Department: Speech Communication
2004-2005 Assessment Report
Program: Undergraduate Degree Awarded: BA/BS
Check
here if your assessment report covers all undergraduate degree programs: NO
Check
here if your assessment report covers all graduate degree programs: NO
1. What
learning outcomes were assessed this year and why?
·
Learning
Outcome 5:
Demonstrate critical thinking, communication proficiency, and knowledge of
methodology by conducting a scholarly project utilizing a critical, humanistic
or social scientific perspective.
·
This outcome is on the departmental 5 year
assessment schedule for 2004-05.
·
This learning outcome is linked to departmental
goal #2: To offer general education courses that provide students with the
knowledge and skills to be critical thinkers and effective communicators in
both professional careers and advanced study.
·
Linked to College goals # 1, 2, 4
·
Linked to University goals # 1 and 2
2. How
were they (was it) assessed? Tools employed: 485 final project paper and final project
speech); and special assessment grant survey by Drs. Cronn-Mills and
Johnson-Curiskis
a. What methods were used?
All
speech communication students in the BA/BS program must complete SPEE 485,
Senior Seminar. As part of this course, students complete an electronic
portfolio documenting both their performance over the course of their study and
writing personal reflections about their performance. Students also complete an
exit interview which is analyzed for department curricular decision making. The Speech Communication Department Long Range
Planning and Assessment Committee reviewed the artifacts for students in SPEE
485 in spring 2005. The student learning
outcomes/competencies included:
demonstrate comprehension of
a basic theory, principle or concept in communication.
demonstrate knowledge of the
development of field of communication.
demonstrate advanced
knowledge of a communication theory, principle or concept.
demonstrate individual public
speaking ability.
demonstrate group
communication ability.
demonstrate effective
listening skills.
demonstrate critical and/or
reflective thinking and responding.
demonstrate critical analysis
of an interpersonal, group, organizational, or public communication event.
pre and post test scores in
the PRCA
pre and post test scores on
the WTC (Willingness to Communicate) survey
demonstrate the ability to
complete a research project
demonstrate the ability to
present research orally
Artifacts
and self-reflection statements associated with each student learning outcome
listed above were assessed using the assessment rubric below. In addition, Dan Cronn-Mills and Nan
Johnson-Curiskis were awarded an assessment grant to analyze the results of a
survey focusing on the senior project (paper and speech). (Assessment grant information
revealed………………………..)
b. Who was assessed?
All
students in SPEE 485 for fall 2004 and spring 2005 (n=35; fall, 12 spring 23)
c. When was it assessed?
At the end of spring semester 2005
3. What was learned? (Rubric applied to tools)
|
|
Outcome |
Met Outcome |
|
3 |
Student
plans, researches and carries out a scholarly project. The student
demonstrates the ability to work with at least one methodology as it relates
to at least one communication phenomenon, and to use that methodology to
critically evaluate that phenomenon. The student uses and correctly cites
appropriate academic sources. The project must have both a written and oral
component. The written component demonstrates proficiency in written
communication evidenced by few if any grammatical errors, correct citation
style, and well-constructed paragraphs that develop a central thesis. The
oral component demonstrates proficiency in oral communication through the use
of appropriate verbal and nonverbal skills, and the ability to effectively
synthesize written communication for an oral format. |
12 |
|
2 |
Student
plans, researches and carries out a scholarly project. The student
demonstrates the ability to work with at least one methodology as it relates
to at least one communication phenomenon, and to use that methodology to
critically evaluate that phenomenon. The
student uses and correctly cites appropriate academic sources. The
project must have both a written and oral component. The written component
demonstrates acceptable proficiency in written communication evidenced by a
writing style in which the form and content allows the reader to identify
central claims and supporting evidence. The oral component demonstrates
acceptable proficiency in oral communication through the use of appropriate
verbal and nonverbal skills, and the ability to synthesize written
communication for an oral format. |
31 |
|
1 |
Student
plans, researches and carries out a scholarly project. The student
demonstrates the ability to work with at least one methodology as it relates
to at least one communication phenomenon. The student uses appropriate
academic sources. The project must have both a written and oral component.
