Home > Minutes: Graduate Committee

Minutes: Graduate Committee

					03.10.2017	11.15.2016
09.13.2016	02.19.2016	01.15.2016	11.05.2015	09.24.2015	08.27.2015	01.01.2015
11.05.2014	10.16.2014	09.11.2014	09.11.2013	11.26.2012	09.24.2012	02.02.2012
11.16.2011	09.14.2011	02.10.2011	10.05.2010	09.14.2010	08.24.2010	01.26.2010
10.16.2009	02.16.2009	11.18.2008	10.09.2007	08.27.2007	11.06.2006	10.31.2005
10.07.2005	01.20.2005	09.17.2004	03.31.2003	01.27.2003	11.07.2002	10.24.2002
09.19.2002	02.11.2002	12.07.2001	11.07.2001	09.12.2001	09.20.2000	08.15.2000

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Meeting
March 10th 2016 2:30pm-4:00pm
Newton 2203

Committee members present: Dustin Anderson, Olivia Edenfield, Richard Flynn, Julia Griffin, and Esther Stuart (Graduate Representative), Karin Fry (guest)
absent: Gautam Kundu
Minutes submitted by: Dustin Anderson

Purpose of the Meeting: Course Rotations, Enrollment & Recruitment

At 2:30am, Dr. Anderson called the meeting to order. Ms. Stuart reported that there were no new concerns from the graduate students, but noted that some students had made passing comments about the variety of courses offered. She also noted that the primary concern she got as a response was to parking permit shortages.

The committee moved to address the Old Business Items on the agenda. Dr. Anderson noted that one Old Business Item had been left off the circulated agenda: Thesis Prep and Pedagogy Workshop. He briefly went over the previous course meetings for those committee members who could not attend, and thanked Dr. Edenfield and Kundu (absent) for leading the previous Thesis Prep meeting. So far, students had (in Thesis Prep) been introduced to the Sample Prospectus and Thesis Resource Materials; discussed Thesis project types, styles, and approaches; and discussed Thesis Committee constructions. Students had begun their individual hands-on research at this time. Upcoming, the committee would lead a Prospectus Workshop and discuss final committee placement.

In the Pedagogy Workshop, students had already participated in workshops and discussions on constructing Lectures and Discussions; Issues of Authority in the Classroom; Quiz and Exam Design; constructing Student Writing assignments (Journals, Essays, and Papers); and Response to Student Writing. Dr. Anderson reported that the students responded very well to the guest speakers (2nd year MA students, Stuart and Delva) who acted as the front line for questions during these discussions. Upcoming, the 1st year students would participate in TA2 Interviews with the GPD, and chairs of Literature & Philosophy and Writing & Linguistics. The goal of the interviews is two-fold: first it allows us to measure the suitability of a student to be a candidate for being the primary instructor for a classroom, and also acts as a professionalizing tool for students by allowing them to interview in a lower-stakes environment. Dr. Anderson also mentioned that students would be participating in a Folio Workshop with Dr. Pellegrino and 2nd year student, Chris Blackburn.

Dr. Anderson introduced Dr. Fry to discuss the Seminar Rotation. Dr. Fry covered the history of the discussion up to the current point, and based on the practical considerations of departmental scheduling needs introduced a seminar rotation based on broader categories. The committee discussed the nature of those categories, and agreed with Dr. Fry’s recommendation. She noted that the next step would be to have faculty assigned to each category to allow her to move forward with the rotation.

Dr. Anderson introduced the New Business Items for the semester. Dr. Anderson thanked the committee in advance for their upcoming asynchronous work on Admissions, which—in addition to the Thesis Prep course and Pedagogy Workshop meetings—would take up the remainder of committee meetings for the semester.

Dr. Anderson’s Recruitment and Enrollment report is included here:

University changes affecting enrollments. What we’re struggling with:

Conservative Homefronts
Online Competition
Changes to Financial Aid
Changes to University Support
International Transcript Evaluations

Richard [Flynn] sent out a Washington Post piece that reflects a fair amount of the conversations I’ve had since November. These have all been with on-campus students or current undergraduate majors. While they are interested in pursuing an advanced degree, they are getting pressure from home to find a job immediately instead. For many of these that means shifting to Education, but others are simply looking for any employment. The promise of a “better economy” is being reinforced by mom and dad.

At least one of our active applications and two of our active prospectus will not convert to completed applications. Those three that I’ve spoken with are looking to take the majority of their courses in an online format. I’ve emailed with half-a-dozen others that did not begin applications because they would only be able to take online courses.

The new changes to Financial Aid are also creating some issues for us. FA will no longer cover:

Courses listed in the “Fallthrough” or “Not Counting” sections of DegreeWorks
Provisionally admitted students will not be eligible for federal aid during their probationary 9 credit hours
Undergraduate level prerequisites for graduate level programs will no longer count towards aid eligibility
Once a student has completed the maximum amount of hours for a certain section, aid will not cover additional courses that might have placed in the student’s audit otherwise (i.e. dissertation/thesis students who have completed the full amount of dissertation/thesis required by their program)

The second one is a big problem for us. We take in provisional students, but only those we feel confident that can advance to regular status. If those students are having to hold down jobs while completing their nine hours, we are likely to see them fail more often, or simply not enroll at all.

This is something that I hope will be remedied once there is a Director and Admissions Director in place for the Graduate College. Without the Admissions Director, it’s taken considerably more time to secure and parse prospect lists. It’s a 1/3 absence in that department’s workforce. I’ve been working with their specialist, but she has an increased workload as well. We also don’t have any university outreach. We typically draw 1-2 applicants from campus visits and fairs. That’s 10% of our incoming pool. The practical fallout of this is more time doing cold calls. I’ve had requests to visit a number of area schools (Claflin, Spellman, CoC), but simply haven’t had the time to do so. The workload for all PD has increased with the fall-off of personnel in COGS. I spend more time recruiting and clearing programs of study since they’ve had a drop in their workforce; I haven’t had the same drop in my teaching, service, or scholarship load though.

COGS has made a change to the International Transcript Evaluation Policy, which will go into effect this fall. The university will no longer offer this service in-house. Instead students will be required to use a company like World Education Services (WES) for their transcripts. These services range between $145-305 depending on degree type and origination. This policy was changed with consultation with the Graduate Program Directors and is based on “staffing limitations.”

Recommendations:

Conservative Homefronts –
- alumni outreach. Right now, this is anecdotal only. We need to reach out to former students to see where they’ve ended up, and use their words to frame the employment worries that students have. I’ve reached out to 4 recent graduates (2 professional and 2 academic) to provide some material that we can use as promotional material in this regard.
- better placement plans. Faculty working with students on a Thesis should meet with those students at the beginning of the graduation term to discuss placement. Students applying on to PhD/MFA programs will have already disclosed this to their advisors. Those who are not planning to matriculate need guidance from their mentor on what to apply for.

Online Competition –
- offer one graduate level course (preferably a seminar) online each semester.
- develop an add-on model. Create seats for 1-2 “correspondence” students in each section. Those students should be >85% online, and will have to secure director and instructor permission to enroll as a “correspondence” student. Faculty will upload audio recordings of each class, and will schedule two 15-30 minute skype/phone conferences with those students during the term. “Correspondence” students must confirm that they understand these seats will be more self-directed than the traditional seats; that faculty will not teach the material twice; and that they are responsible for initiating contact for problems or issues relating to the material.

Changes to Financial Aid –
- I’ve been working with the CLASS Dean’s office to clarify that all of our courses fall within the students’ area of study. The primary problems we’re having with this are that 1) 5000 courses have undergraduate prerequisites still attached, 2) 6000 courses are not always coded as seminars in DegreeWorks, and 3) students repeating seminars get marked as “Fallthroughs”.

Changes to University Support –
- I’ve already submitted a report to the Provost’s and CLASS Dean’s offices regarding the need (type and frequency) for extra-departmental support for these programs.

International Transcripts –
- We will need to develop language for international applicants since they will be beholden to an additional fee beyond what we require of our domestic students. I recommend that we drop the GRE requirement for international applicants to offset that cost.

Dr. Anderson reported on the following R&E update:

Recruitment and Enrollment Update (as of March 8^th 2017)

Spring Enrollment: 1

1 Georgia

Completed Applications: 6

4 Georgia
1 Massachusetts
1 Nigeria

Active Applications: 7

2 Georgia
2 Mississippi
1 Morocco
1 Nigeria
1 Tennessee

Active Prospectus: 10

1 Arkansas
7 Georgia
1 South Carolina
1 Wisconsin

Inactive Prospects, but will reconsider online courses: 4

3 Georgia
1 Italy

Total intake list of 454 prospectus was winnowed down to 167 prospectus that matched three or more criteria*. Of those 167 contacted we 27 returns (16%) of which six have completed applications, 7 have begun applications, and another ten are set to. We’ve only had one GSU student submit an application so far, and I imagine that we will have a handful of those as well. We will be well ahead of where we normally are if those 13 students complete applications by the final deadline. Although we’re ahead of last year’s mark, we are facing some additional difficulties that we haven’t in the past two years. I expect a dip in next year’s enrollment.

*Criteria

Some committee members expressed some concerns with the prospect of moving to include more online offerings, but commented that they would need time to process that possibility.

There was one announcement: Dr. Anderson reported that due to continued low attendance at the 7121 presentations (only two faculty showed to score the presentations), he would be revising that requirement for the course. With no announcements from the floor, Dr. Anderson adjourned the meeting at 4:00pm.

Graduate Committee Meeting
November 15th 2016 9:00am-10:30am
Newton 2203

Committee members present: Dustin Anderson, Richard Flynn, Julia Griffin, Gautam Kundu, and Esther Stuart (Graduate Representative), Karin Fry (guest)
absent: Olivia Edenfield
Minutes submitted by: Dustin Anderson

Purpose of the Meeting: Thesis Prep & Pedagogy Course Revisions; Course Rotations

At 9:00am, Dr. Anderson called the meeting to order. Ms. Stuart reported that there were no new concerns from the graduate students.

The committee moved to address the Old Business Items on the agenda. Dr. Anderson reported while there was not an official change in the length of extra-departmental GA appointments, but he had worked with Dr. Dan Bauer from W&L on a new interviewing process for the TA2 which they both feel confident in filtering down to the collaboration that the MAE in L&P has with W&L’s Writing Center. He also noted that WC director was pleased with the students working there currently, and hoped that the continued positive working relationship would allow for more flexibility in the near future.

Dr. Anderson introduced the New Business Items requested by the committee. The first item was updates to the Thesis Preparation course. Dr. Anderson met with some of the students from the pilot course to discuss the successful aspects of the course, and the areas in need of strengthening. The students uniformly reported back that it would a helpful and positive experience. The one request they had was to run an additional workshop on the prospectus draft. Ms. Stuart asked about the new Prospectus Submission information that was sent out earlier in the term. Dr. Anderson explained that this was in response to the students’ request for sample materials. As students enter the Thesis Prep course, they will be given access to the GoogleFolder for Prospectuses (where they will upload their own once they have been vetted by their major professor). Dr. Flynn asked if everyone would have access. Dr. Anderson replied that the Graduate Committee members and all current students (after their first term) would have access.

The next item of New Business was the revision of the Pedagogy Workshop. Dr. Anderson, along with Dr. Brad Edwards, met with some of the students to discuss changes that would be beneficial to that course and the paired content resources. Dr. Anderson reported that the students felt that the time but into the teaching philosophy was adequate and helpful. They suggested that the course spend additional time on concrete elements of day-to-day classroom management in the following areas: academic dishonesty and disruptive behaviors (dealing with those situations); methods of dealing with attendance; and writing exams. The students reported that they more comfortable responding to writing based on the 7111 course, but less so with objective material. They also suggested dropping that workshop, and instead running a workshop on typical practices with Folio (particularly the gradebook). From the meeting, Dr. Anderson, based on some material generated by the students, create a separate GoogleDrive resource for classroom management populated with handouts and walkthroughs on those issues. Dr. Griffin asked why the TA2s needed to use Folio. Dr. Anderson responded that it was a redundancy and security issue. Since the TA2 would have left the university when a student might need material/grade appeals/syllabus from that course, that material would still be available. Likewise, should a student need support, the GPD or CATS can more readily help having access to their material. Dr. Kundu asked if the students were all using the same syllabus, and if so, who composed it. Dr. Anderson responded that, yes, the TA2 for World Lit all used a shared syllabus for their first semesters. Dr. Anderson created the 2112 syllabus and resources, and Dr. Edwards and Dr. Griffin created the 2111 syllabus and resources. That decision was made for 4 primary reasons: 1) it was material that the GPD (or Dr. Edwards and Dr. Griffin) could easily support; 2) by teaching the same material at the same time, the students could develop their own support mechanisms; 3) it provided some consistency in what students taking 2111 or 2112 would encounter with the TA (i.e., quality control); and, 4) most importantly, it significantly reduced the prep time that the TA2s would need for the courses. Dr. Flynn asked if the resource materials could be shared with the committee. Dr. Anderson said he would make them available to the committee members.

The committee discussed specific changes to these courses. Updated syllabi are attached.

As the discussion moved on to issues regarding personnel, Ms. Stuart was excused from the remainder of the meeting. Dr. Anderson provided a brief update on the Spring Applications. He mentioned that they had been an uptick in requests for information on Transient/Enrichment Student status. He explained that the classification of T/E Students created some problems for the way that the department reported on its population and enrollment information—specifically with graduation rates. The problem is not insurmountable, but does require additional reporting from the GPD. Dr. Anderson said that reporting should not prevent students from taking courses, but those enrollments should be limited. He suggested that, in light of the complications, T/E students be limited to taking courses that have minimum thresholds at the graduate level (i.e., seminars) rather than split-level courses that have thresholds at the undergraduate level. The committee agreed that this was a good idea, and requested Dr. Anderson write it up as a policy proposal for the next department meeting.

The committee was joined by Dr. Fry to discuss the Seminar Rotation that she and Dr. Anderson had been working on. The proposal was a practical development of the theoretical proposal that the committee submitted in the Spring of 2015. The committee discussed some of the practical complexities of the rotation basis (course title vs. personnel), and requested that Dr. Fry offer a model with details or examples.

Dr. Anderson reminded the committee of the ENGL 7121 presentations on Monday, November 28th at 5:30-8:30pm in Newton 2203. He noted that due to the larger number of students, the presentations would not be the traditional conference panel format. The meeting adjourned at 10:40am.

attachments
—
ENGL 7618: Thesis Preparation Workshop Course Coordinator: Dustin Anderson
Spring 2017 danderson@georgiasouthern.edu
Friday 2:30pm Office hours by appointment only
Newton 2203

Purpose:
ENGL 7998 “Thesis Preparation” is a workshop in both a classroom (weeks 1, 3 & 9) and directed individual setting. This course, coordinated by the graduate program director, and supervised by the graduate committee, will help students begin their principal research for a thesis topic, draft and revise a thesis prospectus. This course will also connect students with the appropriate thesis advisor with whom they will meet with near the end of the course.

Evaluation: This course will be graded on a Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory scale.

Projects:
• A working Bibliography on a topic of the student’s choosing.
• A Thesis Prospectus.
• A Research Observation Journal.
All material must be submitted to earn a passing grade for this course.

Bibliography
A bibliography is simply a list of sources used during the research of a specific topic or project. Each Bibliographic entry should follow the current MLA Handbook guidelines (7th edition). For your topic, you must have at least 30 total sources, including at least: four monographs, eight peer-reviewed journal articles, and one ancillary primary source. Should you include annotations, please limit these to 100 words each.

Prospectus
A prospectus is a summary that clearly states the research question or agenda that your thesis will address and explains how you will answer the research question; a research review that provides an overview of relevant scholarship and criticism of the relevant secondary literature on your topic addresses; and a proposal that situates your proposed research topic within the ongoing critical context of the field—this section must make clear how your work will make a valuable contribution to this topic. Your prospectus should be between 1000-2000 words.

