During the past year, the professional success of our English graduate students was shown by the fact that graduates continue to be accepted to respectable PhD and MFA programs; during the reporting period, graduates were accepted to terminal programs at Oklahoma State University and the University of Memphis. Our students have also entered professions including teaching, editing, business, law, and professional communications. Along with such successes, twenty graduate assistantships that we are able to offer for qualified graduate students make the program attractive; however, an increased graduate stipend would significantly raise the quality of the already relatively qualified graduate students. Comprehensive examinations that are administered three times a year ensure that the knowledge base of our graduating students is broad, and our graduate faculty are actively encouraged to stay up-to-date in their fields of expertise and to be productive scholars. Recently, a handful of graduate students have been paired with faculty members as research assistants; these collaborations have led to publications and conference presentations.

In addressing the weaknesses identified in the findings above, we need to consider the following:

First, we should re-kindle our departmental discussion of how the comprehensive examination does, in fact, test our MA candidates' mastery of a broad range of materials. While most students follow the spirit of the exam in choosing areas across a sufficient range, some do cluster their areas, thereby easing the burden both of critical understanding and of specific preparation. We need to consider how to close any loopholes so as to assure that the comprehensive examination does, in fact, adequately measure the students' mastery of the discipline.

Second, while the holistic assessment of essays suggests that our students write at or above an agreed-upon standard for English graduate-level critical thinking and writing skills, we are aware that some students do not, in fact, have adequate knowledge or the ability to synthesize arguments well. We acknowledge that writing is but one measure of such skills. We need to revisit this issue, first, by agreeing as a graduate faculty upon standards that will reflect the program goals; second, by agreeing how we can make sure that none of the students who take an MA in English at SHSU falls short of these standards.

Finally, to address the weaknesses in the oral performance of the students, we need to discuss the expectations that we have for students in oral exams and the best means for measuring these expectations. During new student orientation, the Graduate Director and/or Chair will also explicitly address the oral examination performance expectations.

The plan for continuous improvement from the 2011-2012 assessment cycle identified several issues that needed attention: (1) Do the written comprehensive exams adequately measure our students' critical thinking and writing skills and breadth of knowledge? (2) Does class writing adequately measure students' critical thinking, researching, and writing skills? (3) Do graduate faculty all understand and agree upon uniform standards for graduate-level writing? (4) What expectations do the graduate faculty have for our students' ability to demonstrate critical thinking skills and breadth of knowledge in oral examinations? These issues are all tied directly to the three program objectives. 

The actions taken in response to each of these issues are listed below by number:

1. The plan for continuous improvement from the previous assessment cycle called for continued discussion of the effectiveness of the comprehensive examination in measuring our graduates' critical thinking and writing abilities and breadth of knowledge in the field. In several departmental discussions about the graduate program during the 2012-2013 assessment period, faculty discussed both the expectations for the examination and the methods of administering it.

In response to the concern that some students preparing for the comprehensive examination cluster their areas to reduce the breadth of knowledge and ease the burden of preparation, the graduate faculty decided that because such students do satisfy the exam requirements and because these students do not enjoy a higher success rate than those who spread their areas more broadly, we would not insist upon the broader range.

As a result of our departmental discussions about the exam, the faculty also refined the administration process, to make it both more efficient and more objective than it already was. Previously, two primary readers had read each exam essay, with a third settling any disputes between the two; now, however, three readers evaluate every essay from the outset. This new process obviates the need for a tie-breaker and also reduces the amount of time for reporting results. To accommodate the greater reading volume, we now require also that every graduate faculty member read essays for every examination. Although historically there has not been too much variance in the way that faculty evaluate the essays according to the rubric, the wider distribution of essays ensures, first, that readers will have fewer exams to evaluate and, second, that the results will represent a broader cross-section of faculty expectations for the students' breadth of knowledge and critical thinking and writing skills.

Although we stress that graduate classwork does not prepare students specifically for the exam, some faculty have also begun using the types of questions that students might encounter on the comprehensive examination in their class midterm and final exams. It is difficult to measure objectively how effective this method is in preparing students for the exam, especially because we will not require that graduate instructors use it. But anecdotal evidence suggests that the students have found it helpful, if for no other reason than that they gain some experience in working under the same circumstances as those of the comprehensive exam.