The written component demonstrates minimal proficiency in written
communication evidenced by a writing style in which the form and content does
not prevent the reader from identifying central claims and supporting
evidence. The oral component demonstrates minimal proficiency in oral
communication evidenced by audience being able to identify a central focus
and follow a progression of that focus to a conclusion. |
35 |
Student
performance is developmental; students meeting the third and second levels
obviously demonstrate acceptable performance on the first level.
Level
of Mastery: 100% of assessed population meets or exceeds level 1; 75% of
assessed population meets or exceeds level 2; 50% of assessed population meets
level 3.
Level
of mastery was met for level 1; LOM was met for level 2; LOM was met for level
3.
4. What will the department do as a result of that
information?
The Department is satisfied
with the overall results of the assessment and will continue to emphasize
assignments which allow students to demonstrate scholarly writing and speaking;
however, this section of the outcome (students demonstrate the ability to use
methodology by conducting a scholarly projects utilizing a critical, humanistic
or social scientific perspective) appears to need work or revision. Within the context of current courses, it
appears the building blocks can be laid for scholarly research with appropriate
methodology in Speech 385, which is now a required course for speech
majors. It will take at least 2 more
years for all majors to “cycle” through this required course to allow this
competency to be fully realized in Speech 485.. Regardless, the Department will continue to
emphasize and monitor content designed to satisfy the learning outcome. These issues will be fodder for the
departmental curriculum retreat being scheduled for the summer of 2005.
Student perception of the success of the
final project (speech and paper) indicate students are satisfied with the
capstone writing and speaking experiences.
The appendix contains commentary and support for this is based on the
the summary of a special assessment grant prepared by Drs. Cronn-Mills and
Johnson-Curiskis for 2004-2005.
5. How did the department make use of the feedback from last
year’s assessment report?
Feedback from last year regarding Learning
Outcome#4, which was in the assessment plan’s regular rotation, noted that the
outcome was met, so no major changes were needed. The Department is satisfied with the results
of last year’s assessment and will continue to emphasize content designed to
satisfy the learning outcome. However,
as noted in last year’s report, while analyzing data for LO #4 (demonstrate an
awareness of how our communication influences others and how the communication
of others influences us) we uncovered another discrepancy regarding Learning
Outcomes 1, 2, and 3. While the assessment
levels of mastery were met in previous years, we noticed some students had
difficulty finding artifacts emphasizing speech communication theory. Most students were able to document theory
through application or reflection but were lacking advanced theoretical
knowledge of speech communication theories.
This fall, faculty were again urged to redesign course work to include
demonstration of advanced theoretical knowledge while still supplying students
with the opportunities to apply and reflect on their use of theory. These three Learning Outcome (LO 1, 2, 3) are
each scheduled for formal reassessment in future assessment plan years..
Department: Speech Communication
2004-2005 Assessment Report
Program: Undergraduate Degree Awarded: BST
Check
here if your assessment report covers all undergraduate degree programs: NO
Check
here if your assessment report covers all graduate degree programs: NO
1. What
learning outcomes were assessed this year and why?
Learning
Outcome 1:
Students demonstrate content knowledge sufficient to teach public
communication.
This was on the departmental assessment schedule for 2004-05.
Linked to departmental goal
#1: To offer quality undergraduate and
graduate programs that require students to master the basic concepts and
practices of the field, to begin to explore the many areas of study within the
field, and to master a specialized area of study.
Linked to College Goals # 1, 2, 4
Linked to University Goals # 1, 2
This
learning outcome also includes the following embedded outcomes:
Embedded Outcomes: NCATE
2000 Candidate Performance Standard 1
MNBOT Communication Arts
and Literature Standards A: 3-15; B: 3-5; C: 3-7; ISTE Category 1; NCA K-12:
Standard 3
2. How
were they (was it) assessed?
a. What methods were used? Tools employed:
Electronic Teaching Methods Portfolios, Clinical Experience Papers, and
Micro-teaching Reflection Papers in speech 404
All
students in SPEE 404 Methods of Teaching Speech complete an electronic
portfolio. The portfolio includes the creation of lesson plans for a
micro-teaching session and a reflection paper which demonstrate students
ability to assess their own performance as a teacher. The students participate
in a clinical experience observing and/or working with a practicing speech
teacher and also reflect on their experience.
These three “critical” assignments in particular serve to demonstrate
students’ ability to apply knowledge of speech communication to their own plans
to teach public speaking. There opportuities
as well as provide perception checks for attitudes/dispositions about career
(teaching) for each student through self-reflection.
