First thoughts--sorry to make myself a pain in the ass about these things,
but it's part of what they pay me for these days and for better or worse I
am obliged to know something about these things, part from the fact that I
chair the committee reviewing the documents.

Assessment folks like active verbs. They compile lists of them. If you want
a few guidelines about assessment and outcomes and such, the CELTUA website
is great: http://www.units.muohio.edu/celt/assessment/basics/


I like the general statement at the top of this.

I like writing outcome one, though I'd use "Demonstrate" as in "Demonstrate
advanced close reading skills: e.g., the ability to identify and analyze the
various compositional elements of published and peer work . . . .

The rest of that is okay but might be tightened and limited--I'd say
"aesthetics of the work" though like the attention to architecture of the
whole

It might even be that this is actually two writing outcomes here--one about
particulars of technique (syntax, diction, etc.) and the other about
aesthetics of the larger work

2 is good--demonstrate the ability to respond editorially to each other's
work, offering useful practical advice for revision.

That would be enough, I think, three writing outcomes., the first split into
two.

4 and 5 are not writing outcomes. Also, you need this genre to have an
audience of professionals /peers to meet the CAS requirement.

So I'd say that the audience is first of all fellow creative writers
(professionals) and after that and ideally a general audience.

Keith






On 3/23/11 12:57 PM, "DAVID SCHLOSS" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear CW Co-Assessors,
> 
> Here's a version, with some edits still possible, of what Brian and I put
> together yesterday for today's meeting'. What do you think?
> 
> 
> B. Writing outcomes for the major: practical criticism
> 
> Our graduating creative writing majors should be conversant in relevant
> writings in their genre (poetry, fiction), past and present; they should to be
> able to write about each others¹ works, as well as about professional writers,
> in clear, coherent and concise terms.
> 
> 1) Students should have achieved some mastery of close reading of both
> published work and peer texts in regard to: 1) the various elements (eg,
> diction, syntax, stanzas, form, paragraphs, scene construction,
> characterization, plot, tone, style, setting, etc.) as well as to 2) a sense
> of the architecture of the general whole (eg., intentions, design, methods of
> presentation, etc.). Thus, they should be able to construe a philosophy,
> psychology, purpose and aesthetics of the author and to offer analytical and
> constructive practical assistance towards these authorial intentions.
> 
> 2)  We want to establish in each creative writer an ability to respond
> editorially to each others¹ works.
> 
> 3) They should be able to write short papers on student works and papers on
> outside readings by published writers relevant to their practices.
> 
> 4) This criticism will have practical uses for its intended audience¹s
> practice of their craft and reading skills in the genres.
> 
> 5) These skills should be able to be communicated to a general audience beyond
> the classroom as well as to any audience interested in these genres as
> readers.