Speech Communication Discipline Report for the ASL Committee (Spring 2005)
The
Speech Communication Discipline (SPCH) has been divided into three areas,
according to the classes taught by the existing instructors: (1) Rhetorical
Studies, (2) Media Studies and Technology, and (3) Communication Studies.
Therefore, this report will be divided into three parts accordingly; each part
will provide the results of their students' learning assessments and its own
recommendations.
The
assignments assessed in this task were drawn from upper level classes in the
major. The scale of five was generally practiced (5= excellent, and 0= fail).
Please keep in mind that each area may have their own difference in assessment
details because of the nature of each area, but they have come up with the
results and recommendations that will help determine the directions of the
areas and the discipline as a whole. The data in this assessment report are the
written assignments, as available, done by the students in the major who graduated
in spring 2005. (Throughout the major, students are asked to create personal
portfolios, which are evaluated collectively during the senior year.)
Usually,
there are two faculty members teaching in this area: (1) Prof. Mary Elizabeth
Bezanson and (2) Prof. Neil Leroux. However, because Prof. Leroux is on
sabbatical leave for the year 2004-2005, Prof. Bezanson solely did this
assessment. The details are below.
A. Learning Objective #1
Assessment
Prof. Mary Elizabeth Bezanson is the one who did this assessment, based on Learning Objectives #1 (Students will develop an historical and theoretical understanding of rhetoric.). The details of this assessment can be described below.
·
Learning Objective/Expected Outcome
In
this assessment, two expected outcomes of Learning Objectives #1 were
addressed: (1) students will be able to compare and evaluate various
theoretical approaches, and (2) students will demonstrate a sensitivity to the
historical dimensions of theory building.
·
Data and Criteria for
Assessing
Data
were drawn from 5 student papers in SPCH 3101 History of Rhetoric from the
Classical to Modern Periods and reviewed. The criteria for this
assessment included: (1) ability to cite sources, (2) ability to paraphrase the
messages from the sources, and (3) ability to recognize the describe links
between rhetorical theory and historical context.
·
Results
The results were given
according to the types of criteria. The details are given below:
(1) Ability to cite source—student average: 4.0 of 5.0.
(2) Ability to paraphrase the messages from the
sources—student average: 3.4 of 5.0.
(3) Ability to recognize the describe links between rhetorical
theory and historical context—student
average: 2.8 of 5.0.
|
|
Citing |
Paraphrasing |
Analysis |
SPCH 3101
(5 papers)
|
4.0 |
3.4 |
2.8 |
·
Recommendations
(1) Make more explicit the need to describe the link between the rhetorical theory and the historical context.
(2) Alter text once again to encourage student thinking
about the relationship between theory and history.
(3) Continue to review the use and misuse of quotation and paraphrase within a
paper.
· Remarks
(1) With only five papers to evaluate recommendations of any type are tentative. One student's failure to perform a task dramatically alters the results.
Prof. Mary Elizabeth Bezanson
did the assessment based on Learning
Objective #2 ("The students will use a variety of assigned theoretical
approaches appropriate toŠrhetoricŠto describe and evaluate assigned or chosen
discourse.").
·
Learning
Objective/Expected Outcome
In
this assessment, the expected outcome of Learning Objective #2 was addressed: "The students will be able to choose from a variety of
methods to describe and evaluate a specific act or artifact."
·
Data and Criteria for
Assessing
Insufficient papers were
submitted to conduct an assessment in this area.
Prof. Barbara Burke is the
one who did this assessment. The details of her assessment can be described
below.
·
Learning
Objective/Expected Outcome
In this assessment, learning
objective (#2) was addressed: "The students will use a variety of assigned
theoretical approaches appropriate toŠelectronic mass media to describe and
evaluate assigned or chosen discourse." The expected outcome was stated by
our assessment documents as: "The students will be able to choose from a
variety of methods to describe and evaluate a specific act or artifact."
·
Data and Criteria for
Assessing
Throughout the major,
students create personal portfolios which are evaluated collectively during the
senior year. Data described in this study reflects the work of the "class
of 2005," including papers written in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Scholarly journal article critique
papers from SPCH 3301 Media Theory were collected for this review.
Nine papers were analyzed in 2005. The learning
objective/expected outcome became identified as comprised by the following
specific criteria:
(1) Ability to cite sources in proper style and format
(2) Ability to use one's own words to describe the major
issues/ arguments/ themes of the article
(3) Ability to identify and summarize an application of a
selected research method
(4) Ability to identify and describe the relevant
communication theory studied
(5) Ability to write a critical discussion, evaluating the
research study conducted by the journal article author.