(The
rubrics for the 3 critical assignments use a 4 point rubric rather than a 3
point rubric so they correspond with COE assessment data.)
b. Who was assessed?
All students in SPEE 404 for fall 2004 were assessed. (n=15)
c. When was it assessed?
Fall semester 2004
3. What was learned? (Rubric applied to tools)
|
|
Clinical
Experience Reflection Paper |
Met Outcome |
|
4 |
The student
self reflection paper offers a critical analysis and useful reflection on the
clinical experience. The student makes
a clear connection between what was observed and how the experience can be used in the
classroom. The paper contains no grammatical errors. |
14 |
|
3 |
The student
self reflection paper offers a description and explanation of the clinical
experience. The student makes a
connection between what was observed and how
the experience can be used in the classroom. The paper contains a few
grammatical errors |
14 |
|
2 |
The student
self reflection paper provides very little explanation or description of the
experience. The student makes only a
limited connection between what was observed and how the experience can be used in the
classroom. The paper contains more
than a few grammatical errors. |
14 |
|
1 |
The student
self reflection paper makes no connection between what was observed and
how the experience can be used in the
classroom. The paper contains numerous
grammatical errors. |
15 |
|
|
Micro
Teaching Reflection Paper |
Met Outcome |
|
4 |
The
analysis paper contained very useful information including what modifications
the student would use when teaching this lesson again, how pupils might react
to the lesson, and personal reflections/reactions to the lesson. There are no
grammar or style errors. |
14 |
|
3 |
The
analysis paper contained very useful information including what modifications
the student would use when teaching this lesson again, how pupils might react
to the lesson, and personal reflections/reactions to the lesson. There are a
few grammar or style errors. |
15 |
|
2 |
The
analysis paper contained some useful information and more than a few
grammatical errors. Some requirements
are not discussed. There are more than a few grammar or style errors |
15 |
|
1 |
The
analysis paper contained little if any useful information and numerous
grammatical errors. Many requirements
not discussed. There are many grammar or style errors. |
15 |
|
|
Digital Methods Portfolio |
Met Outcome |
|
4 |
The portfolio clearly addresses course content.
Student includes all required elements. Contents of the portfolio demonstrate
exemplary understanding of course concepts and skills. Portfolio has no
spelling errors or grammatically incorrect sentences. Sentences are well constructed. Appropriate
punctuation is used in all written material. |
15 |
|
3 |
Most components of the portfolio are
well chosen and adequately demonstrate an understanding of course concepts.
Student includes most required elements. Contents of the portfolio
demonstrate satisfactory understanding of course concepts and skills.
Portfolio contains none or very few spelling errors. Material is in most cases grammatically
correct. Written material is punctuated correctly. |
15 |
|
2 |
The portfolio indicates a general
understanding of course concepts. Student is missing required elements.
Contents of the portfolio demonstrate only a general understanding of course
concepts and skills. Portfolio contains a few spelling errors or
grammatically incorrect statements. Written material lacks some punctuation. |
15 |
|
1 |
The portfolio is superficial in its
approach and does not appropriately address the student’s learning. Contents
of the portfolio demonstrate unacceptable levels of understanding of course
concepts and skills. Portfolio contains many spelling errors or grammatically
incorrect sentences. Written material lacks punctuation or is not correctly
punctuated. |
15 |
Student performance is developmental;
students meeting the fourth and third levels obviously demonstrate acceptable
performance on the first and second levels.
Level of Mastery: 100% of assessed
population meets or exceeds level 1; 80% of assessed population meets or
exceeds level 2; 75% of assessed population meets level 3; 25% of assessment
population meets level 4.
Assessment indicates that based on the
three critical assignments associated with this outcome, students exceeded the
level of mastery set for this outcome. The result is not surprising, as the
course uses mastery learning and requires students to redo activities and assignments
until they meet mastery levels. As the course is designed to prepare future teachers, neither the course instructor nor the
department believe it is acceptable to allow students NOT to meet or exceed
mastery levels. Students unable to meet the requirements are provided
additional help. If students are still unable to meet the requirements, they
are counseled to consider another career option.
4. What
will the department do as a result of this information?
No specific changes are planned for the
outcome, the assignments, or the course. Any changes made to the course would
have to be made in conjunction with departmental consideration, and also would
have to be made in conjunction with NCATE, BOT,
and COE accreditation requirements.
