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.

The Department of English implemented the following elements of the 2013-2014 plan for continuous improvement:

1. The graduate faculty undertook a thorough review of comprehensive examination reading lists, to assure that they reflect the expectations for breadth of knowledge and currency in the field. This review was completed during the late spring, and updated lists (current 1 August 2014) have now been posted on line.

2. The graduate faculty resumed the holistic review of students' class writing. The results of that evaluation appear above.

Other elements of the plan for continuous improvement from the last reporting cycle were raised in a departmental meeting set aside last spring specifically for graduate program business: (1) a thorough review of comprehensive examination questions, (2) the challenges of incorporating an oral component into classwork, and (3) the possibility of establishing a faculty mentoring system. The graduate faculty decided collectively to postpone these issues until the coming year, especially because much discussion revolved around the nature and the effectiveness of the current written and oral examination system. A committee of five graduate faculty members was formed to review the exam system and make recommendations for future examinations.

In responding specifically to the findings for the three objectives above, we propose the following plan for continuous improvement in the 2014-2015 assessment period:

1. A committee of five graduate faculty members appointed during Spring 2014 will meet to discuss the written and oral comprehensive examinations, considering specifically how effective they are in measuring the students' critical thinking and writing skills and their breadth of knowledge.

2. The graduate faculty will undertake a thorough review of comprehensive examination questions. This task was postponed from the previous plan for improvement because it depended, in part, on the review of reading lists, which was finally completed in late spring. One persistent concern among graduate faculty is that some students are skirting the requirement that they read all works on an area list and are still managing to pass the exam because too-general questions allow too much flexibility in the responses. In order to assure greater rigor, graduate faculty have suggested more specificity in the questions. The plan for improvement will address this concern.

3. While faculty generally agree upon expectations for the quality of graduate student writing, it is difficult to reach a consensus about specific, measurable standards, in part because of the variety in the kinds of writing expected in various classes: critical term papers, linguistic analyses, papers about pedagogical methods and practices, annotated bibliographies, and expository papers. As one step toward reaching a consensus, the Graduate Director will distribute the recently revised rubric for the holistic assessment of writing to both faculty and students.

4. The graduate faculty will resume the discussion of appointing faculty members as mentors to students. While the Graduate Director will continue the general advisement of students, the faculty mentors would be available to their advisees to discuss class researching and writing assignments and to help them prepare for written and oral examinations.