Research Observation Journal
This is a document consisting of two parts: 1) a collection and record of the material that you engaged with in the research you encountered on your topic; this includes sites, engines, periodicals, books, archives, etc…. 2) a self-evaluation of the process your research methodology over the course of the semester. The first part will be due with the Working Bibliography at Week 9, and the second part will be due with the Prospectus due at Week 14 (this must be shared through Google Docs).

Plagiarism
Plagiarism is prohibited in the Academic Dishonesty section of the Georgia Southern University Catalog, and will any instance of plagiarism will be adjudicated under Procedures for Academic Dishonesty (outlined in The Student Guide to Conduct). Plagiarism is a counter-productive, non-writing behavior that is unacceptable in a course intended to aid in the growth of individual writers. Plagiarism includes representing another’s work or any part thereof, be it published or unpublished, as one’s own. If you turn in work that is not entirely your own, you will fail the course and find your standing the in the graduate program in jeopardy. This is your warning.

Accommodations for Americans With Disabilities
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), this course will honor requests for reasonable accommodations made by individuals with disabilities. During the first week of class, students must self-disclose their disability to the Student Disability Resource Center (SDRC) Director before academic accommodations can be implemented. For additional information, please call the ADA Compliance Officer at (912) 478-5136, TDD (912) 478-0273, or the SDRC Director at (912) 478-1566, TDD (912) 478-0666

Schedule:

Week 1 — Course Introduction
Introduction of Sample Materials

Week 3 — Thesis Project Approaches & Committee Constructions
Short Proposal Workshop: During this workshop, you must bring in a 1-2 page proposal of your thesis topic.

Weeks 4-8 — Hands-on Research
During this time you must schedule at least one meeting with a member of the Graduate Committee to discuss your progress.

Week 9 11 — Prospectus Workshop
Prospectus and Bibliography Drafts Due to Dropbox.

Weeks 9 10-12 — Committee Placement
By this time you should have met with the GPD to discuss potential advisors. You must schedule at least one meeting with a potential advisor about your topic.

Week 12 — Prospectus Workshop

Week 14 — Prospectus & Research Journal Due
—-

ENGL 0000 Pedagogy Workshop Workshop Coordinator: Dustin Anderson
Spring 2017 danderson@georgiasouthern.edu
Fridays 2:30pm Office hours by appointment only
Newton 2207

Purpose:
ENGL 0000 “Pedagogy Workshop” is a workshop in both a classroom (weeks 4,- 6 & 10) and directed individual setting. This workshop, coordinated by the graduate program director, and supervised by the graduate committee, will help students prepare to act as a primary instructor (as a TA2) at the introductory level in English. Typically, those courses would be either World Literature (I or II) or the First Year Writing sequence. This workshop will build on the existing material that student created in ENGL 7111.

Evaluation: This workshop is a non-credit course, but is required for consideration as a TA2 in the student’s second year in the MA in English program. All material will be marked on a Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory scale. Students must participant in placement interviews to be considered for the teaching pool.

Workshop Projects:
• A Teaching Philosophy
• A sample Lecture/Discussion outline
• A sample set of Quiz/Exam Questions
• A sample set of Student Writing Prompts
• Completion of a CTL Workshop.
All material must be submitted to be considered for the application TA2 pool.

Teaching Philosophy
This should be a revision of the Teaching Philosophy initially submitted as part of the ENGL 7111 course based on the discussions during this workshop, and observations made of faculty teaching literature and writing courses.

Lecture and Discussion Outlines
These samples should be on a single text (or excerpt of a longer text) that might be taught in a literature course. While both act as outlines, these materials should be able to fill a 50 minute class meeting. Students might be asked to present aspects of these lecture/discussions later in the semester.

Quiz and Exam Questions
These samples question sets should be revisions or developments of those composed during the ENGL 7111 course based on the discussions during this workshop.

Student Writing Prompts
These samples prompts (for both journals/in-class writing exercises and essay assignments) should be revisions or developments of those composed during the ENGL 7111 course based on the discussions during this workshop.

CTL Workshop
Students will register for at least one workshop with the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL). All TA2s must complete two CTL/CT2 workshops before entering the classroom to remain compliant with University requirements. The calendar and list of workshops can be found here: http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ctl/calendar/.

Schedule:

Week 4 — Course Introduction
Constructing Lectures and Discussions
Discussion on Issues of Authority in the Classroom

Week 5 — Practical Workshop Exams and Quizzes
Practical Workshop on Quiz and Exam Design, and Student Writing (Journals, Essays, and Papers)

Week 6 — Student Writing
Practical Workshop on Student Writing (Journals, Essays, and Papers) and Response to Student Writing

Week 8 — Interviews
Students wishing to be considered for the teaching pool (students must all eligibility requirements) will briefly interview with the GPD and WPA.

Week 11 — Folio Workshop

Week 1214 — All Material Due

Graduate Committee Meeting
September 13th 2016 4:30pm-5:30pm
Newton 2203

Committee members present: Dustin Anderson, Olivia Edenfield, Richard Flynn, Gautam Kundu, and Esther Stuart (Graduate Representative)
absent: Julia Griffin
Minutes submitted by: Dustin Anderson

Purpose of the Meeting: Beginning of Year Updates

At 4:30pm, Dr. Anderson called the meeting to order. Dr. Anderson introduced Ms. Stuart as the new Student Representative for the Committee. Ms. Stuart reported that there were no new student concerns, but asked if there were any remaining concerns from the previous year. Dr. Anderson responded that students had asked for additional reminders for deadlines and advising, which had been addressed through additional reminders, discussions and updated during the 7111 course, and additional office hours for the GPD.

The committee moved to address the Old Business Items on the agenda. Dr. Anderson reported that there was no new development in the discussion with Writing and Linguistics about the length of GA appointments over the summer, but would follow up with Dr. Dan Bauer from W&L.

Dr. Anderson introduced the New Business Item requested by the committee. The first item was an update on recruitment. Dr. Kundu asked if there were any new problems stemming from the changes in the College of Graduate Studies. Dr. Anderson responded that he and Dr. Karin Fry had recently been to both the Program Directors’ and a college level meeting with the interim leadership team from COGS, and that there were a number of changes that would have an impact on recruitment. The international initiative that he had started with Tristam Aldridge director of COGS Admissions and Danielle Smith from the International Programs office was on hold in light on Mr. Aldridge’s departure and the reorganization of the Admissions office. The university will no longer be sending representatives to fairs, and seemed to be more interested in retaining BA/S students into MA/S programs rather than focusing on external recruitment. Dr. Anderson outlined his recruitment agenda for the coming year, and the requests he had made of COGS in that vein: more timely funding updates, additional funding options, student research and professionalization support, prospect data, travel funding, and an awareness of scale.

Dr. Anderson also shared a change to the upcoming Assessment cycle. The mechanisms will remain the same, but the alignment of student artifacts needed to change to report more accurate and more helpful data.

Dr. Anderson reminded the committee of the ENGL 7121 presentations on Monday, November 28th at 5:30-8:30pm in Newton 2203. The meeting adjourned at 5:25pm.

Graduate Committee Meeting
February 19th 2016 1:30-2:30pm
Newton 2203

Committee members present: Dustin Anderson, Richard Flynn, Julia Griffin, and Desireé Riley (Graduate Representative)
Minutes submitted by: Dustin Anderson

Purpose of the Meeting: Program Revisions, Admissions, and Assessment Updates

At 1:30pm, Dr. Anderson called the meeting to order. There were no new graduate student concerns.

The committee finalized its proposal for modifying the non-departmental course limitations in the program.

Proposed Revision to MA in English Course Restrictions
proposed 11/15, revised 1/16

I. Identified Problem
Recruiting students into graduate programs is a high priority at Georgia Southern University, and we recognize a short-coming in our recruitment abilities within this program. Georgia Southern is one of the few universities that has separate departments for disciplines within English. That separation—specifically the inability to easily enroll in Writing courses—has, on occasion, been a deterrent for prospective students when considering applying to Southern’s MA in English program. Unfortunately, those occasions often coincide with high-ability prospects. The MA in English program needs to develop a strategy to attract and retain prospective graduate students who wish to participate in a traditional English program—specifically those students interested in taking course work in areas such as Creative Writing, Composition Studies, Linguistics, or Professional Writing.

English, as an academic discipline at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, has traditionally included the study of literature, creative writing, linguistics, history of the English language, rhetoric, composition studies, and teaching English. Many programs are even more broadly inclusive, and support studies in comparative literature; critical theory; cultural studies; digital media and film studies; literacy; the philosophy of language; professional writing; and publishing and text technologies.

The governing body of the discipline, the Modern Language Association (MLA), includes each of the above mentioned aspects of our discipline in their purview; more importantly, the MLA also acknowledges the responsibility of placement in these disciplinary areas by advertising for employment opportunities in each of these areas through the Job Information List (JIL). Philosophically, the MLA clearly sees the connections between these areas. From a practical standpoint, Georgia Southern’s Aspirational and Peer Institutions such as, Appalachian State University, Ball State University, Bowling Green State University, College of Charleston, East Carolina University, Illinois State University, James Madison University, Miami University of Ohio, Middle Tennessee State University, Texas State University, and UNC Wilmington all have combined programs of study allowing students to take courses (and in some cases specialize) in literature and literary studies, linguistics, rhetoric and composition, and creative and professional writing.

In short, students coming from traditional programs are often confused and frustrated by the inability to pursue course work in natural areas of this discipline. Those students typically apply to and enroll in Peer Institutions that allow for the traditional integration of discipline areas. We are limiting our advertising market to students solely interested in pursuing critical studies in British and American literatures.

II. Proposed Solution
Students enrolled in the MA in English at Georgia Southern be able to use any graduate level course (indicated by a 5000G) within the discipline of English towards their Program of Study. Those courses would fall under the same stipulations as any ENGL designated course (wherein students may not count more than three 5000G courses towards their Program of Study).

Students wishing to pursue the certificate in Professional Writing may count a limited number of 5000G level courses toward that certificate as allowed by the guidelines set out from the College of Graduate Studies.

Students who have enrolled in and completed nine hours (at the graduate level) of area specific concentrations (such as poetry or composition studies) would be able to develop a thesis project focused on that area of concentration with the approval of the Graduate Program Director.

III. Anticipated Outcome
With a wider pool of applicants, the MA in English at Georgia Southern should be able to both increase its population, and more consistently recruit high-ability candidates. The growth of the program population will allow for a wider variety of courses to be taught at the seminar level. The growth of the program also presents the potential for an increase in faculty lines, as the demand for additional expertise in area studies not currently represented by the department (such as Victorian Literature/Studies) will need to be met.

IV. Impact on Current Capabilities
The current system of course work will not change in a practical capacity for students entering the program. All students will still be required to complete 18 hours at the seminar level, 3 hours for the 7111/7121 course, and 6 Thesis hours (in 7998-7999), which will allow them to take up to 9 hours at the 5000G level. There are a number of ESED, LING, and WRIT courses in the catalog at the 5000G level. Students would be able to supplement their seminar courses with these 5000G courses under those prefixes as well as the ENGL prefix. Since the retention of a course at the 5000 level is dependent on the undergraduate enrollment (not the G section enrollment) students taking WRIT 5000G courses will not impair the ability of the program to offer and retain seminars. In fact, should the program grow with students interested in taking 5000G courses other than ENGL courses, the seminars will grow in direct correlation. The number of students enrolling in 5000G ENGL courses will likely not change, as the students interested in taking 5000G courses with the WRIT, ESED, or LING prefixes will be students in addition to the current number of students entering the MA in English program.

New 5000G courses (as Special Topics) or courses adding the G designation will undergo the same approval status as current courses regardless of prefix.

Many members of the Writing and Linguistics faculty already have Graduate Faculty status, and a number have served on Thesis committees in both this and other departments.

V. Proposal
We propose to modify the MA in English Program Description to reflect the following changes (below), which will allow the program to market itself to a wider pool of candidates many of whom come from programs where these areas are not in separate departments.

Program of Study
Credit Hours
Required Hours (21 Credit Hours)
ENGL 7111
Seminar in College English 1
ENGL 7121
Methods of Research 2
ENGL – Six seminars at the 6000 or 7000 level 18
Electives (courses at the ENGL/LING/WRIT 5000 level or additional ENGL seminars) (9 Credit Hours)
Select 9 credit hours of Electives 9
Up to six credit hours may be taken in other disciplines (no more than one course per department) upon approval of the Director.
Thesis (6 Credit Hours)
Thesis Prep 1
Thesis 5
(See below and for more information consult the M.A. English web page at https://cah.georgiasouthern.edu/literature/malitintro.html)
Total Credit Hours 36

Dr. Anderson briefly discussed making a change to the current Assessment Mechanisms. Right now, while the report was well-received, it does not generate any practically helpful data. In light of all of the changes proposed by the committee developing entirely independent of the assessment measures, he moved that the measures be revised to better reflect the practical needs of the program. He mentioned the two Primary Direct Measures that the program uses do not correspond. He explained that the first Measure (the ENGL 7121 Presentation) needed to match-up directly–that is student to student–with the second Measure (the Thesis Defense) if we hope to track and measure the growth students experience during their program of study. Dr. Flynn asked how that would work, and Dr. Anderson replied that the Measure would need to be revised meaning that there would be an understood lack of data for a cycle year while those Measures are aligned.

Dr. Anderson thanked Ms. Riley for her contributions, and asked her to leave as the committee moved on to discussions of incoming student applications. The program has 8 students continuing from or before the 2014-15 cohort, 1 student from the 2013-14 cohort, and 1 student from the 2012-13 cohort. 2 students completed their thesis projects during the Fall, 4 students are set to defend in the Spring, and 2 students are working through projects until the 2016-2017 Academic Year. 1 student from the 2013-14 cohort went onto inactive status, and 1 student from the 2014-2015 cohort was excluded from the program. With the Spring Applications – 3 new Students – the 2015-2016 cohort is now a total of 12 students. For Fall 2016 applications, the program currently has 8 applications at 90% or more completion, and 6 applications at 60% or less completion. Only 3 of those are GSU students. The program is working with a 2012-13 inactive student to reactivate and complete. Dr. Anderson gave an overview of the year’s recruiting efforts so far. During the Fall of 2015 he made visits to the University of West Georgia, Georgia College and State University, Kennesaw State University, and the Georgia HBCU Collective in Atlanta (Clark Atlanta University, Fort Valley State University, Morehouse College, and Spelman College). He recently met with both Tristam Aldridge from COGS and Danielle Smith from the newly reorganized International unit. Ms. Smith will represent the program at the upcoming NAFSA (National Association of Foreign Student Advisers): Association of International Educators conference in May. Mr. Aldridge is helping build a list of international students who studied in the US and might return for graduate work. Dr. Anderson is working with both Mr. Aldridge and Ms. Smith on building a link with the Erasmus Plus program from the EU. Dr. Anderson plans on follow-up a visit to Benedict College and will try to schedule a visit with Charleston Southern, as well as a “graduate school FAQ” event with Kathy Albertson from the Writing & Linguistics department.

The meeting adjourned at 2:25pm.

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Meeting
January 15th 2016 3:30-4:30pm
Newton 2203

Committee members present: Dustin Anderson, Olivia Edenfield, Richard Flynn, Julia Griffin, Gautam Kundu, and Desireé Riley (Graduate Representative)
Minutes submitted by: Dustin Anderson

Purpose of the Meeting: Program Revisions, cont.

At 3:30pm, Dr. Anderson called the meeting to order. Ms. Riley reported the students had a request to place more course materials On Reserve in the Library.

The committee continued its discussion of the modifications to the non-departmental course limitations in the program.

Dr. Anderson briefly reviewed the University committee’s response to the departmental Assessment Report.

Dr. Anderson thanked Ms. Riley for her contributions, and asked her to leave as the committee moved on to discussions of incoming student applications. He offered a brief overview of the current application pool, and asked the committee to reach out to colleagues in their own disciplines in an effort to bolster the application pool.

Dr. Anderson reminded the committee of the ENGL 7618 course topics (Thesis Project Approaches, and Committee Constructions) for Friday, January 29th at 1:30 in Newton 2203. The meeting adjourned at 4:45pm.