5. How
did the department make use of the feedback from last year’s assessment?
Feedback from last year noted that the LO
#4 was met; therefore, no major changes were needed for this year.
Department: Speech Communication
2004-2005 Assessment Report
Program: Graduate
Degree Awarded: MFA/MA/MS
Check
here if your assessment report covers all undergraduate degree programs: NO
Check
here if your assessment report covers all graduate degree programs: YES
1. What
learning outcomes were assessed this year and why?
Learning
Outcome 1:
Upon completion of the graduate program in Speech Communication, all graduate
students will be able to demonstrate professional competence in written
communication. This was on the departmental assessment schedule for 2004-05.
This learning outcome is
linked to departmental goals #1, 2, 3, and 5: To offer quality undergraduate
and graduate programs that require students to master the basic concepts and
practices of the field, to begin to explore the many areas of study within the
field, and to master a specialized area of study. To promote the performance of
communication in both creative and scholarly venues. To encourage students,
graduate students, and faculty to take part in scholarship, research, and
creative activity that will contribute to the personal and professional
development of all involved.
Linked to College Goals # 1,
2, 4
Linked to University Goals #
1, 2
2. How
were they (was it) assessed? Tools employed:
Theses, APP papers; qualifying exams
The results of qualifying exams for
graduate students is related to the learning outcome. The exams were reviewed
to determine if the learning outcome was achieved. The exams were assessed using the assessment rubric below.
a. What methods were used?
The artifacts were assessed using the assessment rubric
below.
b. Who was assessed?
Graduate
students qualifying exam, 2004-2005; completed APP papers, and Theses. n = 12
c. When was it assessed?
School year 2004- 2005
3. What was learned? (Rubric applied to tools)
|
|
Outcome |
Outcome Met |
|
3 |
Student
writing in the thesis or alternate plan paper, or in the qualifying or
comprehensive exams, demonstrates that the student is able to develop a
central thesis, support that thesis with appropriate and credible evidence,
and defend that thesis against other interpretations. Students critically analyze evidence for
and against the stated thesis and the other interpretations. Information is presented in a written style
with few if any grammatical or mechanical errors, and in a style that allows
the audience to easily follow the organizational pattern of the
communication. |
4 |
|
2 |
Student
writing in the thesis or alternate plan paper, or in the qualifying or
comprehensive exams, demonstrates that the student is able to develop a central
thesis, support that thesis with appropriate and credible evidence, and
defend that thesis against other interpretations. Students analyze evidence for and against
the stated thesis, and present all of this information in a written style
with more than a few grammatical or mechanical errors, and in a style that
hinders the audience from following the organizational pattern of the
communication. |
11 |
|
1 |
Student
writing in the thesis or alternate plan paper, or in the qualifying or
comprehensive exams, demonstrates that the student is able to develop a
central thesis and support that thesis with appropriate and credible
evidence. The information is presented
in a written style that does prevents the audience from understanding the
content and following the organizational pattern of the communication. |
12 |
Student performance is developmental;
students meeting the third and second levels obviously demonstrate acceptable
performance on the first level.
Level of Mastery: 100% of the assessed
population meets or exceeds level 1; 90% of the assessed population meets or
exceeds level 2; 75% of the assessed population meets or exceeds level
3.(population determined by?)
4. What will the department do as a result of that
information?
Twelve graduate students took preliminary
exams in the Spring of 2005. Four of
these students wrote exams of high enough quality to warrant a ranking of
three, the top ranking established.
Seven students received a score of two, a score demonstrating competence
but not necessarily excellence. One
student received a score of one, a failing score. Overall these numbers, while positive,
suggested to the committee a need to continue helping graduate students better
integrate theoretical observations into their writing and improve their use of
APA and MLA. Although it is not
reflected in the above numbers, the Qualifying Exam Committee has also
expressed a need to revise the department’s qualifying exams with changes
expected to be implemented in the Spring of 2006.
The
Department will strive to strengthen mastery of writing skills by specifically focusing on how to analyze an audience and writing
techniques appropriate to several venues as relevant to student areas of
emphasis. Furthermore, the department
will continue its strong focus on writing by serving as advisors for theses,
independent study projects, APP papers, and other areas of academic and
professional writing.
5. How
did the department make use of the feedback from last year’s assessment report?
