Assessment Details
Academic Year: 2021-2022 Level: Graduate
Campus Department: Morrissey College of Arts & Sciences [UG and Grad]
Program Type: Major [UG] / Program [Grad]
Program Name: Classics MA (Link)
Description of Data Collection:
Students take a diagnostic test in Latin and Greek at the beginning of their first year in our M.A. program. This provides a means for students and faculty to measure individual progress during the program as well as a benchmark against which to measure outcomes at the completion of the MA.
A graduate committee evaluates comprehensive written translation exams taken during each student’s second year. These exams demonstrate a student’s ability to translate Greek and Latin without the aid of a dictionary (learning goal 1).
A graduate committee evaluates a comprehensive written essay exam in the spring of each student’s final year. This exam asks students to apply their knowledge of the literature, history, and culture of the ancient world by writing argumentative essays in response to prompts that invite the synthesis of multiple areas and fields (learning goals 2 and 3).
The faculty of classics conducts an hour- long oral exam with each candidate after successful completion of the written essay exam. This exam asks a student to demonstrate their knowledge in a free-flowing, conversational context.
To demonstrate their reading facility with a modern language students take a translation exam with the aid of a dictionary.
Students write seminar papers or complete a capstone assignment in each of their courses (learning outcomes 4, 5, 6).
Placement data for graduate students are recorded annually (learning outcomes 7, 8).
Review Process:
The graduate MA exam committee meets each year following the completion of MA exams in the spring to review the overall levels of performance measured against the stated goals. The committee considers the aggregate exam performance in relation to each of the learning goals. This collected information is used to evaluate our program’s performance in the area of each stated learning goal. This committee (in consultation with the graduate program director) makes recommendations to the department for improvement and proposes any changes to the examinations or program requirements.
Resulting Program Changes:
In many ways, this year was a welcome return to our core strengths as we resumed in-person teaching and reclaimed the vibrant departmental community that has always been central to our M.A. program. Our second year student was able to spend time on campus for the first time in her Classical Studies career, building relationships with our first-year student and many of our majors. These interactions between our M.A. students and majors benefit both groups and we are delighted to see these patterns returning.
At the same time, this year also saw some implementation of greater flexibility as we think about how our program can best serve a wider variety of students. While our applicants have traditionally already had extensive training in both Greek and Latin, we have come to realize that an increasing number of students either have not had access to advanced languages at the college level, have come to their love of classics late or are pursuing related fields that would benefit from the language mastery our program offers. We have been exploring alternate paths through the program by which such students can achieve their goals. This spring, one of our students– who had completed an M.A. in STM before matriculating in our program and will begin a Ph.D. in Theology in the fall – offered the first indication of the success of thinking more broadly about our student population. She graduated on the standard two-year timeline after coming to us with advanced Latin but only a summer of Greek and just presented one of the seminar papers she wrote in our program at the North American Patristics Society annual conference.
We continue to develop our proseminars, adjusting them to the needs and interests of the students in each cohort. As some students enter with strengths in related fields but less preparation in languages, we have foregrounded sight reading as a way of strengthening language facility and developing translation musclescomfort (learning goal 1). We also continue to introduce students to field-specific methodologies and historical and literary frameworks which contextualize their coursework (learning goals 2 and 3).
We have largely settled into the exam structure that we have implemented over the past few years, while continuing to reconceptualize the oral component of the comprehensive exam. The exam structure includes a diagnostic translation exam taken by all entering students and the separation of the Greek and Latin translation exam from the comprehensive MA exam in order to allow students to focus on each skill set sequentially. This structure has been largely successful and led to a clearer sense among students of the program’s different and complementary learning outcomes. This year we returned to our in-person oral exam format, continuing our practice from last year of not only asking students to demonstrate their field-specific knowledge, but also to talk about how they see the skills and knowledge they have gained in the program contributing their future trajectories. While these conversations were productive, we plan next year to implement the last stage of our exam structure renovation by redesigning the oral exam as an opportunity for students to present and take questions on their work (learning outcome 6).
In order to mentor our students and maintain open lines of communication we held a departmental orientation in which both cohorts met with the GPD and had a conversation about individual goals, potential challenges, and program expectations. The opportunity for our first year student to benefit from the experience of our rising second year student – and for the GPD to hear those perspectives as well – was productive. We also continue to emphasize formal meetings between graduate students and the GPD at the beginning of each semester to discuss progress in the program and future goals and to foster an environment in which regular informal check-ins with the GPD and other faculty are expected and frequent.
Date of Most Recent Program Review:
In many ways, this year was a welcome return to our core strengths as we resumed in-person teaching and reclaimed the vibrant departmental community that has always been central to our M.A. program. Our second year student was able to spend time on campus for the first time in her Classical Studies career, building relationships with our first-year student and many of our majors. These interactions between our M.A. students and majors benefit both groups and we are delighted to see these patterns returning.
At the same time, this year also saw some implementation of greater flexibility as we think about how our program can best serve a wider variety of students. While our applicants have traditionally already had extensive training in both Greek and Latin, we have come to realize that an increasing number of students either have not had access to advanced languages at the college level, have come to their love of classics late or are pursuing related fields that would benefit from the language mastery our program offers. We have been exploring alternate paths through the program by which such students can achieve their goals. This spring, one of our students– who had completed an M.A. in STM before matriculating in our program and will begin a Ph.D. in Theology in the fall – offered the first indication of the success of thinking more broadly about our student population. She graduated on the standard two-year timeline after coming to us with advanced Latin but only a summer of Greek and just presented one of the seminar papers she wrote in our program at the North American Patristics Society annual conference.
We continue to develop our proseminars, adjusting them to the needs and interests of the students in each cohort. As some students enter with strengths in related fields but less preparation in languages, we have foregrounded sight reading as a way of strengthening language facility and developing translation musclescomfort (learning goal 1). We also continue to introduce students to field-specific methodologies and historical and literary frameworks which contextualize their coursework (learning goals 2 and 3).
We have largely settled into the exam structure that we have implemented over the past few years, while continuing to reconceptualize the oral component of the comprehensive exam. The exam structure includes a diagnostic translation exam taken by all entering students and the separation of the Greek and Latin translation exam from the comprehensive MA exam in order to allow students to focus on each skill set sequentially. This structure has been largely successful and led to a clearer sense among students of the program’s different and complementary learning outcomes. This year we returned to our in-person oral exam format, continuing our practice from last year of not only asking students to demonstrate their field-specific knowledge, but also to talk about how they see the skills and knowledge they have gained in the program contributing their future trajectories. While these conversations were productive, we plan next year to implement the last stage of our exam structure renovation by redesigning the oral exam as an opportunity for students to present and take questions on their work (learning outcome 6).
In order to mentor our students and maintain open lines of communication we held a departmental orientation in which both cohorts met with the GPD and had a conversation about individual goals, potential challenges, and program expectations. The opportunity for our first year student to benefit from the experience of our rising second year student – and for the GPD to hear those perspectives as well – was productive. We also continue to emphasize formal meetings between graduate students and the GPD at the beginning of each semester to discuss progress in the program and future goals and to foster an environment in which regular informal check-ins with the GPD and other faculty are expected and frequent.
Attachments (if available)