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Meeting
November 5th 2015 1:45pm-3pm
Newton 1109

Committee members present: Dustin Anderson, Olivia Edenfield, Richard Flynn, Julia Griffin, Gautam Kundu, Tomasz Warchol, and Desireé Riley (Graduate Representative)
Minutes submitted by: Dustin Anderson

Purpose of the Meeting: Program Revisions

At 1:45pm, Dr. Anderson called the meeting to order. Ms. Riley reported the students had a number of items. The most frequent, she said, was, again, the inability to plan for upcoming courses. They asked again for a list of upcoming courses. She also reported that some students had requested more online offerings, many had mentioned the desire for earlier meeting times, and parking accommodations. She said that she thought the most important issue was the scarcity of the library’s holdings in areas that match our seminars. She mentioned personally not being able to get the research material necessary for her course work. Dr. Flynn pointed out that library has a materials request procedure, but it would be helpful to know what the students are missing or would like to see added. Dr. Anderson asked if it would be beneficial to request that faculty confirm what the library has access to when planning their seminars. The committee agreed that this should be offered as a request during an upcoming faculty meeting. Dr. Anderson said that he would follow up with the chair regarding the course issues, but parking (and the number of available passes) was a university issue that should be directed to the Graduate Student Organization in COGS.

The committee moved on to Old Business. Dr. Anderson provided drafts of the syllabi for the Thesis Prep course and Pedagogy Workshop based on the discussions from the previous meetings.

ENGL 7998: Thesis Preparation Workshop Course Coordinator: Dustin Anderson
Spring 2016 danderson@georgiasouthern.edu
TBA Office hours by appointment only

Purpose: ENGL 7998 “Thesis Preparation” is a workshop in both a classroom (weeks 1-3 & 9) and directed individual setting. This course, coordinated by the graduate program director, and supervised by the graduate committee, will help students begin their principal research for a thesis topic, draft and revise a thesis prospectus. This course will also connect students with the appropriate thesis advisor with whom they will meet near the end of the course.

Evaluation: This course will be graded on a Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory scale.

Bibliography: A bibliography is simply a list of sources used during the research of a specific topic or project. Each Bibliographic entry should follow the current MLA Handbook guidelines (7th edition). For your topic, you must have at least 30 total sources, including at least: four monographs, eight peer-reviewed journal articles, and one ancillary primary source. Should you include annotations, please limit these to 100 words each.

Prospectus: A prospectus is a summary that clearly states the research question or agenda that your thesis will address and explains how you will answer the research question; a research review that provides an overview of relevant scholarship and criticism of the relevant secondary literature on your topic addresses; and a proposal that situates your proposed research topic within the ongoing critical context of the field–this section must make clear how your work will make a valuable contribution to this topic. Your prospectus should be no more than 2000 words.

Research Observation Journal: This is a document consisting of two parts: 1) a collection and record of the material that you engaged with in the research you encountered on your topic; this includes sites, engines, periodicals, books, archives, etc…. 2) a self-evaluation of your research methodology over the course of the semester. The first part will be due with the Working Bibliography at Week 9, and the second part will be due with the Prospectus due at Week 13.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism is prohibited in the Academic Dishonesty section of the Georgia Southern University Catalog, and any instance of plagiarism will be adjudicated under Procedures for Academic Dishonesty (outlined in The Student Guide to Conduct). Plagiarism is a counter-productive, non-writing behavior that is unacceptable in a course intended to aid in the growth of individual writers. Plagiarism includes representing another’s work or any part thereof, be it published or unpublished, as one’s own. If you turn in work that is not entirely your own, you will fail the course and find your standing in the graduate program in jeopardy. This is your warning.

Accommodations for Americans With Disabilities: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), this course will honor requests for reasonable accommodations made by individuals with disabilities. During the first week of class, students must self-disclose their disability to the Student Disability Resource Center (SDRC) Director before academic accommodations can be implemented. For additional information, please call the ADA Compliance Officer at (912) 478-5136, TDD (912) 478-0273, or the SDRC Director at (912) 478-1566, TDD (912) 478-0666

Schedule:
Week 1 — Course Introduction & Introduction of Sample Materials
Week 2 — Thesis Project Approaches
Week 3 — Committee Constructions
Weeks 4-8 — Hands-on Research (During this time you must schedule at least one meeting with a member of the Graduate Committee to discuss your progress.)
Week 9 —Proposal Workshop (During this workshop, you must bring in a 1-2 page proposal of your thesis topic. Working Bibliography Due.)
Weeks 10-12 — Committee Placement (By this time you should have met with the GPD to discuss potential advisors. You must schedule at least one meeting with a potential advisor about your topic.)
Week 13 — Prospectus Workshop (During this workshop, you must bring in your full prospectus draft. Research Journal Due.)
Week 14 — Prospectus Due

ENGL 0000 Pedagogy Workshop Workshop Coordinator: Dustin Anderson
Spring 2016 danderson@georgiasouthern.edu
TBA Office hours by appointment only

Purpose: ENGL 0000 “Pedagogy Workshop” is a workshop in both a classroom (weeks 4-6 & 10) and directed individual setting. This workshop, coordinated by the graduate program director, and supervised by the graduate committee, will help students prepare to act as a primary instructor (as a TA2) at the introductory level in English. Typically, those courses would be either World Literature (I or II) or the First Year Writing sequence. This workshop will build on the existing material that student created in ENGL 7111.

Workshop Projects:
• A Teaching Philosophy
• A sample Lecture outline
• A sample Discussion outline
• A sample set of Quiz/Exam Questions
• A sample set of Student Writing Prompts
• An Observation Letter
• Completion of a CTL Workshop.
All material must be submitted to be considered for the application TA2 pool.

Teaching Philosophy: This should be a revision of the Teaching Philosophy initially submitted as part of the ENGL 7111 course based on the discussions during this workshop, and observations made of faculty teaching literature and writing courses.

Lecture and Discussion Outlines: These samples should be on a single text (or excerpt of a longer text) that might be taught in a literature course. While both act as outlines, these materials should be able to fill a 50 minute class meeting. Students might be asked to present aspects of these lecture/discussions later in the semester.

Quiz and Exam Questions: These samples question sets should be revisions or developments of those composed during the ENGL 7111 course based on the discussions during this workshop.

Student Writing Prompts: These sample prompts (for both journals/in-class writing exercises and essay assignments) should be revisions or developments of those composed during the ENGL 7111 course based on the discussions during this workshop.

Observation Letter: Students will observe a course taught by an instructor, and compose an analytical observation of that classroom meeting. Sample letters will be provided as examples.

CTL Workshop: Students will register for at least one workshop with the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL). All TA2s must complete two CTL/CT2 workshops before entering the classroom to remain compliant with University requirements. The calendar and list of workshops can be found here: http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ctl/calendar/.

Schedule:
Week 4 — Constructing Lectures and Discussions & Discussion on Issues of Authority in the Classroom
Week 5 — Practical Workshop on Quiz and Exam Design
Week 6 — Practical Workshop on Student Writing (Journals, Essays, and Papers) and Response to Student Writing
Week 10 — Discussion/Lecture Workshop (Students will be asked to provide a brief demonstration of a lecture or discussion for critique)
Week 11 — All Material Due

The committee recommended making the Prospectus workshop asynchronous, and condensing the workshops for the Pedagogy course into a single one-on-one workshop.

The committee moved onto the New Business Items. Dr. Anderson provided the proposals for changing the Foreign Language Requirement and modifying the non-departmental course limitations in the program. The committee thoroughly and spiritedly discussed the implications of the proposal. Dr. Griffin asked if this would not create an issue with seminar numbers. Dr. Anderson responded that the proposal would only have an impact on 5000 level courses, and the seminar requirement would remain the same as it currently stands. The result would be the same number of students in 5000 level ENGL courses, but more students in both WRIT 5000 courses and in ENGL seminars since these would be additional students, not replacement students. Dr. Anderson asked the committee to send him comments on the proposal electronically, and the committee would continue its discussion of this item at the next meeting.

Proposed Revision to MA in English Foreign Language Requirement

Dustin Anderson, Graduate Program Director, to the MA in English Graduate Committee

I. Identified Problem
Recruiting students into graduate programs is a high priority at Georgia Southern University, and we recognize a short-coming in our recruitment abilities within this program. Students in the MA in English program are currently required to complete a Foreign Language Requirement by either 1) completing four semester of undergraduate language coursework, or 2) passing a language competency translation exam. The chair of Foreign Languages has expressed a reticence in offering the translation exams (as they are uncompensated labor for the FL faculty), and our students have expressed their dissatisfaction with having to take additional undergraduate coursework outside of their discipline. For students matriculating from Georgia Southern, this is not an issue as their BA degree requires four semesters of Foreign Language course (up to the 2XX2 level). For students coming from outside of Southern (even those in GA), this has consistently been an issue. These courses do not count in their program of study, and pose the potential to delay their graduation.

The issue of Foreign Language requirements has, again, come to the forefront of the Graduate Program Directors listserve through MLA. Specifically, the current conversations on Foreign Language requirements have begun to include an acknowledgement of changes in technology and resources that students have regarding foreign language materials. In 2011, the MLA charged an ad hoc committee to articulate some of the changes that the Master’s Degree has undergone in the last 20 years, and anticipate new needs and changes to the 21st century Master’s Degree. Their report, “Rethinking the Master’s Degree in English for a New Century,” explores a number of issues including an analysis of the Foreign Language requirement. This report highlighted the inconsistency of what was deemed to show competency in a Foreign Language in the programs still requiring this component (which, in 2011, was roughly 60% of MA programs in the US). The report does note the philosophical merit of a study of this type: “Moreover, using the exploration of language differences to build foreign language competence leads not simply to the fulfillment of a formal requirement but also to encounters with the fundamental structures of language” (11). Doug Steward, in his 2006 article ADE “The Foreign Language Requirement in English Doctoral Programs,” details the decline of the Foreign Language requirement in PhD (not MA) programs, and finds that there is a missed opportunity for “practical and commercial values; humanistic and cultural values, and linguistic and cognitive values” transmitted through language study (69).

While I heartily agree with both of these philosophical stances, those concepts are not what is practically available to many students—including our students at Southern—during their MA study. Neither an open-dictionary single exam nor an introductory course in conversational Spanish or French provides the opportunity to explore the types of linguistic structures that would prove beneficial to student seeking this degree. What we find, practically, instead is the imposition of make-work courses in conversational language alien to a student’s research agenda or Program of Study, and, most important, a failure to take into consideration our students’ time constraints. The question of language competency regularly comes up during discussions with prospective students, and—in last year’s case—was a factor in our top candidate’s decision to pursue her degree at a peer institution.

II. Proposed Solution
Since the College of Graduate Studies has no requirement for a language other than English for the master’s degree (meaning individual academic units may establish, with approval of the Graduate Committee, language requirements for their degree programs and may define the level of competence needed to satisfy those requirements), I propose two solutions to this issue: 1) the program removes the Foreign Language requirement from the Program Requirements, or 2) that students enrolled in the MA in English Program at Georgia Southern may fulfill their Foreign Language requirement in additional ways housed within the program itself. The latter solution would consist of either a translation of critical work—provided by the Graduate Program Director—in a language other than English, or an annotated bibliography of criticism (in a language other than English) on a work related to their thesis research project. Either of these two options would be due by the beginning of their 3rd semester.

Students matriculating from programs that provided four semesters of Foreign Language would continue to fulfill that requirement with their previous coursework. Students would no longer look to take competency exams or additional course work at the undergraduate level.

III. Anticipated Outcome
Students enrolled in the MA in English Program will be able to more efficiently complete their Program of Study. Prospective students entering from programs that do not have the same language requirements as Georgia Southern will not be deterred by applying to this program.

IV. Impact on Current Capabilities
The Graduate Program director, or appropriate member of the departmental Graduate Committee, would assume the responsibility for generating an article for translation and reviewing that translation to ensure that students meet a competency of 80% accuracy, or responsible for reviewing the annotations from the bibliographic research project. Appropriate here refers to the Committee member’s own ability to read and translate said language as indicated by their reading/translating proficiencies or native language.

V. Proposal
We propose to modify the MA in English Program Description to reflect the following changes (below), which will allow students to more efficiently complete their Program of Study without adding coursework that is not reflective of their current research or sensitive to their time constraints.

Other Program Requirements
Language Requirement
All degree programs leading to tThe Master of Arts in English degree requires a demonstration of reading knowledge of a foreign language. French, German, or Spanish is generally required are accepted, but another language may be specified by the major professor when the latter is appropriate to the area of research proposed by the student in the thesis prospectus through consultation with the Graduate Program Director. A foreign national may not use English or his or her native language to satisfy the language requirements.
Georgia Southern University offers the following two options for graduate students who need to complete a foreign language requirement:
1. The language requirement may be satisfied by a minimum grade of “C” in the fourth course of a college-level foreign language that is approved by the student’s advisor.
2. A student primarily interested in reading research in his or her field should prepare to take the Foreign Language Graduate Reading Exam administered by the Department of Foreign Languages. The student must arrange with the Department of Foreign Languages to take the test in the first half of any semester.
3. A student may undertake a research project requiring either an annotated bibliography of criticism in a single language other than English related to their thesis topic, or translate a work of criticism in a language other than English related to their thesis topic. Research projects of this nature must be approved by the Graduate Program Director during a student’s first semester in the program, and must be completed by the beginning of the student’s third semester in the program.
The committee vigorous discussed the implications of the proposal, what students should get and what students do get from the available options, and what the impact on current students would be. The committee agreed that housing the requirement within the department was problematic on two levels: it would create more unpaid work for the department members, and create another layer of logistics for the program director. The committee unanimously voted to remove the Forgiven Language Requirement from the Program Requirements, and asked Dr. Anderson to prepare this for presentation at the next department meeting.

Dr. Anderson thanked Ms. Riley for her contributions, and asked her to leave as the committee moved on to discussions of incoming student applications. Dr. Anderson reviewed the candidates’ materials having previously conveyed these to the committee. He noted that the committee had very different feelings about candidates entering with Provisional Status, and commented that the faculty members in those areas seemed much more willing to admit than those outside of the students’ proposed areas. Dr. Anderson asked if the committee would consider entertaining a Mentor requirement for any incoming Provisional student. He commented that the concept of Provisional Status should be to help the student move into Regular Status, and if that were the case, then the committee has an ethical responsibility to provide those students every opportunity to succeed. Since there might be a number of these students, they should be paired with someone (ideally from the committee) to act as a mentor during their first 9 hours in program. The committee agreed to pilot this during the Spring 2016 semester. The committee will return to this topic, and based on those experiences, discuss creating a policy.

Dr. Edenfield raised the issue of student GA assignments being contracted for a year rather than semester. Her concern dealt students in units outside of the department not having a diverse experience compared to those funded through the department. Dr. Anderson commented that there was little that the committee could do about extra-departmental assignments. Dr. Edenfield requested that the committee pursue this topic.

Dr. Anderson reminded the committee of the ENGL 7121 presentations on Monday, November 30th at 6:00-9:00pm in Newton 2203. The meeting adjourned at 3:20pm.

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Meeting
September 24th 2015 1:45pm-3pm
Newton 1109

Purpose of the Meeting: New Course Revisions

At 1:45pm, Dr. Anderson called the meeting to order. Ms. Riley reported that there were no new student concerns, but students had asked for additional reminders for deadlines and advising. Dr. Anderson said that he would be happy to provide additional reminders for these things, but Ms. Riley should remind the students that these deadlines ultimately are the student’s responsibility.

The committee moved to address the Old Business Items on the agenda. Dr. Warchol announced that he had begun compiling a list of international colleagues for recruitment purposes, and Dr. Edenfield asked that a colleague from Germany be added to that list. Dr. Anderson informed the committee that he had scheduled meetings with Tristam Aldridge director of COGS Admissions and Danielle Smith from the International Studies office to discuss additional international strategies.