Regarding
last year’s plan assessed (Learning Outcome 4: Demonstrate mastery of
communication theories within their area of emphasis), the Department continues to strengthen mastery of
communication theories by specifically focusing
on how to
defend these theories as relevant to each student’s area of emphasis. In
addition, the hiring of a new faculty member with specific training in
communication theory and quantitative research methods will continue to
strengthen this area.
Appendix
A
ASSESSMENT
GRANT REPORT 2004-2005
Project
Coordinators
Dr.
Nanette Johnson-Curiskis
Dr.
Daniel Cronn-Mills
Purpose:
The
purpose of the assessment grant was to support faculty work in continued assessment
of undergraduate work. The grant was awarded for assessing a senior capstone
project which directly measures student learning at the department level.
Title of
assessment project:
Assessing
the Speech Communication Senior Capstone Project
The following
specific student learning outcomes were addressed by the project:
1.
The assessment determined if the Speech
Communication Department curriculum is meeting the following departmental goal
established in its Undergraduate Assessment Plan: (to assess Learning Outcome #5 for BA/BS “Demonstrate critical thinking, communication proficiency,
and knowledge of methodology by conducting a scholarly project utilizing a
critical, humanistic or social scientific perspective” (see Appendix A).
2.
The Senior Capstone Project assessment addressed
the following issues:
The assessment determined if the current Senior Capstone Project demonstrates appropriate and effective standards for the department and its students.
Specifically, the assessment raised the following questions:
·
Do the standards established for the Senior
Capstone Project clearly reflect department goals and assumptions?
·
Do the standards established for the Senior
Capstone Project clearly reflect disciplinary goals and assumptions?
·
Is the Senior Capstone Project an appropriate
means of assessing the capstone experience?
·
What are the advantages of the Senior Capstone
Project?
·
What are the disadvantages of the Senior
Capstone Project?
The project
assessment is related department assessment plan:
The
Speech Communication Department is committed to a 5-year assessment schedule. A
significant component of the assessment plan is the students’ demonstration of
the outcomes defined in each Learning Outcome. This project was designed to
assess the principles and practices of the Senior Capstone Project in order to
assess its overall effectiveness and to directly measure student learning at
the program level.
Assessment of
the success of the project
The
following questions were addressed as part of assessment process in order to
determine the efficacy of the Senior Capstone Project:
1.
Do the standards established for the Senior
Capstone Project clearly reflect department goals and assumptions?
Results of the assessment indicate the
department has relatively clear expectations embedded within the department’s
assessment plan. However, the associational link between the assessment plan
and the curriculum is not being fully realized. SPEE 385: Communication Theory
and Research and SPEE 485: Senior Seminar are the two primary courses
established by the department for enabling students to effectively carry out at
least one methodology as it relates to at least one communication phenomenon,
and to use that methodology to critically evaluate that phenomenon. Exit
interviews conducted with students in SPEE 485 in fall and spring semesters
indicate a desire to engage in more original research. However, the current
curricular approach does not provide sufficient grounding in research methods
for students to effectively carry out an entire program of original research.
The department still has students who started the program before SPEE 385
became a required course for all majors. Once all students must take SPEE 385,
more stringent expectations may be implemented. The assessment plan was devised
with this long-term goal in mind.
2.
Do the standards established for the Senior
Capstone Project clearly reflect disciplinary goals and assumptions?
The assessment standards established for
the project are clearly in line with disciplinary goals and assumptions.
However, the department will need to review if the disciplinary standards under
which the assessment operates are more appropriate at the graduate level than
the graduate level. Disciplinary goals and assumptions at the undergraduate level
are more nebulous than at the graduate level. Part of the department’s future
agenda is to more carefully establish disciplinary goals and assumptions for an
undergraduate senior capstone project.
3.
Is the Senior Capstone Project an appropriate
means of assessing the capstone experience?
Exit interviews conducted with students
in SPEE 485 in fall and spring semesters indicate the senior capstone project
has proven to be a worthwhile endeavor. However, students also want and expect
clearer standards for what shall be considered appropriate within the framework
of a senior capstone project. The faculty involved in teaching SPEE 485 have
given relatively broad latitude for what a student may write for their senior
capstone project. The latitude was necessary due to the fairly recent
incorporation of SPEE 385 into the curriculum. The department still has
students who started the program before SPEE 385 became a required course for
all majors. Once all students must take SPEE 385, more stringent expectations may
be implemented. The assessment plan was devised with this long-term goal in
mind.
