Speech Communication Discipline Report for the ASL Committee (Spring 2006)
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 studentsÕ 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 2006. (Throughout the major, students are asked to create personal
portfolios, which are evaluated collectively during the senior year.)
Because there are two faculty members in this area, there will be two sections in this area: (1) Prof. Mary Elizabeth BezansonÕs assessment and (2) Prof. Neil LerouxÕs 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 six 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: 3.6 of 5.0.
(3) Ability to recognize the describe links between rhetorical
theory and historical context— student
average: 3.16 of 5.0.
|
|
Citing |
Paraphrasing |
Analysis |
SPCH 3101
(6 papers)
|
4.00 |
3.60 |
3.16 |
Recommendations
(1) Maintain text to fully assess effect. Students in this
group were from different classes that used different texts.
(2) Efforts to make links
explicit showing some gains.
Remarks
None
Prof. Neil Leroux is the one
who did this assessment, based on Learning Objective #2 (ÒThe students will use a
variety of assigned theoretical approaches appropriate toÉrhetoricÉto describe
and evaluate assigned or chosen discourse.Ó). The details of his
assessment can be described below.
Learning
Objective/Expected Outcome
In
this assessment, the expected outcome of Learning Objective #2 was addressed: ÒThe students will be able to choose from a variety of
methods to describe and evaluate a specific act or artifact.Ó
Data and Criteria for
Assessing
Three papers from SPCH 4201
(Persuasion: Receiver Analysis) and three papers from SPCH 3211 (Public
Address) were assessed on three criteria: (1) ability to cite sources, (2)
ability to paraphrase the message from the sources, and (3) ability to analyze
the discourse.
Results
The results were given
according to the types of criteria. The details are given below:
(1) Ability to cite sources—students averaged 4.66
of 5.0.
(2) Ability to paraphrase the message from the
sources—students averaged 4.66 of 5.0
(3) Ability to analyze the discourse—students
averaged 4.76 of 5.0.
|
|
Citing |
Paraphrasing |
Analyzing |
|
SPCH 4201 (3
papers) & SPCH 3211 ( 3 papers) |
4.66 |
4.66 |
4.76 |
Recommendations
For program adjustments, an
additional writing step in two courses that have discourse analysis assignments
is desirable, whereby revisions of the previous draft are required. Also,
writing problems will be handled, but the instructor will not ÒfixÓ the
problems. Rather, students themselves are required to figure out how to fix
them with assistance from the instructor.
Remarks
None
Prof. Barbara Burke is the
one who did this assessment. The details of this 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 toÉelectronic 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 2006," including papers written in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Scholarly journal article critique
papers from SPCH 3301 Media Theory were collected for this review.
Fifteen papers were analyzed
in 2006. 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 4.2 to 5. The "class average" for
all averaged scores-calculated to find a "typical" paper"--was
4.6. Specific criteria averages were also studied, to identify areas of
strengths and areas needing improvement. Averages for the Òclass of Õ06 Ó are
summarized below
|
|
Citing |
Writing |
Method |
Theory ID |
Evaluation
|
SPCH 3301 |
4.8 |
4.4 |
4.8 |
4.4 |
4.6 |
Evaluation and
Recommendations
Last year we considered three
changes:
(1) Although average scores in some evaluation areas are
slightly lower than previous years, the Òtypical paperÓ and the range from
highest to lowest papers are closer to a desirable target. (For example, whereas last year a
paper had a 2.8, this year the lowest paper was evaluated as a 4.2)
(2) Citation style and basic writing skills continue to
improve. We adopted a newer
version of the style manual two years ago, and the class spent more time on
basic writing instruction. The
result was a change in citing from 4.0 in Õ04 to 4.2 in Õ05 to 4.8 in Ô06.
(3) Student identification of relevant media theories in
research articles decreased slightly in score, from 4.6 to 4.4. Possibly this is due to instructional
time taken from course content in order to allow for more time in writing
instruction and the activities of the research process. The decision to focus on basic
writing will not be discarded.
However, a new text and more unit exams have been adopted for Õ06 and
this may aid in a change in future years in student content knowledge.
(4) Student evaluation of scholarly arguments decreased
slightly in score, from 4.8 to 4.6 More practice in evaluating research has
been added to an assignment in the course, but it comes later than the
assignment reviewed by the portfolio.
Therefore, by the end of the term, students are likely to have more
knowledge than this portfolio collection indicates. This area has been enhanced by an addition of a greater
opportunity for students to propose and design research projects within the
media theory course, as a group exercise, and is not currently part of the
portfolio review. Success in this domain
(reviewing and evaluating research studies) may rather be more reflected in
work done later in the major, e.g., the senior seminar capstone experience.
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 ofÉcommunicationsÉ. |
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
toÉcommunicationsÉto 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 Òcompare, 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 workÕs quality.Ó
Data and Criteria for
Assessing
Final papers from three
courses in 2003, 2004, and 2005 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 Òclass of 2006.Ó Also, the number of criteria in this 2006
study has been the same to fit all three coursesÕ 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 2006
Average |
SPCH 3401(8 papers) |
4.44 |
4.62 |
4.56 |
4.62 |
4.62 |
4.56 |
SPCH 3411(2 papers) |
4.25 |
4.25 |
4.25 |
4.00 |
4.25 |
4.20 |
SPCH 3421(6 papers) |
4.50 |
4.50 |
4.33 |
4.83 |
4.33 |
4. 50 |
Overall=
4.42
Recommendations
For program adjustments in
this area, there still are three recommendations:
(1) A college writing for Òresearch paperÓ class is
required to all majors. (This is a response to ÒCiting SourcesÓ and ÒParaphrasing.Ó)
(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 ÒBÓ 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 studentsÕ performance has been improved this year (2006—4.42
Vs. 2005—4.35).
(2) For SPCH 3401, eight papers 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 (2005), students in this year (2006) class showed better performance
(2006—4.56 Vs. 2005—4.28).
(3) For SPCH 3411, only two papers were assessed. At this
point, the basic knowledge in research methods was introduced and more sources
(for concepts/theories) were provided. However, in this year (2006), they may
not represent the actual course performance of the class of 2006, while the
performance has very slightly dropped because the students did not know how to
apply the new knowledge in research methods to their works (2006—4.20 Vs.
2005—4.27).
(4) For SPCH 3421, six of seven submitted papers were
assessed, because of the different nature of the seventh one. This year (20065)
reflected the same performance as last year (2005) (2006—4.50 Vs.
2005—4.50) .
###