The committee discussed revisions to the Spring TA2 Pedagogy Workshop. Ms. Riley offered some insight into what had worked best as a participant in the pilot of that workshop. The committee agreed to focus on the following, more limited, areas: constructing lectures and discussions; offering a practical workshops on quiz and exam design, and on student writing (journals, essays, and papers); and discussing issues of authority in the classroom, decorum, and policies. The committee agreed that it would be best to offer sample syllabi to students rather than having them construct their own. These discussions and workshops would be in addition to the students attending two CT2 workshops of their own choosing.

The committee then discussed the schedule and content of the recently approved ENGL 7618 Thesis Prep course. As previously discussed, the course will be taught as a workshop in both a classroom (weeks 1-3 & 9) and directed individual setting, and will be coordinated by the graduate program director, but supervised and taught by the graduate committee. Students in this workshop will begin the principal research for a thesis topic, and draft a thesis prospectus. The face-to-face group meetings will cover the following topics: Week 1 – Course Overview and Discussion of Sample Materials; Week 2 – Thesis Project Approaches; Week 3 – Committee Constructions; and Week 9 – Workshop on Bibliographies and Proposals.

Dr. Anderson introduced the New Business Item requested by the committee. In light of the previous meeting, Dr. Anderson collected and prepared some materials on peer and aspirant institutions’ requirements for Foreign Language competency and limitations on “non-departmental course limitations” in those programs. Dr. Edenfield asked if the Foreign Language issue was really a significant problem since students should be able to fulfill this requirement with credit from their undergraduate degree. Dr. Anderson responded that while this is true for students from a BA degree program at Southern and most other USG schools, that many of the prospective students would not meet this requirement for various reasons (out-of-state requirements being different, international students not being able to use their native language or English, or coming from a dual degree program with different requirements). Dr. Edenfield and Dr. Griffin agreed that Foreign Language competency was something that all Masters level students should be able to demonstrate. Dr. Anderson agreed, but pointed out that there were some practical issues with the students’ ability to complete this requirement if they did not meet it as an incoming student.

Dr. Anderson asked each of the committee members to candidly share their ideas and concerns about these two areas. Dr. Anderson volunteered to write up a proposal for each of these changes (based on both the committee members’ comments and the peer and aspirant material provided) and use that as a basis of discussion for the next meeting. Dr. Flynn asked if it would be possible to see those proposals before the meeting to make the most of the available time, and Dr. Anderson agreed to email a draft of those out before the meeting.

Dr. Anderson reminded the committee of the ENGL 7121 presentations on Monday, November 30th at 6:00-9:00pm in Newton 2203. The meeting adjourned at 3:05pm.

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Meeting
August 27th 2015 1:45pm-3pm
Newton 1109

Purpose of the Meeting: Annual Planning

At 1:45pm, Dr. Anderson called the meeting to order. The committee was joined by Desireé Riley, Graduate Student Representative, and heard from her regarding graduate student concerns. The primary concern she reported students had was the inability to plan for their courses. The students continued to request a schedule of courses offered in upcoming semesters. Dr. Anderson explained the he had brought this to the attention of the department chair, and the concern had been noted. He said that he would relate the continuing concern as well.

The committee did not move to untable the Old Business items from the previous meeting with the exception of creating Sample Thesis Materials, specifically the Prospectus. Dr. Edenfield requested that this be made part of the proposed ENGL 7998 (Thesis Prep course). Dr. Anderson responded that he would collect samples from a variety of faculty to include in the course Folio site and open that site to committee members to post examples in as well.

The committee moved on to the semester’s New Business Items. The committee discussed revising the topics for Spring TA2 Pedagogy Workshop. Dr. Anderson asked the committee to consider the need to adopt texts for the new Thesis Prep course (ENGL 7618) or the Pedagogy Workshop, and suggested the following titles as starting points: Umberto Eco’s How to Write a Thesis, Scott Crider’s Office of Assertion: an Art of Rhetoric for Academic Essay, Theo D’haen’s World Literature: a Reader, the St. Martin’s Guide to Teaching Writing, Anne Lamott’s Bird by Bird, Gerald Graff’s They Say, I Say: the Moves that Matter in Academic Writing.

Dr. Anderson proposed one of the primary concerns of the committee in general should be recruitment, and asked the committee to share ideas for new recruiting pools. He discussed his intention to intensify effort in recruiting international students. Dr. Warchol agreed that this was a good idea as it added to the diversity of the program, and would benefit the local students through extended intercultural engagement with their international peers. Dr. Anderson asked the committee to brainstorm resources for this initiative by creating a list of international colleagues or university units that they had worked with in the recent past. Dr. Anderson also asked that the committee think of colleagues in the region who he could reach out to for prospective students. Dr. Flynn asked why the program was not recruiting students from the Writing & Linguistics department in addition to the Literature department. Dr. Anderson responded that recruiting from that department had been difficult in the previous year since students were not allowed to take more than one course in Writing & Linguistics during their Program of Study. Dr. Flynn stated that this had not always been the case, and it was a shame to lose good “English” students because of that policy. Dr. Kundu asked what other impediments had Dr. Anderson found in recruiting students. Dr. Anderson replied that the disparity between Southern and some of its more local peer institutions made the program sometimes hard to distinguish. He mentioned that many out-of-state (and all of the international) students he talked with had concerns about the foreign language requirements. He also said that many students had a hard time grasping the division between the English units since their programs had combined departments for Writing, Composition, and Literature. Dr. Anderson also said that all of his prospective students asked about teaching opportunities. The issue of funding within the department was, as always, a big issue. If students aren’t funded then they are highly unlikely to join the program. The committee agreed to review the current program policies to see if it best served the students’ needs and the program’s ability to recruit high-quality or diverse students.

Dr. Anderson announced the meeting dates for the semester, and asked the committee to plan to attend the ENGL 7121 presentations on Monday, November 30th at 6:00-9:00pm in Newton 2203. The meeting adjourned at 2:55pm.

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the Graduate Committee Meeting
Spring 2015

Committee members participating: Dustin Anderson, Olivia Edenfield, Richard Flynn, Julia Griffin, Gautam Kundu, &Tomasz Warchol

Minutes submitted by: Dustin Anderson

Purpose of the meetings: Admissions and Pedagogy Workshop Pilot Program

No new business items were introduced during the Spring semester.

The MA in English graduate committee met in an asynchronous online format to discuss candidates for MA program admission. For the Fall 2016 cohort, the committee admitted nine Regular Status students, two students under Provisional Status, and one student as Part-Time Status. Seven students enrolled Regular Status, one enrolled Provisional Status, one student enrolled as Part-Time, and one student deferred Regular Status until the following Spring semester.

The committee did meet with the prospective TA2 for the pilot of our pedagogy workshop. The following were the times and topics for the pilot program:

Meeting 1 – Course Construction – March 13, Newton 2203, 3:30-5:30pm
Topics discussed: Establishing Expectations, Course Organization & Syllabi, Creating Assignments, Online Assignments, Writing Prompts, and Quizzes & Exams.

Meeting 2 – Student Writing – April 3, Newton 2203, 3:30-5:30pm (Dan Bauer, guest)
Topics discussed: Responding to Student Writing, Invention and Drafting Exercises, and Student Research.

Meeting 3 – Classroom Management – April 17, Newton, Newton 2203, 3:30-5:30pm
Topics discussed: Lecture & Discussion, Managing Workshops, Teaching Persona, and Student Management Issues.

This workshop pilot was designed to be a hands-on workshop covering: a sample syllabus, sample exam and quiz questions, and writing prompts. The students had drafts of much of that material from their ENGL 7111 course. While this workshop was not required, students not successfully completing the workshop were considerably less likely to be considered for a World Literature or Composition TA2 position. Successful completion of this course also required attending one workshop hosted by the Center for Teaching and Technology (such the Folio Foundations workshops or the Creating a Teaching Portfolio).

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the Graduate Committee Meeting
November 2014

Meeting conducted electronically. Committee members participating: Dustin Anderson, Olivia Edenfield, Richard Flynn, Gautam Kundu, Tomasz Warchol
Minutes submitted by: Dustin Anderson

Purpose of the Meeting: Topics for pedagogy workshops

The committee conducted the following discussion via email in light of end of semester obligations and scheduling issues. The committee designed the outline of the spring pedagogy workshop for those students interested in potentially teaching as an English TA2. The workshop was designed to take over the course of three Friday afternoons in the spring. Each meeting was designed to cover a variety of interrelated practical topics. The workshop was designed to be hands-on, and required students to bring sample material from their 7111 course with them to the first meeting: a sample syllabus, sample exam and quiz questions, and writing prompts. The committee decided that the workshop should not be required, but rather note that students who do not complete the workshop would be considerably less likely to be considered for a World Literature or Composition TA2 position. Successful completion of this course would also require attended one workshop hosted by the Center for Teaching and Technology (such the Folio Foundations workshops or the Creating a Teaching Portfolio). The workshops were scheduled as follows:

Meeting 1 – Course Construction – March 13, Newton 2203, 3:30-5:30pm
Topics will include:
Establishing Expectations
Course Organization & Syllabi
Creating Assignments
Online Assignments
Writing Prompts
Quizzes & Exams

Meeting 2 – Student Writing – April 3, Newton 2203, 3:30-5:30pm
Topics will include:
Responding to Student Writing
Invention and Drafting Exercises
Student Research

Meeting 3 – Classroom Management – April 17, Newton, Newton 2203, 3:30-5:30pm
Topics will include:
Lecture & Discussion
Managing Workshops
Teaching Persona
Student Management Issues

Based on the chair’s feedback to the proposed program changes, the committee decided to pursue only the change to the GRE requirement, and the addition of the Thesis preparation course. These were revised and prepared for presentation at the general department meeting.

Dr. Anderson also outlined the admissions timeline and the committee’s responsibilities for that process. Dr. Anderson again asked that the committee members attend the 7111/7121 Research Presentations on December 1st, 6-9pm.

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the Graduate Committee Meeting
Thursday, October 16th, 2014, 11am

Committee members present: Dustin Anderson, Olivia Edenfield, Richard Flynn, Gautam Kundu, Tomasz Warchol (excused: Julia Griffin), guest: Briona Jones
Minutes submitted by: Dustin Anderson

Purpose of the Meeting: Discuss Curriculum

At 11:00am, Dustin Anderson called the meeting to order. The committee heard from Ms. Jones regarding graduate student concerns. The two concerns students had were the time of course during the day, and not knowing what courses would be offered in upcoming semesters.

The committee agreed to table the following items until the discussions surrounding curricular issues were completed: Fundraising or work with the Foundation to fund additional travel support; the re-evaluation of Program Application and T/R/GA Appointment Processes; and the revision of Assistant Request forms.

Dr. Edenfield gave her report on placement information for graduates. She met with Wendell Tompkins in the Office of Alumni Relations about access to data for our exiting students. She was able to compile a list of current alumni who the committee—through Alumni Relations—might be able to reach out to regarding creating scholarships or fellowships for graduate students.

After the review of the information packets on peer institution curriculum requirements, program design, and the program’s current course rotation, the committee spent the remainder of the meeting discussing potential program changes. The committee based the proposed revisions after review of the program and curricular requirements at the following Peer and Aspirant Institutions:
• Appalachian State University
• Bowling Green State University
• Eastern Carolina University
• Illinois State University
• Indiana University of Pennsylvania
• James Madison University
• Sam Houston State University
• University of North Carolina Wilmington
Where possible, these comparisons were made against program size (using available factbooks and websites), and all course comparisons were made against the M.A. in English or Literature as opposed programs focused on Teaching (MATs), Writing (MFAs), Rhetoric/Technical Writing (MAs), or PhD programs (BGSU, for instance, only offers a PhD in Rhetoric and Writing).

Based on the discussion, the committee asked Dr. Anderson to draft a recommendation for the following program changes to be submitted to the department chair. The committee recommended the following changes be made to the program in order to “enhance recruitment for prospective students, more easily fund accepted students, and facilitate the progress towards program completion for current students.” The proposed changes were recommended in order to enable the program to more thoroughly address the Program Goals and Student Learning Outcomes set forth by the department.

ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS
GRE Score
The committee recommended that a “set” published GRE score be removed from the Requirements for Admission into the MA in English program. The GRE will still be required for admission. However, the score will not be published on our print or web media. Instead, the committee proposed the admissions information be changed to read:

REGULAR ADMISSION:
• Completed requirements for the Bachelor’s degree in a college accredited by the appropriate regional accrediting associations.
• A 3.0 (4.0 scale) cumulative grade point average or higher on all undergraduate work.
• Graduate Record Examination (GRE) score.
• An undergraduate major or the equivalent in the proposed field of study.
• Two letters of recommendation by persons familiar with the applicant’s academic experience.
• A sample of the applicant’s scholarly writing of at least 12-15 pages.
• Statement of Purpose (250-500) words. This statement should address the applicant’s academic achievements and major accomplishments, contributions to or experiences in this field of study, pertinent extra-curricular activities, and the reasons why he or she wishes to attend Georgia Southern. While the personal statement is only one of many factors the graduate admissions committee considers when making admission decisions, it helps provide context for the rest of the application.

Rather than the current requirement:
REGULAR ADMISSION:
• Completed requirements for the Bachelor’s degree in a college accredited by the appropriate regional accrediting associations.
• A 3.0 (4.0 scale) cumulative grade point average or higher on all undergraduate work.
• A minimum Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores of 550 Verbal, 3.5 Analytical for applicants who took the GRE prior to August 2011; or minimum scores of 156 Verbal, 3.5 Analytical Writing for applicants who took the exam after July 31, 2011.
• An undergraduate major or the equivalent in the proposed field of study.
• Two letters of recommendation by persons familiar with the applicant’s academic experience.
• A sample of the applicant’s scholarly writing of at least 12-15 pages.
• Statement of Purpose (250-500) words. This statement should address the applicant’s academic achievements and major accomplishments, contributions to or experiences in this field of study, pertinent extra-curricular activities, and the reasons why he or she wishes to attend Georgia Southern. While the personal statement is only one of many factors the graduate admissions committee considers when making admission decisions, it helps provide context for the rest of the application.

The committee had serious concerns that the GRE score have not been a reliable measure of an applicant’s ability or potential. Moreover, the GRE also demonstrates biases in race and native language; it also excludes students without the financial support to take the exam repeatedly. “Sex, Race, Ethnicity, and Performance on the GRE General Test,” published by ETS itself, indicates some of the limitations of the GRE: “Nor do the GRE Tests assess some factors important to academic and career success, such as motivation, creativity, and interpersonal skills. […] Because of psychometric limitations, only score differences of certain magnitudes are reliable indicators of real differences in ability. A person’s test score is an estimate of the level of the person’s knowledge or ability in the area tested and is not a complete and perfect measure.”

DEGREE REQUIREMENTS
Curriculum
The committee recommended that a set of curricular requirements be added to the MA in English program. This would include adding a new course in thesis preparation. The committee agreed that as the program looks toward funding additional students in primary teaching roles (TA2s), the program should better prepare them to manage their time and research agendas in regards to their thesis projects.

The committee proposed adding a new course to the catalog, and including it as part of the curriculum. ENGL 7998 “Thesis Preparation” is to be taught as a workshop in both a classroom (weeks 1-3 & 9) and directed individual setting, which will be coordinated by the graduate program director, and supervised by the graduate committee. Students in this workshop will begin the principal research for a thesis topic, draft and revise a thesis prospectus, and meet regularly with a thesis advisor. This course will be graded on a Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory scale. The catalog description would read as follows:
ENGL 7998
Thesis Preparation Workshop (1)
Students in this workshop will begin the principal research for a thesis topic, draft and revise a thesis prospectus, and meet regularly with a thesis advisor. Graded on an S/U basis.

The committee proposed the following curriculum be added to the MA in English program:
Course Requirements for the Master of Arts in English
Semester Hours Required: 36 (minimum)

Required Courses
• ENGL7111/7121 Methods of Research & Seminar in College English
• ENGL7998 Thesis Preparation
Required Hours
• 6 hours in British literature (3 hours from pre-18th Century and 3 hours from post-18th Century literatures)
• 3 hours in American literature
• 3 hours in an Alterity course (focused on race/ethnicity, class, gender, period, or region)*
• 15 hours of Elective Courses**
• 5 hours Thesis
* These courses may possibly count for another course requirement as appropriate, as determined by the Director of Graduate Studies and the course instructor.
** No more than 9 hours may be taken at the 5000 level.
Other Requirements
To complete the M.A. in English, students must satisfy the following requirements:
• Earn 30 credit hours with an overall grade point average of 3.0 or better in approved courses.
• Satisfy a foreign language requirement.
• Satisfactory Thesis Defense.