The graduate director has continued to conduct biannual new student orientation sessions and biannual comprehensive examination preparation sessions, both of which are designed to help students understand the standards of and expectations for graduate-level and professional work in our discipline. He has also published extensive information about the exam in print and online literature.

2. Because of a scheduling error, a holistic review of graduate class writing was not undertaken for the 2012-2013 assessment cycle. The program will resume this assessment of writing for the 2013-2014 reporting period.

3. In order to reach some consensus about the standards for graduate-level writing that adequately measures our students' critical thinking, researching, and writing abilities, the rubric used for evaluating class writing has been made available to all graduate faculty; the department has not yet undertaken a specific discussion about these standards, however.

4. In an attempt to strengthen students' ability to make convincing oral arguments, the graduate director has begun to include a discussion of the oral exam during comprehensive exam prep sessions and has also written into the graduate student handbook and online literature a section on preparing and sitting for the oral exam.

One measure of our continuing success in producing graduates who have demonstrable critical skills and breadth of knowledge in the field is that our MA students continue to be accepted into respectable PhD and MFA programs. During the 2012-2013 assessment period, graduates were accepted to PhD programs at Arizona State University, the University of Arizona, Carnegie-Mellon University, Drexel University, and the University of North Texas; most of them were awarded full funding. Several other graduates were given teaching positions in two-year colleges. Although these indicators of success cannot be considered measurable because not all of our graduates aspire to such endeavors, as part of our plan for continuous improvement, the faculty will continue to encourage worthy MA graduates to apply for PhD work and teaching positions.

Another measure of the program's success in producing graduates with demonstrable critical researching and writing skills and breadth of knowledge is student participation in professional conferences. Not all students participate in such activities, however, so although faculty will continue to encourage them to present their scholarly and creative work at conferences, participation cannot be considered a measurable indicator of the program's success in achieving its objectives. One suggestion for the future, however, is that participation in at least one scholarly or creative conference or colloquium be a requirement for graduation. In such an event, conference participation could be included a measurable indicator.

Dr. Helena Halmari, English Department Chair, will also continue to pair qualified students with faculty members as research assistants. The requirement for this research assistantship is that the collaboration between student and faculty member lead to a publication and/or conference presentation. Again, because not all students qualify for such assistantships or seek them out, the work undertaken as a research assistant cannot be considered a measurable indicator of the program's success in producing graduates with critical thinking, researching, and writing skills.

In responding specifically to the findings for the three objectives above, we propose the following plan for continuous improvement in the 2013-2014 assessment period:

1. The graduate faculty will undertake a thorough review of comprehensive examination reading lists, to assure that the lists represent both the expectations for breadth of knowledge and current developments in the field.

2. The graduate faculty will undertake a review of comprehensive examination questions, to assure that they are both fair and representative, that they adequately test a student's critical thinking and writing skills and breadth of knowledge, and that they represent current developments in the field.

3. Because faculty who sit on oral comprehensive examination committees still find weaknesses in some students' ability to make critical arguments and demonstrate their breadth of knowledge orally, the department will undertake a pointed discussion about both the nature of and the expectations for this oral exam.

4. To improve its progress toward achieving the objective, the graduate faculty will also consider requiring an oral component in some types of courses or other means by which the program can develop the students' ability to make oral arguments.

5. The graduate faculty will resume the holistic assessment of graduate student writing. To that end, the graduate director has already collected representative writing from all graduate courses taught in Fall 2013.

6. To assure that the rubric for the holistic assessment of writing fairly measures our students' critical thinking, researching, and writing abilities, the graduate director will consult with the University's Director of Writing in the Disciplines, who is a member of the English Department.

7. After any necessary revisions to the rubric have been made, the graduate faculty will discuss the standards for classroom writing and how well that writing develops and/or measures our students' critical abilities. The aim of this discussion will be to reach some sort of departmental consensus on standards for writing in the graduate classroom.

8. To encourage greater faculty mentoring of MA students, the graduate director will propose that each graduate faculty member be assigned four or five students as advisees. While the graduate director will continue with general advising of students, the faculty mentors would meet with their advisees as needed to discuss class researching and writing assignments and to help them prepare for written and oral examinations. Although this advising would be informal, we may require that students meet at least once with their mentors in each long term.