4.
What are the advantages of the Senior Capstone
Project?
Select comments from the student
interviews best highlight the advantages of capstone project:
·
I think it is a good wrap up of our program. It
helps us to make sure we have everything that we need to graduate.
·
It gives seniors an opportunity to really dig
into a topic that may have captured their attention over their time here at
MSU. Also, it is nice for some of us done with the major to be able to give one
last speech in front of our friends.
·
use of all knowledge for good closure
·
Because everyone who graduates with a speech
communication degree must demonstrate that they can effectively speak in front
of an audience and write at a high level
·
I believe it forces students to organize
themselves so they are able to prepare a heavy project. It forces students to
recall things they have learned and apply them to thier current lives.
·
It makes you prove that you're capable of doing
a project like this.
·
Requiring the senior project gives closure to a
degree. You know you are finished and have something to show for what you have
accomplished over the past four or more years.
·
I think it helps Speech Communication majors to
utilize what we have learned and also have an indepth knowledge of our skills
as a whole. The project also makes us aware of what we need to continue to work
on when communicating whether it be written communication or oral.
5.
What are the disadvantages of the Senior
Capstone Project?
Select comments from the student
interviews best highlight the disadvantages of capstone project:
·
In a sense, it is sort of a repeat of what we
have been doing all through school.
·
I wish our final presentation was more about our
experience with the Speech curriculum instead of doing more research on other
Speech topics.
·
I think it limits those who are capable of more,
it does not give some people the chance to connect their future field with
Speech Communication.
Plan
for program improvement as a result of the assessment project, and
This assessment project highlights the
need for better streaming of students through the curriculum in order to
prepare the students for the senior capstone project. The assessment standards
shall also be reviewed to determine if the original plan under which they were
devised is appropriate, or if the broader latitude currently being employed is
more appropriate and beneficial for the students in our programs.
Plan
for assessing the effectiveness of program changes made.
Assessment
rubrics will be reviewed and revised as appropriate in order to meet department
program expectations. The assessment learning outcome rotation will be
evaluated to ascertain if the senior capstone project should be moved up within
the current cycle to provide for more timely review.
Learning
outcome #5 for BA/BS “Demonstrate critical thinking,
communication proficiency, and knowledge of methodology by conducting a
scholarly project utilizing a critical, humanistic or social scientific
perspective.”
Rubric
from assessment plan
|
3 |
Student
plans, researches and carries out a scholarly project. The project requires
that the student demonstrate the ability to work with at least one methodology
as it relates to at least one communication phenomenon, and to use that
methodology to critically evaluate that phenomenon. The project also requires
that the student use and correctly cite appropriate academic sources. The
project must have both a written and oral component. The written component
demonstrates proficiency in written communication evidenced by few if any
grammatical errors, correct citation style, and well-constructed paragraphs
that develop a central thesis. The oral component demonstrates proficiency in
oral communication through the use of appropriate verbal and nonverbal
skills, and the ability to effectively synthesize written communication for
an oral format. |
|
2 |
Student
plans, researches and carries out a scholarly project. The project requires
that the student demonstrate the ability to work with at least one
methodology as it relates to at least one communication phenomenon, and to
use that methodology to critically evaluate that phenomenon. The project also
requires that the student use and correctly cite appropriate academic
sources. The project must have both a written and oral component. The written
component demonstrates sufficiency in written communication evidenced by a
writing style in which the form and content allows the reader to identify
central claims and supporting evidence. The oral component demonstrates
sufficiency in oral communication through the use of appropriate verbal and
nonverbal skills, and the ability to synthesize written communication for an
oral format. |
|
1 |
Student
plans, researches and carries out a scholarly project. The project requires
that the student demonstrate the ability to work with at least one
methodology as it relates to at least one communication phenomenon. The
project also requires that the student use appropriate academic sources. The
project must have both a written and oral component. The written component
demonstrates minimal sufficiency in written communication evidenced by a
writing style in which the form and content does not prevent the reader from
identifying central claims and supporting evidence. The oral component
demonstrates minimal sufficiency in oral communication evidenced by audience
being able to identify a central focus and follow a progression of that focus
to a conclusion. |