To help students map their program of study in a more efficient manner, the committee recommends creating a regularized course rotation that will be broad enough to allow the department chair to utilize a number of faculty members in each area, while still enabling the students to plan their program of study.
The committee proposes a course rotation, such as the following, be adopted for graduate level courses. This course rotation would work ideally by offering three Seminars a semester.

Although these would not be requirements, the committee compiled the following the Recommended Coverage Areas as an inclusive way to address the Required Areas:
• Gateway Courses (Research Methods and Thesis Preparation),
• American Lit,
• Pre-18thCentury British Lit,
• Post-18thCentury British Lit,
• Single Author/Major Authors Courses,
• Courses focused on a singular Form (poetry, fiction, drama, or film) or Genre, and
• Alterity Courses (focused on race/ethnicity, class, gender, period, or region).

Odd YearsƗ
Fall Spring
Research Methods American Lit
Pre-18thC British Lit Post-18thC British Lit
Form/Genre Course Single Author
Thesis Prep

Even YearsƗ
Fall Spring
Research Methods American Lit
American Lit Pre or Post-18thC British Lit
Single/Major Author Alterity Course
Thesis Prep

These designations were designed to allow for the maximum inclusion for existing courses. For instance, the Seminar in African-American Literature could count for a student’s requirement under either the American Lit requirement or the Alterity requirement (being focused on race); the Seminar in Shakespeare could count as either Pre-18th Century British Lit and address the Single Author recommended area; given the post-colonial focus of the Seminar in World and Comparative Literature it could count as Alterity or Post-18th Century British Lit.
ƗNo summer course were included in this rotation due to staffing issues, however, the committee discussed focusing summer courses on those that are either Form/Genre or Alterity based.

The addition of the Thesis preparation course should enable students to complete far more of their thesis during the summer, which should, in turn, enable them to better balance their completion of the thesis while working as a teaching or research assistant, especially as a TA2.

Dr. Anderson announced that the following meeting should focus on topics and coordinators for spring TA2 pedagogy workshop, and that the committee would meet only as necessary in the spring as the admissions process would be conducted electronically, and the time spent in meeting would be better used participating in the TA workshops.
The meeting adjourned at 2:00pm.

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the Graduate Committee Meeting
Thursday, September 11th, 2014, 11am

Committee members present: Dustin Anderson, Olivia Edenfield, Richard Flynn, Gautam Kundu, Tomasz Warchol (excused: Julia Griffin), guest: Briona Jones
Minutes submitted by: Dustin Anderson

Purpose of the Meeting: Review previous year’s progress and introduce new initiatives

At 11:00am, Dustin Anderson called the meeting to order, and reviewed the previous committee’s old business: placement information for graduates, guaranteeing summer seminars, finding guest speakers, and securing additional student funding lines. He explained that based on his meeting with the Dean that the primary focus of the coming year’s energy needed to be spent on recruitment efforts. Dr. Anderson proposed that the committee should consider ways that that program could enhance its recruitment efforts with low/no-cost options, such as indirect recruitment with colleagues at other institutions, the creation of faculty profile pages highlighting both research and teaching, and building digital marketing materials.

Dr. Anderson recapped his discussion with the department chair regarding summer seminars, which will be scheduled based on the departments needs and the likelihood of the course filling. Given the lower enrollment in the current year, the likelihood of the seminar making was not high enough to create the course. Dr. Flynn asked if it was not the department’s policy to offer a seminar in the summer. Dr. Anderson responded that while he agreed it was necessary, there was no policy on summer scheduling. Dr. Edenfield volunteered to work with Alumni Services to gather information on graduates in order to build information on placement and advancement.

Based on concerns from the previous year’s committee and the new graduate program director, the new business brought forward for this committee included:
a) Curriculum Design, Area Coverage, and Course Rotation;
b) Topics and Coordinators for Spring TA2 Pedagogy Workshop;
c) Re-evaluation of Program Application and T/R/GA Appointment Processes, and
d) Revision of Assistant Request Forms.

In discussion with members of the previous year’s committee returning to this year’s committee, Dr. Anderson pointed out that one of the primary concerns centered around the students’ preparedness to advance at the end of their program. A number of students had discussed their desire to take more varied courses that would cover areas they would likely encounter in a PhD program, specifically the shortage of courses in genre or early literatures.

In advance of the meeting, Dr. Anderson collected curricular requirements and designs from Southern’s peer institutions and the department’s graduate course rotation (both 5000 and 7000 level) since 2010. The committee proceeded with a general discussion on the practicality of a course rotation, and how our program stacked up against area coverage and requirements from Peer Institutions. Dr. Warchol pointed out that developing a rotation for all courses would be very difficult. Dr. Flynn and Dr. Anderson responded that many other departments offered rotations, but at a more limited scale. Dr. Anderson suggested that the committee consider only discuss the rotation of seminars since 5000 level courses were scheduled first as undergraduate courses. Dr. Kundu asked what the benefit would be of developing a course rotation. Dr. Anderson responded that it would facilitate recruitment and progression beyond the program. Being able to advise students on a two-year basis would allow them to form a coherent program of study, and would position them to discuss their experience as they applied out to other programs. The committee agreed that curriculum should be the primary focus on the semester’s work. Dr. Anderson asked the committee to review the information packets, and return for the next meeting with suggested areas/concentrations to use during the discussion of curriculum building at the following meeting.

Dr. Anderson outlined his plan to increase student funding opportunities as the final piece of new business. In order to maximize the current funding lines, he proposed that the department facilitate as many students as were capable of teaching as TA2 during their second year. Adding the spring pedagogy workshop to the existing 7111 material could enable even those students who worked in administrative or research positions to teach during their second year, which would free up the college GAs to use for recruiting incoming students.

The committee proposed two additional items be added to the committee’s agenda: examining the rationale behind Day/Time scheduling for graduate courses—specifically the “after 5pm” rule—and the creation of sample materials (i.e. Prospectus).

Dr. Anderson asked that the committee members attend the 7111/7121 Research Presentations on December 1st, 6-9pm.

Dr. Anderson announced the committee meeting schedule for the remainder of the semester was announced:
October 9th, 11am
November 13th, 11am
December 4th, TBA** only if necessary
The meeting adjourned at 12:00pm.

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Meeting Minutes, September 11, 2013

Present: Caren Town, chair; Aaron Roberts, graduate representative, Joe Pellegrino, Richard Flynn, Gautam Kundu, Dustin Anderson, and Howard Keeley.

Graduate Student Concerns: The chair introduced this year’s graduate student representative, Aaron Roberts. Mr. Roberts reported that he has met with almost every graduate student and that they are reporting no concerns so far. Students are asking him about deadlines for the thesis and which courses to take. He plans to offer Thesis Speed Dating again this year, probably in October, and there was some discussion about offering a professional workshop for graduate students, which would focus on CVs, conferences, and the job search.

Assessment: The chair noted that the 2012-2013 English MA Assessment document will be submitted electronically to the department on September 18th. (Note: the report was approved at the department meeting on 9/20/13.) Dr. Anderson noted that for next year’s assessment cycle, graduating students need to be strongly encouraged to fill out the survey, so the sample will be more representative. Based on survey responses, the chair reported that the action plan for 2013-2014 will include meetings with faculty and students to clarify TA/RA responsibilities. The committee also asked the program director to query faculty in more detail about their research projects/administrative needs before assigning RAs.

RA Guidelines: The committee discussed the RA guidelines listed in the Graduate Student Handbook and decided to further clarify instructions for both faculty and students. The chair will follow up with students about their RA experiences and provide them with guidance about editing scholarly work. The chair also presented the idea of faculty in philosophy and religious studies receiving RAs, which was approved by the committee. On a related matter, committee members stressed that students interested in working in philosophy or religious studies must still have a primarily literary focus for their MA theses, although faculty from those disciplines may serve on their thesis committees.

Recruitment/Awarding of Assistantships: The chair informed the committee of a slight decrease in enrollment for Fall 2013 and a smaller number of students requesting teaching assistantships. Currently, all departmental assistantships have been filled, and all eligible students who requested assistantships received them, either in Literature and Philosophy or in Writing and Linguistics. The committee instructed the chair to continue to recruit at the highest levels and discussed the advisability of TA/RA funding for provisional students in spring semester.
Other Business: Dr. Flynn requested that the program director make copies of outstanding thesis prospectuses be made available to students. Mr. Roberts will solicit those, as will the chair.

Next Meeting: The committee will meet again in October, date and time to be announced.

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Minutes, November 26 2012

Present: Caren Town, Chair; Mary Stephens, Student Representative; Gautam Kundu, Dustin Anderson, Joe Pellegrino, Richard Flynn, Howard Keeley.

Update: The Chair reported that she plans to meet early next term with all thesis directors and students intending to defend theses to discuss expectations for completion and for the defense. Individual thesis committees will also be encouraged to meet early in the term (probably without the student present) to discuss the process. The newly-created handbook for thesis advisers should be helpful; it will be distributed at the beginning of the semester. She also reported that student and faculty midterm TA/RA assessments were overwhelmingly positive, although there were some concerns about clarifying the duties and expectations for RAs.

Student Representative Mary Stephens said that graduate students had been concerned about the number of seminars offered for Spring 2013, but that problem has been solved.

The Chair shared student enrollment projections for AYs 2013-2016. Taking into account limited budgets for additional faculty and teaching assistantships, as well as input from the CLASS Dean’s Office, the program projects very limited growth (2-4 students) for the upcoming years. 2-3 students are entering the program this spring, and enrollment for Fall 2013 seems on track to meet projections.

The committee then discussed the draft Thesis Director and Graduate Assistant Mentor Guidelines/Handbook. Various changes were suggested, which included stressing the necessity for students to follow the deadlines, using the prospectus in initial contact with potential thesis advisers, and advising students to ascertain faculty availability over summer or winter break as they create thesis committees. The committee also considered whether it would be possible or advisable to lower the number of thesis committee members from two to three. The revised handbook will be sent to the committee for final approval and then distributed to faculty and students via the faculty and graduate student listservs and posted on the department’s website by the beginning of Spring Semester 2013.

Next on the agenda was the projected course rotation through Spring 2015. Committee members stressed the need to rotate the College English and Research Methods courses among different faculty members (especially new faculty), to help insure that students have the most recent information about graduate scholarship/trends, and to prevent students from overburdening a particular professor with thesis direction. The committee suggested that summer seminars be offered either fully online or as hybrid courses to ensure that the seminars are filled. Special Topics and Single Author courses were also suggested as possible summer seminars, with an eye toward increasing the Post-colonial offerings for students.

Concerns of married graduate students were discussed next. Currently, no married student housing exists. Dr. Keeley wondered if it would be possible to enlist the help of COGS to offer orientation programs geared to married students that highlighted housing and child care, for example. The Chair agreed to contact COGS admission personnel about this issue, as well as about the particular needs of international students.

The Chair was charged by the committee with speaking to Dr. Dudley about the chair search in Writing and Linguistics. The committee hoped that he would ask candidates for their thoughts on continued (or increased) hiring of TAs in W & L.

Finally, the Chair announced a meeting on Friday, Nov. 30th, with graduate students, followed by an informal gathering at Mellow Mushroom.

Dr. Keeley suggested that the committee take up the question of fundraising at the first meeting of spring semester, to consider ways of challenging the foundation to fund summer seminars, for example, or additional faculty.

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Minutes—September 24, 2012

Present: Caren Town, chair; Dustin Anderson, Richard Flynn, Howard Keeley, Joe Pellegrino, Gautam Kundu, and Mary Stephens, graduate student representative.

The chair welcomed new members, in particular the new graduate student representative, Mary Stephens.

Ms. Stephens reported that there was some confusion about the thesis prospectus on the part of second-year students. The committee decided to clarify the process in the Thesis Adviser/Teaching Mentor Handbook, which is currently being developed. They also considered hosting meetings for teaching assistants and their faculty mentors in the near future.

Dr. Anderson discussed plans for a new graduate program brochure, which will take bookmark or postcard form, and will provide a link to a website or PDF with information about the department, the faculty, the program, and the application process. He asked that faculty consider submitting iconic photographs from literary history as potential illustrations for the website.

The chair discussed the new Thesis Director/Teaching Mentor’s Handbook, which will outline policies and procedures for the master’s thesis process and deadlines and provide guidelines for faculty working with teaching and research assistants. This handbook will be completed in the near future, distributed to faculty, and posted on the department’s website.

The committee considered possible recruitment strategies, including attending English Graduate Organization, Sigma Tau Delta, and honors program conferences, arranging meetings/social events with potential students from Armstrong and Savannah State, and a combined CLASS master’s programs recruitment event in either Savannah or Atlanta. After further consultation with Amanda Gilliland from COGS, the committee will also be considering gathering data about our existing students to determine where best to recruit, brainstorming with Savannah State and Armstrong about possible recruitment events/activities, travelling with COGS staff to recruitment events, and working in conjunction with COGS and/or the Graduate Student Organization to plan on-campus recruitment activities.

In other business, the committee discussed the possibility of organizing a rolling master class for teaching assistants where faculty could share effective teaching and assessment strategies, creating an archive of syllabi and teaching ideas, and re-designating TA2s as “Teaching Fellows.”

The committee will meet again in late October.

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Minutes, February 2, 2012

Present: Dr. Caren Town, chair; Dr. Joe Pellegrino, Dr. Richard Flynn, Dr. Olivia Edenfield, Dr. Dustin Anderson, Mr. Michael Harris, graduate student representative.

1. Old Business

a. The Chair updated the committee on the addition of the Statement of Purpose to the MA application for the 2012-13 catalog year. This change was approved by the University Graduate Committee at its last meeting.

b. The Chair reminded the committee of the upcoming Graduate Student meeting on February 16th, at 9 a.m. in the third-floor lounge. Students had expressed interest in meeting to discuss teaching other TA/GA issues, as well as concerns about course work and COGS paperwork.

c. Dr. Anderson informed the committee about changes to the TA application process, in particular the addition of a TA survey/statement of purpose specific to the English MA. The committee also discussed updating the letters sent out to prospective and accepted students from COGS and planned to communicate
about this via email.

2. Graduate Student Concerns

Mr. Harris said graduate students had asked for clarification of the TA appointment process for second-year students. The chair indicated that she will consult Dr. Dudley about this process and inform students. The committee also discussed the TA workload/expectations. The chair will consult Writing and Linguistics administrators and Dr. Dudley about these issues.

3. Grading of Thesis Hours

The chair discussed the procedures for awarding grades for thesis hours. Currently, faculty give either “IP” or “S/U” grades for thesis hours. The committee decided to create a policy ensuring students would receive “IP” grades on thesis hours until they have successfully defended their theses, at which time their grades would be converted to “S.” The chair will draft a policy for approval at the next committee meeting.

4. New Student Organization

The chair announced the creation of a new student organization, the English Literature Graduate School Society. The purpose of this organization to help prepare undergraduates for graduate school. The committee encourages the organization and will pass information about it on to graduate students.

5. Comprehensive Program Review, English MA

After suggesting changes to the number of online and new graduate courses listed in the Comprehensive Program Review, the committee approved the report, which will be sent to department for approval at the Friday, February 10th meeting.