Each criteria was evaluated
by a 5 point scale (5= excellent, 0= fail). Each paper was given an average
score. Average scores ranged from 2.8 to 5. The "class average" for
all averaged scores-calculated to find a "typical" paper"--was
4.53. Specific criteria averages were also studied, to identify areas of
strengths and areas needing improvement. Averages for the "class of '05" are
summarized below
|
|
Citing |
Writing |
Method |
Theory ID |
Evaluation
|
SPCH 3301
|
4.2 |
4.2 |
4.9 |
4.6 |
4.8 |
·
Evaluation and
Recommendations
Last year we considered three
changes:
(1) We adopted a newer version of the style manual and
spent more time on basic writing instruction. The result was a change from 4.0 to 4.2. More work needs to be done in this
area.
(2) Method identification and descriptions have
significantly improved since last year—from 3.9 to 4.9. Unit changes and enhancements have
achieved the desired goal.
(3) Student evaluation of scholarly arguments increased
slightly in score, from 4.5 to 4.8 This area may be further enhanced by an
addition of a greater opportunity for students to propose and design research
projects within the media theory course.
Prof. Rujira Rojjanaprapayon
is the one who did this assessment. The details of this assessment can be
described below.
·
Learning
Objective/Expected Outcome
In
this assessment, two learning objectives and their expected outcomes were
addressed:
|
Objective #1: Students will
develop an historical and theoretical understanding ofŠcommunicationsŠ. |
Expected Outcomes: (1) Students will be able to compare and evaluate various
theoretical approaches. (2) Students will demonstrate a sensitivity to the historical
dimensions of theory building. |
|
Objective #2: The students
will use a variety of assigned theoretical approaches appropriate
toŠcommunicationsŠto describe and evaluate assigned or chosen discourse. |
Expected Outcomes: (1) The students will be able to choose from a variety of methods [italics added] to describe and evaluate a specific act or
artifact. |
In general, the students are
expected to be able to "compare, evaluate, and choose a variety of concepts,
theories, and methods; to describe and evaluate a specific act(s) or artifact(s);
and to assess their work's quality."
·
Data and Criteria for
Assessing
Final papers from three
courses in 2002, 2003, and 2004 were reviewed: (1) SPCH 3401 (Human
Communication Theory—major core course), SPCH 3411 (Intercultural
Communication), and (3) SPCH 3421 (Organizational Communication). The number of
papers used in this assessment varied because of the availability. Data described in this study reflects
the work of the "class of 2005." Also, the number of criteria in this 2005
study has been the same to fit all three courses' assignment characteristics;
the list of the criteria is below:
(1) Ability to cite sources
(2) Ability to paraphrase the
messages from the sources
(3) Ability to classify, clarify,
and assess/criticize any relevant concepts, perspectives and/or theories
(4) Ability to (a) identify and
summarize research methods used in sources and/or (b)
select and apply research methods used in their own work
(5) Ability to (a)
describe/evaluate a specific act, discourse or artifact and/or (b) assess their own work (e.g.,
the implications of their works/studies)
The results were given
according to the types of criteria. The details of the student average (scale
of 5) are given below:
Results
|
|
Citing Sources |
Paraphrasing |
Concept/ Theory |
Method |
Analysis/ Assessment |
Class 2005
Average |
SPCH 3401(5 papers) |
4.0 |
4.6 |
4.0 |
4.6 |
4.0 |
4.28 |
SPCH 3411(6 papers) |
4.67 |
4.67 |
4.33 |
3.83 |
3.83 |
4.27 |
SPCH 3421(2 papers) |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4.5 |
4 |
4.50 |
Overall=
4.35
·
Recommendations
For program adjustments in
this area, there still are three recommendations:
(1) A college writing for "research paper" class is
required to all majors. (This is a response to "Citing Sources" and "Paraphrasing.")
(2) For SPCH 3401 (as the first upper-level communication
studies and core course taken by most new majors), the alert system must be
monitored, while the criteria for accepting the new majors should be considered
(e.g., a "B" in SPCH 2101 and a G.P.A of 2.5 in their first college year or 30
credit hours).
(3) Be sure that the majors keep their works and submit
them when this assessment is administered.
·
Remarks
(1) Because the basic knowledge in research methods was
introduced in fall 2003, the assessment on this was administered in all three
courses. Students in SPCH 3401 and SPCH 3411 were introduced to research
methodology. In general, the students' performance has been improved this year
(2005—4.35 Vs. 2004—3.82).
(2) For SPCH 3401, five papers from fall 2003 and 2004
were assessed. This course generally is the first upper-level communication
studies core course most majors take; therefore, they struggle hard for
adjustment. When compared with last year (2004), students in this year (2005)
class showed better performance.
(3) For SPCH 3411, six papers from fall 2003 and 2004 were
assessed when the basic knowledge in research methods was introduced and more
sources (for concepts/theories) were provided. However, in this year (2005), the
performance has very slightly dropped because the students did not know how to
apply the new knowledge in research methods to their works.
(4) For SPCH 3421, only two papers from spring 2004 were
assessed. They may not represent the actual course performance of the class of
2005. This year (2005) reflected better performance than last year (2004).
###