to student needs; supported by the 20 students in MENG 6830 courses.  We also offered MENG 6005 Intercultural Discourse and MENG 6710 Reading Seminar in American History at the request of students.
  • Our course evaluations are reviewed by the individual faculty member, the program director, and the program assistant to identify areas for improvement within individual classes and across courses;
  • The Steering Committee individual syllabus review ensures all 5000-level and 6000-level syllabi for every semester include the MENG learning outcomes, and that the workload is consistent with the MENG expectation of 3-4 hours of work outside of class for every 1 hour in class, among other items.

   

  2) With whom did you share the results of the year’s assessment efforts?

  • We shared the results of the BOR Program Assessment with the Dean and all English Faculty and discussed the findings in depth with the Steering Committee.

   

  3) Based on your program’s assessment findings, what subsequent action will your program take?

  • Some faculty are resistant to the review of syllabi.  Strong support from the BOR Program Review Team have reinforced the need for this to continue.
  • Actively participate in the discussion and revision of the undergraduate Literary and Textual Studies as it will impact the 5000-level courses available to MENG students.
  • Surveys, focus groups, exit interviews with students, and course evaluations will continue to drive improvement initiatives at the individual class and program level.
  • Course evaluations moved to chi tester; response rate decline dramatically, but we are getting good feedback on the evaluations that are completed.

   

  The full report is available for viewing.

• 2014

  The English Department conducted a 5 year program review with full self-study during the spring of 2014. Those results are presented in place of the Annual Assessment. Please reference those documents for information that includes data for the 2013/14 academic year.

• 2013
   

  1) Reflecting on this year’s assessment(s), how does the evidence of student learning impact your faculty’s confidence in the program being reviewed; how does that analysis change when compared with previous assessment evidence?

  • We assessed the learning outcomes we defined and are confident we are reaching our goals both at the course level and program-wide, because:
  • We have done assessment of the artifacts as discussed in this report; the result indicate that we are reaching our goals;
  • All students must do an exit review with the program director. These exit interviews are an opportunity for students to suggest improvements, make recommendations, and let the director know what is going well;
  • We are receptive to student needs; as mentioned in this report, students petitioned to have a critical theory class and we set one up for fall 2013 with 12 students enrolled;
  • Our course evaluations are reviewed by the individual faculty member, the program director, and the program assistant to identify areas for improvement within individual classes and across courses;
  • The Steering Committee individual syllabus review ensures all 6000-level syllabi for every semester include the MENG learning outcomes, and that the workload is consistent with the MENG expectation of 3-4 hours of work outside of class for every 1 hour in class, among other items. I think this has worked very well and we are seeing the results in specific areas of the course evaluations.

   

  2) With whom did you share the results of the year’s assessment efforts?

  • We shared the results of the 2012-13 assessment efforts with the MENG Steering Committee. 
  • I can see that it would be valuable to share this detailed information with all faculty teaching in the MENG program. We did share the following assessment-related information at the end-of-the year English Department Meeting.
  • Revamped MENG Directed Readings Proposal Form, MENG Thesis Proposal Form, and MENG Projects Proposal form to inject more planning, accountability and rigor into these endeavors.
  • Changed MENG policy to require that all students choosing the MENG Project option complete at least two creative writing courses prior to beginning work on a Project.
  • Required all syllabi to be reviewed every semester; steering reviewed 20+ syllabi this year. Reviews helped standardize amount of work required of students across courses and also helped integrate MENG learning outcomes into all MENG courses.
  • Initiated a feasibility study for the MENG TESOL Program with outside consultants.
  • Conducted exit interviews with graduating MENG students as part of ongoing assessment projects.
  • Refocused MENG 6010 “Research and Bibliography” class to more accurately reflect the catalog course description and changed the name to “Introduction to Graduate Studies”; began requiring it in the first or second semester of study.
  • Added new team-taught MENG 6030: Studies in Literary Theory and Criticism in response to student requests. 
  • Did assessment of MENG 6010.

   

  3) Based on your program’s assessment findings, what subsequent action will your program take?

  • We still need to get the MENG learning outcomes into all the 5000-level syllabi. This is perhaps our #1 priority for spring 2014. We are trying to get more systematic assessment in place. We now have faculty buy in to this process of including the learning outcomes at the 6000 level. We will work this spring to do the same for 5000-level courses. Some faculty are resistant to these efforts. 
  • Revisit curriculum discussions—perhaps about creative writing & graduation requirements. 
  • Explore assessment for the MENG courses scheduled by MED.
  • Exit interviews with students and course evaluations will continue to drive improvement initiatives at the individual class and program level. 
  • Course evaluations are moving online to chi tester; we will monitor to see if we get enough information and enough responses as compared to the paper system.

  
  To access the complete report, select this link: Master of English, 2013 Annual Assessment Report

2014-15