6. TA Mentor Evaluation

The chair summarized the Fall 2011 TA evaluations of their faculty mentors, keeping the names of both faculty and graduate students confidential. In general, although most of their responses to the TA/GA experience were extremely positive, students were concerned about being expected to work longer hours than departmental guidelines suggest, having an unclear idea of what those guidelines were or where to find them, needing more guidance in preparing lectures/syllabi (TA2s), having no time sheets to record hours, and feeling disconnected from other TAs (especially TAs working in Writing and Linguistics). The chair said that the upcoming graduate student meetings should help with many of these issues and added that the committee will issue a statement to faculty and students encouraging them to consult (with link provided) the English Graduate Handbook about TA/RA guidelines and reminding them that TAs work 10 hours a week as teaching assistants and 10 hours as research/administrative assistants. The committee also discussed the need for flexibility in the use of RA hours, allowing them to be adapted to the needs of faculty over a given semester. TA hours should remain consistent at 10 hours per week.

7. Future Business

The committee will approve the thesis hours grading policy and consider application deadlines/procedures for students entering the program and receiving TAs at the next meeting. Members of the University Graduate Committee will raise the committee’s concerns about the COGS requirement for continuous enrollment in thesis hours (which means that students enrolling in thesis hours in spring (but not graduating that spring) must take thesis hours in summer.

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Minutes, November 16, 2011

Attending: Caren Town, Chair; Richard Flynn, Joe Pellegrino, Dustin Anderson, Michael Harris, Graduate Student Representative.

1. The Chair updated the committee on meeting times for graduate classes, revised GRE scores, writing samples/statements of purpose for applications, and the graduate fair.

A. A memo from Dean’s Office said that while seminars should be offered in the evening (6:30 or 7:00 p.m.), cross-listed 5000G courses may be offered in the afternoon (4:00 p.m. or later). The department will also be allowed to “determine the most effective course schedule for program development and student progression.” After some discussion, the committee determined that it wanted to continue to pursue offering seminars and 5000G courses at a variety of times, as long as a full-time load of courses were available for students after 5 p.m. each semester.

B. The new form of the GRE will change the regular admission score from 550 to 156 and the provisional admission score from 450 to 150. The analytical writing score will not change. This change, which is already reflected on current GREs, will be up for approval at the next University Graduate Committee meeting, as will the addition of the statement of purpose as part of the application process. (The writing sample is already listed in the catalog.) These changes will be included in the 2012-2013 Graduate Catalog.

C. The Graduate Fair provided an opportunity to showcase the program, but only a few students expressed an interest. The committee will continue to staff the fair, but it will look at various recruitment opportunities when it re-convenes Spring Term.

2. Graduate students expressed their gratitude for improvements to the graduate student office and asked when the refrigerator would arrive. The chair agreed to contact Dr. Dudley about this issue. The committee also discussed new tables and locks, which are necessary before departmental laptops can be installed in the graduate office.

3. The committee discussed changes to the graduate program goals and student learning outcomes. Dr. Pellegrino will incorporate the suggested changes and will revise the thesis defense rubric to reflect them.

4. The committee discussed a department-specific TA/GA/RA application. The Chair will query COGS about how this application can be made available to students and submitted to the department. Suggestions for changes to the application form designed by Dr. Anderson should be submitted to him in hard copy.

5. The Chair said that TA/GA/RA evaluations will be sent to the committee soon for comments/revisions, with the intent to make them available to supervising faculty and TA/GA/RAs at the end of the term. The goal is to have all students and faculty complete and submit these forms each semester before TA/GA/RAs are assigned for the upcoming semester.

The committee plans to re-convene in January.

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Minutes — September 14, 2011

Attending: Caren Town, Chair; Joe Pellegrino, Dustin Anderson, Richard Flynn, Duck Harris, Graduate Student Representative; David Dudley, Department Chair, Ex-Officio.

1. The Chair shared the following highlights of the 2010-2011 Committee’s Work:

New Thesis DescriptionIn cooperation with a thesis advisor and committee, the student will write an M.A. thesis of 10,000-12,000 words, not counting Notes and Works Cited. (With the approval of the thesis director, the student may write a longer thesis.) The student must pass an oral examination consisting of a discussion of the thesis and of questions related to it. In depth and scope, the thesis must demonstrate originality in research as well as independent and critical judgment in interpreting materials. The major professor shall supervise the research, direct the writing of the thesis, and approve the thesis in its final form. Prior to final approval, the members of the thesis committee will have read the thesis. Both second and third readers shall report all comments to the major professor. See the Graduate Student Manual for additional Thesis information. Prior to beginning the thesis, the student should have the supervisor complete a Thesis Prospectus Form to be approved by the department and the Graduate College.
Course Rotation Statement (sent to the Chair)The Graduate committee asks that the Department Chair seek to ensure diversity of areas, equity of distribution, and use of expertise in his/her graduate seminar course rotation. The committee also requests that a two-year future course rotation be available for the department and students.
Revision of Lit/Phil Website, English Graduate Student Handbook, and COGS Website
Addition of TA2 Designation and Duties

2. Harris addressed graduate student announcements/concerns:

Peer Mentoring Program—scholarly and social events, workshops, panel discussions, organized by experienced graduate students. This was officially endorsed by the committee.
Graduate students would like an official statement of policies regarding the thesis/non-thesis option and number of 5000/6000-7000 courses students can take. The program director will provide this.
Students expressed ongoing concerns about parking, particularly about TA spots being taken by non-TAs. Graduate students were urged to contact Parking and Transportation.
The request for a refrigerator in the graduate student office will be honored as soon as the department lounge receives it s new refrigerator.
Students asked for a seminar rotation list to be made available as soon as possible.
Students were advised that courses for Spring 2012 are now on WINGS, and that they should begin planning their semester. Dr. Dudley will work around TA2’s course schedules when making their teaching assignments.
A summer seminar is being planned and will be in WINGS soon. The department will also offer a 5000-level course in the summer.

3. Comprehensive Program Review— English Graduate Program

Members of the committee now have Sharepoint access to the documents needed for program review. The Chair has said that program review material must be to the Provost’s Office by March 1 and must clear the committee, department, and CLASS Dean’s Office first, so the graduate committee should plan to complete work in December. The committee chair will contact committee members for input as needed.

4. Policy on Independent Studies for Graduate Students

The committee chair will draft a policy on independent studies for the next meeting.

5. Formal Evaluation of RAs/GAs/TAs 1 & 2

At the end of Fall 2011, the program director will send surveys to Gas/TA1s and faculty working with them to assess strengths and concerns about the TA experience. TA2s will also participate in the process.

6. TA2 Mentoring Process

The committee discussed various sorts of mentoring of TA2s in the future, including a pre-fall workshop, meetings during the semester, and preparation during the 7121 course. Discussion will continue at the next meeting.

7. Revisions to the Graduate Thesis Rubric

Pellegrino will send the committee current assessment material, in order to initiate a revision of the thesis rubric. The revised rubric should be ready by Spring 2012.

8. Other Business

The committee discussed ways to facilitate the implementation of the recitation section of world literature in Spring 2012.
The committee was informed of the CLASS directive that graduate students be limited to 6 hours at the 5000 level in their programs of study. (Currently the English M.A. allows for 9 hours at the 5000 level.) This policy change has not yet been presented to the University Graduate Committee. Committee members emphasized that with a reduction of allowed 5000 courses, an additional seminar should be added to each semester’s course rotation. The committee urged that seminars be allowed to “make” with a smaller number of students.

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Minutes – February 10, 2011

Attending: Drs. Caren Town, chair; Richard Flynn, Doug Thomson, and Howard Keeley. Mr. Don Hatcher, graduate representative.

1. Drs. Flynn and Town reported on the changes to the thesis and the creation of the British Literature Seminar, which were approved by the University Graduate Committee.

2. The committee decided to go forward with offering an online seminar in Fall, 2011. The committee will ask the Department Chair to limit the course to five students initially, as the other seminars fill. The committee also discussed advertising the online seminars outside the GSU community.

3. Concerning graduate course rotation, the committee decided to draft an advisory statement for the Department Chair, which will be discussed at the next meeting.

4. Dr. Thomson agreed to make necessary changes in the department web page (concerning the thesis) and the graduate student handbook (concerning the new policies on teaching assistants).

5. In response to a student concern, the committee agreed to investigate the relative number of required degree hours for various M.A. programs at GSU.

6. The committee discussed possible changes to the 5000-level courses, which will be drafted and voted on at the next meeting.

The committee will meet again in late March.

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Minutes, October 5, 2010

Present: Dr. Caren J. Town, Chair; Dr. Doug Thomson, Graduate Director; Dr. Richard Flynn, and Mr. Don Hatcher, Student Representative. Absent: Dr. Howard Keeley.

Minutes from the September 14th meeting were approved by acclamation.

Discussion of the thesis/non-thesis options for the M.A. After considering thesis requirements for other M.A. programs, both at Georgia Southern and at various institutions, the committee decided to eliminate the non-thesis option and to set the thesis length at 10,000-15,000 words. This is the length designated by the University of Georgia M.A. program as well. Students currently pursuing the non-thesis option will be allowed to continue, and students working on a thesis will be allowed to meet the new length requirements. This will presented as a motion at the October 15th departmental meeting.

Mr. Hatcher expressed concerns of the graduate students. Students asked that copies of the current Chicago Manual of Style and the MLA Handbook be placed in the graduate office. They also asked the department to consider installing newer computers in the graduate office. The Chair agreed to take these concerns to the Department Chair.

The committee agreed to discuss ENGL 7111 and 7121 courses at the next meeting. Dr. Thomson will bring syllabi from those courses to the meeting.

The committee will also consider graduate course rotation. The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, Nov. 2nd at 11 a.m.

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Meeting, September 14, 2010

Attending: Dr. Caren Town, Chair; Dr. Doug Thomson, Director of the Graduate Program; Dr. Howard Keeley, Dr. Richard Flynn, Mr. Don Hatcher, student representative; Dr. David Dudley, Department Chair, ex officio; Dr. Dick Diebolt, COGS, guest.

The committee met with Dr. Dick Diebolt, from the College of Graduate Studies (COGS), to pose questions about the graduate program.

Mr. Don Hatcher, student representative, asked Dr. Diebolt about proper procedures for submitting/asking questions about forms at the College. Dr. Diebolt said that all forms should be delivered to Melanie Reddick in COGS, and all questions should be addressed to her initially. More detailed questions will be referred to Dr. Diebolt. Ms. Reddick is available from 9-2:30 daily. The receptionist in the office is Amanda Gilliland, and forms can be left with her for Ms. Reddick. Questions about the Graduate Student Organization (GSO) should be emailed to Liz Zettler, president of the GSO, at ezettler@gmail.com.

Mr. Hatcher also asked if graduate students could be informed by email about deadlines for needed forms, such as the Program of Study and Thesis Title/Committee Members forms. Dr. Diebolt said that email reminders are sent out to students’ Georgia Southern email one month before the deadline for applying for graduation, and he added that additional reminders may be possible in the future. Dr. Diebolt stressed the need to communicate with students about turning in required forms.

Mr. Hatcher continued with a question about parking for TAs and GAs. Currently, he said, the five spaces allotted for TA parking in the lot facing the Forrest Drive Building are not sufficient. Dr. Diebolt said that students should make this situation clear to COGS, so that the College can request more spaces from Parking and Transportation. Mr. Hatcher also asked about parking for GAs, and Dr. Diebolt responded that decisions are made to grant parking passes on a case-by-case basis. Departments need to communicate with COGS to justify the need for GA parking permits. In response to a request by Mr. Hatcher that TAs have laminated and/or sturdier passes, Dr. Diebolt said he wasn’t aware of the issue and would look into it.

Dr. Diebolt said that COGS wants to “significantly enhance” student involvement in the Graduate Student Organization (GSO). The GSO, he said, could be a central place to address students concerns and provide an opportunity for students to build up the service portion of their resumes. A link to the GSO can be found on the COGS website.

Dr. Keeley asked about funding for study-abroad programs for graduate students. Dr. Diebolt said that limited funding for research and travel is available and that students applying should “do it early.” Additional funding may be available through International Studies, he said.

Dr. Thomson asked questions about teaching assistants being able to balance teaching and course loads. Dr. Diebolt said that, currently, students receiving a TA should have completed 18 hours (a SACSCOC requirement). Students teach two courses and must be enrolled full time (at least nine course hours) each term they receive the assistantship, and he added that this was consistent with other institutions employing TAs. The purpose of the full-time status requirement was to ensure that students graduate in a timely manner, he added.

Dr, Diebolt commented that a President’s Task Force on Graduate Education is being formed, will begin its deliberations soon, and may consider issues such as teaching load, compensation, and full-time status. Graduate student representation on this Task Force is still being sought, and departments should make recommendations as soon as possible.

The committee thanked Dr. Diebolt for his attendance and information and decided to meet again in early October.

* * * * * * * * * *

Graduate Committee Meeting Minutes, August 24, 2010

Attending: Dr. Caren J. Town, Chair; Dr. Doug Thomson, Director of Graduate Studies; Dr. David Dudley, Department Chair; Dr. Richard Flynn, Dr. Howard Keeley, and Don Hatcher, graduate student representative.

The chair welcomed the new graduate student representative, Don Hatcher, to the committee. Hatcher shared ideas gathered from graduate students, including seminar offerings, the possibility of more online courses, weekend courses and independent studies, and interest in a classical literature seminar.

Dr. Dudley then offered his thoughts about possible agenda items for this year’s committee. Dudley suggested asking the faculty about their interest in and concerns about online graduate seminars. He also mentioned that the committee might consider offering an 18-hour certificate for high school teachers. In addition, he reported that all four graduate seminars made this term and that the department plans to offer another online course in the spring. Dudley promised to share the seminar course rotation list for previous years with the committee.

Other subjects discussed during the meeting included having a special topics course in regular seminar rotation, dual-listed graduate/undergraduate courses, recruitment, responsibilities for TAs and GAs, particular challenges for new teaching assistants, mentorship/workshops for TAs and GAs with teaching questions, the thesis/non-thesis options, and social activities for graduate students. No action was taken at this meeting.

The committee will reconvene on Sept. 14th, at 11 a.m. Dr. Dick Diebolt, of the College of Graduate Studies, will be asked to attend.

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the meeting of the Graduate Committee, Tuesday, Jan. 26, 2010

Members present: Dr. Keeley, Dr. Town, Dr. Pellegrino, Dr. Thomson, and Laura Hakala (student rep); also invited guest Taqwaa Saleem.

1. The committee approved Ms. Saleem’s proposal to hold an end-of-the-term recognition and celebration of our graduating M.A. students. Ideally, this would be held the afternoon or early evening of the day before the university’s graduation ceremony, so that parents of the students could attend. We agreed that each graduating student will present a brief (5-10 min.) synopsis of his or her thesis and accomplishments maybe something on future plans as well). Dr. Town will work with Dr. Dudley in arranging the site (Georgia’s Bed and Breakfast was mentioned) and details of the celebration. Ms. Saleem will work with the committee as student liaison.

2. The committee approved, with only minor emendations, Dr. Pellegrino’s assessment plan for the M.A. in English.

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the Meeting of the Graduate Committee, October 26, 2009

All members present: Town, Keeley, Pellegrino, Thomson, Hakala (student rep.)

The committee addressed the following issues:

Making the M.A. in English page on the department website more accessible and student- (and applicant-) friendly, including an updated report of recent graduate student accomplishments, especially participation in the recent ALA Symposium (thanks to Laura Hakala, who has completed this report).
Volunteers to man our booth at the Graduate Fair at the RAC on Nov. 11: Thomson 9-10:30; Town 10:30-11;45; Pelligrino 11:45-1. Hakala will also drop by.
Assignments of recruiting trips for the M.A. Program: Thomson (Mercer); Pelligrino (Converse and Upstate); Town (Armstrong or perhaps one other college: Berry? Agnes Scott?). Recruiters should contact department chairs to set up the visit.
Keeley reported on behalf of the Publicity committee that new banners and brochures are in the works for marketing our program. Plans were made for photo sessions, and the committee will work with Keeley in developing these materials.
Speaking on behalf of the graduate students, Hakala noted concern about the variety of grad seminars (20th C. American has been offered 3 semesters in a row); the future rotation of grad seminars seems to address this concern. She also voiced an interest in an opportunity for grad students with 18-plus hours to teach courses—that issue will be more fully explored at the next meeting.

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the Meeting of the Graduate Committee, Feb. 16, 2009, 12:00

Members present: Flynn, Cyr, Kundu, Thomson

Thomson reported on the new COGS Hobson connect program that sends automated e-mail replies to all prospective grad students. The committee then turned to its main item of business, Kundu’s suggestion that we provide a form for faculty and student evaluations of graduate student apprenticeship, mainly in the classroom. (COGS requires these evals.) The form would replace the narrative evals that now exist. The committee supported the idea and discussed some features that should appear on the form. Kundu agreed to put together a draft of the form and to send copies to each member of the committee. Once we complete this process, the committee will present the form to the department, invite suggestions, and recommend its acceptance and inclusion in both the Department Manual and the Graduate Student Handbook.

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the Meeting of the Graduate Committee, Nov. 18, 11:00

Members Present: Flynn, Kundu, Cyr, Lloyd, Thomson, Frank Inscoe (student rep)

1. After some discussion, the committee voted to add a writing sample (10-15 pages) and a personal statement (maximum 2 pages) to the admission materials required for an application to the M.A. program.

2. Current graduate students have asked Thomson if a seminar could be scheduled during the day-time, say from 3:15-6:00 or twice a week (3:30-4:45). This request seems to reflect the changing demographics of our graduate students: we now have approximately 20 full-time students and only one of the part-time students teaches high school. Thomson had first run this idea by Dudley, who saw no problem with it. The committee gave its assent to scheduling, on a trial basis, a day-time seminar in the Fall 08 semester. Thomson and Dudley will monitor its impact on overall enrollment in graduate seminars.

3. Lately, the audience for thesis defenses has extended beyond the traditional meeting of the presenter and the three faculty readers to include other graduate students, faculty, friends, and family members. The committee voted to affirm the stated policy for thesis defenses:

The department should maintain the current practice of having three faculty at the M.A. Thesis Defense and the Master’s Project presentation (formerly known as the “Non-thesis option): the Major Professor (or thesis director; also referred to as “Chairperson of Committee” on the defense forms) and the two readers (also referred to as “Members of the Thesis Committee”). The student may choose to invite other faculty, including the Chair of the department, and graduate students to the defense.

This policy, passed at a meeting of the graduate committee on Aug. 27, 2007, never found its way into the Department Manual or the Thesis Guidelines on the M.A. website. Before its inclusion in both, and in the new Graduate Student Handbook under development, Thomson would like to see the issue discussed by the department as a whole; thus the committee will present the above wording of the Thesis Defense to the department as a recommendation to be acted upon at a future department meeting.

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the Graduate Committee Meeting, October 8, 2007, 11:00 am

Members present: Doug Thomson, Tom Lloyd, student rep. Sabryna Sarver (note: the recommendations listed below were also approved by member Richard Flynn, who could not attend the meeting)

After discussion, the committee offers these two recommendations:

1) The department should add an ENGL 7090 Special Topics seminar to its course listings.

2) The department should offer this summer a trial “blended” seminar during the long term (“blended” meaning partly on-line and partly on campus). This blended seminar will be in addition to the on-campus seminar regularly offered during the summer term. The graduate committee will assess this trial course by distributing to its students the following evaluation form especially designed for an on-line courses and will also ask the Chair for a summary of the student evaluations for the course.

Course Evaluation for the Blended Seminar

Please take the time to give the following topics some consideration and to write out your answers. The department is assessing the value of on-line teaching and we appreciate your feedback.

1. How would you compare this blended approach to a traditional, on-campus, in-class seminar? Was communication between students and faculty about the same or more effective or less effective?

2. Please rate the accessibility and effectiveness of the on-line materials. How easy were they to use and how much did they contribute to your learning in the course?

3. How much did you learn from the comments of other students in the on-line environment of the seminar? How would you rate the intellectual quality of the “chat-room” or blog component of the course?

4. How available was the faculty member teaching the course (in person or through e-mail)?

5. How important was the on-campus component of the course? Could the course have succeeded just as well without the on-campus meetings or were those meetings valuable?

6) Would you take another blended or on-line course in the English M.A. program? Why or why not?

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the Graduate Committee Meeting, 11:00 August 27, 2007

Members Present: Lloyd, Flynn, Thomson

Recommendations:

1. The department should maintain the current practice of having three faculty at the M.A. Thesis Defense and the Master’s Project defense (on this name change for the “Non-Thesis” Defense, see item #2 below): the Major Professor (or thesis director; also referred to as “Chairperson of Committee” on the defense forms) and the two readers (also referred to as “Members of the Thesis Committee”). The student may choose to invite other faculty, including the Chair of the department, or graduate students to the defense.

2. The “Non-Thesis Option” should be changed to the “Master’s Project Option” (this change will need to be made on the defense form and the grad web page; COGS will also be notified).

3. The Major Professor of the Master’s Project will send to the Graduate Program Director a copy of the paper defended to keep on file.

4. The Chair of the department will conduct exit interviews for all graduating M.A. students.

Other

1. Drs. Flynn and Lloyd agreed to assist on recruiting trips to Georgia colleges for the M.A. program.

2. Thomson will discuss with Dr. Dudley a welcoming social event for our graduate students to be held in the Fall.

3. Thomson will send out an e-mail to faculty asking for any suggested guidelines for graduate students.

4. Thomson will look into the feasibility of our scheduling a summer seminar for the Long Term (class will still be held for five-six weeks but longer term will give students more time to complete seminar papers).

5. Thomson will select a graduate student representative for the committee for this year.

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the Graduate Committee Meeting, Nov. 6 10:30-11:30

Members present: Dr. Gossai, Lloyd, and Thomson. Invited guest: Dr. Dudley

The committee addressed two items:

I. The development of a recruiting plan to increase graduate student enrollment. The Provost and the Dean have asked each department with a graduate program to develop such plans. The committee approved of the following plan (see below).

II. Very preliminary discussion of a possible proposal for developing an interdisciplinary M.A. in Religious Studies, Philosophy, and Literature.

PLEASE SEND ANY ITEMS OF BUSINESS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDRESSED BY THE COMMITTEE

Department of Literature and Philosophy Graduate Student Recruitment Plan

I. Elements already in place:

1. Attractive and informative web page. In addition to providing all the forms necessary for on-line application, the web page
advertises the solid accomplishments of our graduate students, past and present.

2. Visit of the Graduate Program director to upper-division English classes in the Fall of each year to promote the program and answer questions.

3. Scheduled meeting of English majors during the Fall to discuss options for graduate study and answer questions. (done this year Nov. 15)

4. Director of graduate program sends reminder e-mails to faculty in the fall to speak to classes about graduate study

5. Letters with fliers and brochures sent to all State University units and selected universities in Florida and South Carolina.

II. Elements under development:

1. Visits to State University English departments that do not have an M.A. program: Armstrong Atlantic (already completed for 2006), Augusta State (scheduled for Nov. 17), Georgia State College and University. Also Mercer and Valdosta. Other suggestions made
by the Graduate committee: Brewton-Parker, Oglethorpe, Berry, Shorter.

2. Develop closer working relation with Dawn Lipker, Admissions Coordinator for Graduate Recruitment.

3. Work with Ron Jones from the Office of Admissions in the recruitment of international students. Especially investigate possibilities associated with our sister universities in Vera Cruz and China.

III. Down the line:

1. Development of on-line graduate courses. The Graduate Committee recommends beginning an on-line course for the summer term or,
perhaps, for a course that meets every other week during the fall or spring term.

2. Support proposal in the works for a new interdisciplinary M.A. in Religious Studies, Philosophy, and Literature.

3. Design a web page with special audience in mind: first district high school teachers. It will provide information on courses of
particular interest to them, news about scheduling, discussion of certification and graduate degree choices, and news of general
interest. This page will especially solicit feedback: what can we do to best serve their needs in terms of advanced education?

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the October 7 and 31 meetings, 9-10:00

Present Oct. 7: Humma, Whelan, Laura Burch, (student rep) and Thomson; Oct. 31: Humma, Whelan, Town, and Thomson.

1. The committee voted to turn down Robert Costomiris’s proposal that admission decisions regarding applicants to the graduate program be brought before the graduate committee. Rationale: the nature and size of our program are not conducive to such a process (e.g. we don’t have more applicants than spaces). The director of the graduate program uses the Admission Requirements
posted on the M.A. program web page in making decisions. The director should, however, consult with the graduate committee on marginal or close calls, especially in regard to the awarding of assistantships (we do, at times, have more applicants than available assistantships).

2. The committee approved the following statements for inclusion in the Department Manual (“The M.A. Program in English /
Information on Graduate Faculty Status,” page 15):

Information regarding Graduate classes:

— For 5000G classes, graduate students are expected to do work in addition to that required of their undergraduate classmates. Such work should include one or more of the following: a longer, more extensively researched paper; an additional paper; an oral presentation; service as a discussion leader.

— Seminars have two key components: 1) the student’s production of a substantial, researched critical paper; 2) some significant oral presentation by each student, either on an assigned topic or as a discussion leader.

3. The committee approved the following Learning Outcomes for the Graduate students in the M.A. program (eventually we will work toward defining Outcomes for the program—where we want to see the program progressing). These should be included on a new page in the Department Manual. Some but not all evidence of our satisfying the outcomes is included in brackets below.

Learning Outcomes:

A graduate of the M.A. program in English will

— demonstrate critical acumen, scholarly reasoning, and theoretical understanding about literary problems and texts;

[in addition to English 7121, Methods of Research, which provides students with the bibliographical tools and strategies to do advanced work in literary research, students take 9 graduate level courses in literature, with at least 6 of those at the seminar level; exit requirements ask the student who writes a Master’s thesis to defend the work; non-thesis M.A. students must deliver an oral presentation of one of their seminar papers ]

— be familiar with a broad spectrum of literary types and periods;

[in addition to English 7121, students take 9 graduate level courses in literature, with at least 6 of those at the seminar level; approximately one-quarter of M.A. students go on to Ph.D. programs, which demand solid grounding in the literary tradition]

— write cogent, perceptive, and well-reasoned critical prose;

[seminars, of which students must take a minimum number of seven, require M.A. students to write “a substantial, researched critical paper” for each course; most M.A. students write an extensively researched electronic thesis of at least 60 pages that undergoes a number of drafts and careful revision]

— demonstrate the skill of persuasion: the ability not only to analyze a text but to defend an approach to a literary topic;

[M.A. students defend their theses; non-thesis M.A. students deliver an oral presentation of a 15-20 page paper from one of their seminars; seminars, of which students must take a minimum number of seven, require M.A. students to make “significant oral presentations.”]

— have the ability to teach and evaluate writing, especially writing about literature, at the introductory college level (freshman
and sophomore levels).

[students produce a web syllabus for a College Writing I or II course in English 7111: College Writing; students also work in the University Writing Center evaluating freshman writing and tutoring students; graduate apprentices in World literature courses grade student papers under the supervision of faculty members]

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the Meeting of the Graduate Committee, Jan. 20, 2005 from 11-12:00

Members present: John Humma, Caren Town, Julia Griffin, Tim Whelan, Doug Thomson (Chair) and Bobbie McDonald (Graduate student representative)

1. The committee approved a revised wording for the non-thesis option and asks the Chair to update the Graduate web page.

NON-THESIS OPTION

After completing thirty hours of course work, a student may opt to take two additional courses at the 6000-7000 level instead of writing the thesis. Following or concurrent with enrollment in these additional courses, the student will prepare one paper (of fifteen-twenty pages) that he or she has written in any seminar to present before a faculty forum. The student is encouraged to revise and polish the paper for the presentation. The paper and the presentation will be assessed by a panel consisting of three professors of the student’s choosing. The student should expect to take up to 20 minutes to communicate the argument of the paper, relying upon summary and also reading important or illustrative passages from the text; faculty will take 20 minutes to ask the student questions about the paper. After the presentation, faculty will fill out the “Report on Non-Thesis Presentation” form and submit it to the director of the M.A. program, who will then send a copy to the college of Graduate Studies. A successful report is required for the student to graduate with the M.A. under the non-thesis option.

Time guidelines for the non-thesis option: The student must complete and send the “Non-Thesis Option Program of Study” form to the College of Graduate Studies the semester before which he or she intends to graduate. At least 6 weeks prior to the date of the presentation, the student should notify the director of the M.A. program in English and the three faculty who will attend the presentation. The student should make sure that the attending faculty have a completed copy of the paper no later than one week before the presentation. The “Report on Non-Thesis Presentation” form must be sent to the College of Graduate Studies.

2. Town and Griffin asked to revisit the guidelines for the Thesis option, especially the deadlines, and will prepare suggested revisions for our next meeting.

3. Town and the committee asked that Thomson send out a request to faculty concerning what kind of extra work faculty require from graduate students in the 5000-level courses. The committee will use such information in formulating a policy concerning these courses at the graduate level.

4. Thomson announced that he will also ask faculty for information about theses they are directing, as a prelude to a discussion of whether or not the department should limit the number of theses directed by individual faculty members.

5. The committee passed the following resolution: “Faculty should serve no more than two times as a reader of theses per semester.”

6. There was also discussion about scheduling workshops for the move to electronic theses.

Respectfully submitted, Doug Thomson

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the Meeting of the Graduate Committee, Sept. 17, 2004

Members present: John Humma, Caren Town, Julia Griffin, Tim Whelan, Doug Thomson Chair) and Bobbie McDonald (grad student representative)

The Committee met to discuss and act upon the call from various faculty members to provide further and clearer guidelines regarding the “Non-Thesis Option” for completing the M.A. degree. The committee recommends revising the current language about the option found on the Graduate web page (under “Program of Study,” item #2) to the following:

2. NON-THESIS OPTION

After completing thirty hours of course work, a student may opt to take two additional courses at the 6000-7000 level instead of writing the thesis. Following or concurrent with the final of these two courses, the student will prepare one paper (of fifteen-twenty pages) that he or she has written in any seminar to present before a faculty forum. The student is encouraged to revise and polish the paper for the presentation. The paper and the presentation will be assessed by a panel consisting of three professors of the student’s choosing. The student should expect to take up to 20 minutes to communicate the major thesis of the paper, relying upon summary and also reading important or illustrative passages from the text; faculty will take 20 minutes to ask the student questions about the paper. A report on the presentation will be sent to the Office of Graduate Studies. A successful report is required for the student to graduate with the M.A. under the non-thesis option.

Time guidelines for the non-thesis option: The student should notify the director of the M.A. program in English and the three faculty who will attend the presentation at least 6 weeks prior to the date of the presentation. The student should make sure that the attending faculty have a completed copy of the paper no later than one week before the presentation.

Submitted by Douglass H. Thomson, Professor

Director of the Graduate Program in English

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes: The Graduate Committee met on March 31 from 8:30-10:00

Present were members Marti Lee (student rep), John Humma, Linda Paige, Robert Costomiris, and Shawn Smith.

The committee took up three matters of business:

1) the Chair’s request that we create a Special Topics designation for a graduate seminar. This request led to an examination of current course descriptions of the seminars and their flexibility. The request was tabled upon a call for further review of the issue and how the scheduling of a Special Topics course might effect overall seminar rotation.

2) the Chair’s suggestion that we invite some of our grad alumni to return and address our current graduate students about “Life After the M.A.” The committee found this a good idea, and John Humma volunteered to contact one of our recent alum, Buell Wisner (who is next year going on to Ph.D work). Doug Thomson will contact June Joyner, and we should have details forthcoming soon about the panel. Thomson will also look into another of the committee’s ideas: the creation of a grad alumni page on the department’s website, a way of staying in contact with and archiving information on our recent M.A.’s.

3. Revision of the document “GUIDELINES: THE MASTER’S THESIS PROCESS” for presentation at the April 4 department meeting. The committee unanimously Shawn Smith’s revision of the document, a revision intended to expedite the thesis process (see the document which will be sent to all department members shortly).

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes: The Graduate Committee met on January 27 at 9:00.

Present were members Shawn Smith, Marti Lee (student representative), John Humma, and Doug Thomson.

The committee met to determine what score we will require for the new (as of December 2002) Analytic Writing Section of the GRE and decided upon a “4” as the minimum requirement for normal admission and a “3.5” for provisional (out of a possible “6”). These recommendations have been forwarded to the Chair for inclusion in next year’s Graduate Catalogue. Future business includes consideration of a 6090 or 7090 Special Topics course at the graduate level, publicity efforts for our program, and finishing revisions to the GUIDELINES for THE MASTER’S THESIS PROCESS, which will be submitted to Department at the meeting on Feb. 21.

Minutes submitted by Doug Thomson on January 30, 2003.

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes: The Graduate Committee met on Nov. 7 at 11:00 in the conference room.

Members attending were Linda Paige, Robert Costomiris, Marti Lee (student representative), Shawn Smith, John Humma, and Doug Thomson. Guest: David Robinson

Items of business:

1. David Robinson was invited to the meeting to provide information about the development of on-line courses to serve off-campus constituencies of Georgia Southern. David provided a helpful overview of our options and the positive features of web-based courses. The committee will be discussing the development of on-line graduate courses in future meetings and will look to David as an important resource in this area.

2. Shawn, Doug, and John agreed to man our booth at the Graduate School Fair, Nov. 12, 9-1:00.

3. The committee approved the revisions to the description of the M.A. degree program in the current catalog (297). This document and the revised “Guidelines for the Master’s Thesis Process” were forwarded to the Chair for action at an upcoming department meeting.

4. John reported on his meeting with Dean Hardy, who confirmed reports of an administrative desire to see increased graduate enrollments university-wide. No firm word yet on increased graduate stipends or assistantships to facilitate this increase, but we will keep in touch with the Dean on these scores.

5. John also presented to the committee information on the new “Analytic Writing Section” of the General GRE test, and the committee at its next meeting will determine what score we will require of our applicants for this new essay component of the GRE.

6. Doug agreed to provide a brief description of what constitutes a seminar for committee review and eventual inclusion in the Department Manual.

7. Committee members agreed that Wed. 2:00 meetings work best for everyone this term.

Upcoming / Remaining business: 1) development of an Info Packet for incoming graduate students; 2) on-line courses; 3) the new GRE; 4) seminar description; 5) review of graduate advising

The committee adjourned at 12:30.

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes: The Graduate Committee met on October 24 at 3:30 in the conference room.

Members attending were Linda Paige, Robert Costomiris, Marti Lee (student representative), John Humma, and Doug Thomson. The Chair of the department joined us for our first 15 minutes.

1. Bruce Krajewski attended the beginning of the meeting to report on information he gathered from a recent meeting with President Grube. The President desires to see a significant increase in graduate enrollment. John Humma will be meeting with new Graduate Dean Charles Hardy to discuss initiatives about increased graduate enrollment and ways of improving the flow of paper between our graduate program and the Graduate Office. He will report on these issues at the next graduate committee meeting on November 7. We plan to invite Dean Hardy to an upcoming meeting of the graduate committee. Bruce also discuss the development of on-line courses to serve off-campus constituencies of Georgia Southern.

Finally, Bruce reported that he has received visits over the course of the past two semesters from several graduate students voicing concern about some teachers conducting 6000 and 7000 courses more in a lecture than a seminar format. The committee agreed to work on a brief description of what constitutes a seminar, with stress on the obvious components of significant student discussion and oral presentations. This description should be available after the next meeting.

2. The committee finished work on revisions to the “Guidelines for the Master’s Thesis Process.” This document will be submitted for approval to faculty at a later departmental meeting, but look forward to it soon on the web so faculty can inspect it. The major revisions concern 1) specifying dates and deadlines for the process, so students have a clearer understanding of the time constraints of the process, and 2) involving the main office in publishing deadlines and facilitating the process.

3. John Humma and Doug Thomson reported on their meeting with Dean Conway-Turner concerning graduate enrollment and course caps. While the Dean reported that she sees little trouble in conducting a seminar with 15 or more students, she seemed to agree with the idea that we might have smaller seminars if we had roughly equal distribution of students among them. For example (and we provided the example), the Dean said she could live with a distribution of 33 students into three seminars of 10, 12, 11 as opposed to two seminars of 16 and 17. We’re offering three seminars Spring semester 2003 with the hope that careful management of their enrollment might produce positive results (if we get the numbers and if we get graduate students to enroll on time).

4. At the suggestion of Robert Costomiris, the committee began review of the description of the M.A. degree program in the current catalog (297). The committee agreed on a number of revisions, which Doug Thomson will write up and present to the committee for formal approval the next meeting.

5. The committee agreed with Shawn Smith’s offer to review and bring up-to-date the Graduate program’s web page.

6. Future business for Nov. 7 meeting: a) approval of revisions to M.A. degree program (see item #4); b) description of seminars (item #1); c) discussion of on-line graduate courses, with a visit from David Robinson (item #1); d) report from John Humma’s meeting with the graduate Dean (item #1).

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes: The Graduate Committee met September 19 at 3:00 in the Conference Room.

Present were Linda Paige, Robert Costomiris, Shawn Smith, John Humma, Marti Lee (student rep), and Doug Thomson. Invited guest for first half of the meeting: Bruce Krajewski

The committee addresses two items of business:

1. In consultation with the Chair, the committee agreed that the best arrangement of graduate courses for the summer would be to offer one seminar during the A term and one for the B term, the latter one with especial hopes of attracting high school teachers who will be by then on their summer breaks. The courses will meet 2 nights a week for 5 hours each night.

2. The committee discussed a number of options to improve the M.A. thesis process and timeline. Those measures approved were 1) notifying graduate students of a deadline for submission of the thesis-director-approved draft to the second readers (one month before the university-set date for submission of final drafts to the Graduate School); 2) establishing a departmental deadline for submission of the final draft to second readers one week prior to the defense, the scheduling of which will now be handled by the main office. A more detailed version of these new measures will appear in revisions to GUIDELINES: THE MASTER’S THESIS PROCESS and distributed to all faculty.

The meeting adjourned at 4:35.

Minutes submitted by Doug Thomson on September 24, 2002

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes: The Graduate Committee met at 9:00, February 11, 2002.

Present were Dr. Agnew, Dr. Costomiris, Dr. Paige, Dr.Humma, Chair, Mr. McDonald (student representative). Dr. Krajewski attended at the request of the committee.

The committee addressed the issues of optimal class sizes for seminars and graduate enrollment in the 5000-level courses. Numerous ideas surfaced; no one of them, at meeting’s end, was perfectly afloat. The committee agreed to meet the following Monday to resume the discussion. The meeting ended at 9:50.

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes: The Graduate Committee met at 11:00 December 7.

Present were Dr. Agnew, Dr. Lloyd, Mr. McDonald, Dr. Paige, and Dr. Humma. Absent: none.

The committee first discussed the 5000-level offerings from the Department of Writing and Linguistics. There is some concern that when our students take these courses that this could jeopardize the making of our own courses. A check of this semester’s and next semester’s roles shows that none of our graduates are taking any of these courses. However, some of our undergraduates are, and their presence in these classes may well have affected the making of our 5000-level courses. The committee recommended that we bring the matter before the department at its next meeting.

The committee next discussed the rotation of courses. At Dr. Krajewski’s request, the Graduate Committee Chair had made out a schedule offering a rotation of our fifteen seminars on a basis that gets each taught approximately every two year. There were one or two errors, which committee members noted. The Chair said he would rework the schedule over Christmas break. In this rotation, every course gets offered in its turn.

The Committee heartily agreed that the bloc courses (our one hour and two-hour courses) should be taught every fall regardless of an instructor’s being on leave.

The Committee adjourned at 11:50.

Minutes submitted by John Humma, Dec. 10, 2001

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes: The Graduate Committee met at 11:00 Wednesday morning, November 7, 2001.

Present were Agnew, Lloyd, McDonald (student rep), and Humma. Absent: none.

Humma announced some good news, that several new applications to the program were in progress toward admission for spring semester.

Respecting the “Guidelines: The Masters Thesis Process,” the committee approved the addition of this sentence, along the lines of that asked for by Dr. Town at the last department meeting, to the first paragraph: “Committee members will assume they [the guidelines] are in place unless the director, in agreement with the student, informs them otherwise at the beginning.” The committee also approved this statement to serve as directions for the “Abstract” on the Thesis Prospectus Form: “In at least two hundred words state your thesis and its scope. The statement should evidence understanding of the chief sources you plan to use.” The committee discussed the 7000-level Advanced Composition course being offered next semester by the Department of Writing and Linguistics. Since it is not taught along the lines of a seminar, the committee thought the course might have a better chance of making in the future as a 5000-level course. The committee also agreed that in the future it would be a good idea for Dr. Krajewski and Dr. Dallas, who makes out the class schedules for Writing, to meet to coordinate the scheduling of classes, since next semester there are conflicts between their courses and ours.

Dr. Paige wanted the committee to assert that the bloc courses 7111 and 7121 always be taught in the fall even if customary instructors were on leave or could otherwise not teach the class. The committee agreed.

Dr. Paige also wondered, as then did others, why next semester we were offering so many seminars (four, including the bloc courses as one). The committee agreed that four was too many and that three (excepting a sudden eruption of new graduate students in our midst) in the future should be the maximum we offer. In the fall, then, the Department would offer two seminars and the bloc courses; in the spring three seminars.

The committee agreed that it should meet with the M. A. students later in the semester following approval of the Guidelines, to discuss it with them and to answer their questions about the degree. Last fall’s meeting with students was very successful.

The meeting adjourned at 11:50.

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes: The Graduate Committee met Wednesday, September 12, 2001, 11 am.

Present were Dr Agnew, Mr. Michael McDonald (student representative), Dr. Paige, and Dr. Humma

The Committee discussed the new “Guidelines: The Master’s Thesis Process” and approved it for distribution of faculty. In spirit it is descriptive rather than prescriptive, but we believe it embodies a useful set of guidelines for both student and thesis director. The committee would welcome your responses.

The Committee also wishes to recommend that the Master’s “Prospectus” form be revised to include a requirement for a 200-word abstract of what the thesis is to be. Presently the Prospectus form leaves a space for only a sentence or two under “Thesis objectives.” We recommend that the student, in the 200 words, indicate the scope of the thesis (how it defines and limits its objectives) and, importantly, its chief critical sources.

The meeting adjourned at 11:50.

GUIDELINES: THE MASTER’S THESIS PROCESS

The process outlined here is one that has worked for many theses. The Graduate Committee presents these guidelines to ensure the production of the best possible thesis.

1. The student asks a professor to direct the thesis. The subject matter of the thesis should be within the professor’s field(s) of expertise. They discuss the credibility, importance, etc., of the thesis topic. The student then will draft his prospectus and, once it is approved by the director, it will be routed in the usual fashion. At the end a copy will go to the Graduate Committee (for information and not screening).

2. With an eye on the deadlines, the student and major professor (director) devise a time table for completion of the thesis.

3. Student writes the first chapter (could be the Introduction) and submits it to the director. Ordinarily, within a week, but possibly sooner, the professor discusses the marked draft with the student. (The director and student will work around occasional delays necessitated by other commitments of the teacher, such as conferences.) Student makes corrections and begins next chapter. This process is followed for each chapter.

4. When the draft thesis has been completed and the director has found it generally satisfactory (the student and director may meet several times before this happens), then and only then is it sent on to the other committee members (readers). By this point the draft should be free of all surface and grammatical errors.

5. The readers should be allowed two weeks to critique and return the thesis to the major professor, who will then sit down with the student to discuss the called-for changes, or suggestions for revision. These may be substantive or minor. The student will make the revisions. When these are completed the director and student will again sit down to discuss whether they have been satisfactorily implemented.

6. A date is set for the defense (orals) that is agreeable to all.

7. At least twenty-four hours before the orals, the student returns to the readers their marked drafts along with a copy of the hoped-to-be final draft.

8. The student defends the thesis. The committee may find it necessary for the student to make further but probably non-substantive changes.

9. Having followed carefully the guidelines in the “Master’s Thesis Guidelines” manual, the student submits the thesis to Gay Wade in the Graduate Office for final review.

10. Hoped-for scenario: Hallelujah! She finds no problems. Thesis will be bound and delivered to the Graduate School, library, department, and major professor.

The meeting adjourned at 11:50

Submitted by John Humma, September 14, 2001.

* * * * * * * * * *

The Graduate Committee met this morning, September 20, 2000, at 10:00.

Present were Drs. Agnew, Costomiris, Krajewsk, Lloyd, Paige, Humma. Absent: No one.

Dr. Krajewski spoke with the committee about some of the aspects of the program review. The committee discussed the upcoming meeting with graduate students to go over matters related to the thesis with them.

The committee then moved to discussion of the creative writing thesis. Dr. Paige said there were some confusions and that we needed to be telling the students the same things. Dr. Costomiris addressed the question of how we evaluate whether a student is prepared to write a creative writing thesis or a particular thesis in a literary field.

Dr. Krajewski spoke of the President’s and Provost’s concerns about faculty having proper credentials. Humma pointed out as an example that James Madison University, a university we look at as a model for our own development, has these criteria for serving on a thesis committee: “possession of the terminal degree in the discipline, successful recent teaching at the graduate level, and a record of ongoing substantive scholarly productivity within the discipline.”

The matter of the student’s own credentials came up. Humma said he thought it looked strange that someone who was taking all or most of his or her course work in traditional literary studies should attempt to write a creative thesis.

Dr. Costomiris proposed that the committee might serve as a sort of dispatching agency to determine whether the qualifications of the student and those of the proposed director were appropriate to the thesis the student planned to undertake. The committee had mixed feelings about this, but as discussion continued members agreed that the idea was essentially a good one. Dr. Agnew suggested that it might be useful at times to submit a student’s proposal or portfolio to outside readers for assessment.

Dr. Krajewski reiterated his concern that, with program review going on and the administration’s emphasis upon credentials, we proceed carefully in the matter of the appropriateness of who directs creative theses.

Dr. Lloyd asked Dr. Agnew about the time frames for the approval of the creative-writing MFA program. She replied that everything was in place, that the program had jumped its first two approval hurdles.

Humma moved that in light of the administration’s concern about credentials of faculty and in light of the proposed MFA program that the department bring to an end the creative writing option for the M. A. in English degree. Students whose creative theses were in progress toward the degree and those whose prospective had been approved would be allowed to finish or continue. Dr. Lloyd seconded. The vote was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned at 10:50

Submitted by John Humma, September 20, 2000.

* * * * * * * * * *

Minutes of the Graduate Committee Meeting 15 August 2000.

Present: Drs. Agnew, Costomiris, Krajewski, Lloyd, Paige, Humma, and Mr. Wisner (student representative)

The committee convened at 10:00. Humma distributed the new “Guidelines” sheet for using graduate apprentices. Dr. Paige asked if there should be more specifics about possible use abuse. The committee agreed to talk about this matter further at its next meeting.

Humma mentioned that enrollments were very high in our seminars for the fall. All agreed that the department should offer three seminars in the spring semester. Necessarily there will be higher enrollments in seminars as a result of the new requirements.

The need for summer seminar-level courses also came up and the general agreement was that we should offer two.

Humma proposed that the Committee have a session in September with graduate students to discuss matters involving the writing of the thesis. Mr. Wisner enthusiastically endorsed the idea.

Dr. Costomiris proposed for discussion and possible later action whether we should require the subject area test of the GRE as well as the verbal. Discussion ensued, and the Committee agreed that this would be an agenda item for the next meeting.

Dr. Paige addressed the issue of our need to know what numbers operated in the Dean’s mind when it came to his decision as to whether courses made or not. It was generally agreed that we needed more information all around. For instance, if six courses close, and the students in those classes filter into the courses that make so that they have especially good numbers, shouldn’t this count for something in the Dean’s eyes? This issue will be an agenda item at our next meeting.

Dr. Costomiris wondered whether a checklist for majors might be useful in helping them better to know requirements and deadlines. This item will receive further attention at the Committee’s next meeting.

The Committee adjourned at 10:50.

Submitted by John Humma.

Last updated: 9/14/2017

Minutes: Graduate Committee

Department of Literature

Degrees Offered

Donate