Department: Speech Communication
2005-2006 Assessment Report
Program:
Undergraduate Degree Awarded: BA/BS
This year the departmental
assessment plan calls for an alumni survey.
The results of that survey are included as Appendix A of this document.
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: know communication theories, principles, concepts, and the
development of the field of communication.
·
This outcome is designated on the
departmental 5 year assessment schedule for 2005-06.
·
Linked to department goals #1, 2, 3,
6, 7
·
Linked to College goals # 1, 2, 4
·
Linked to University goals # 1 and 2
2. How were they (was it) assessed? Tools
employed:
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 their performance over
the course of their study and writing personal reflections about their
performance.
The
artifacts and reflections demonstrating competency for this outcome include:
1. Assignment from a lower division
(100-200) course that demonstrates comprehension of a basic theory, principle
or concept in communication.
2. Assignment from a lower division
(100-200) course that demonstrates knowledge of the development of the field of
communication.
3. Assignment from an upper-division
(300-400) course that demonstrates advanced knowledge of a communication
theory, principle or concept
Since this competency was last assessed in 2001, the
department developed a new required course in communication theory. Part of the purpose of this course is to
improve student use and analysis of theories and concepts in communication.
Additionally, the reflection statements about each competency
address student disposition and attitudes about the competency. All students are able to sense a connection
between the theory and the practice and its application to their world view and
communication style.
Artifacts and self-reflection statements associated with the student
learning outcomes listed above were assessed using the assessment rubric below.
b. Who was assessed?
All students in SPEE 385 for fall 2005 and spring 2006 (n=28) and
all students in 485, Senior Seminar, fall 2005 an spring 2006 were assessed; (fall,
12; spring 21)
c. When was it assessed?
At the end of fall 2005 and spring semester 2006
3. What was learned? (Rubric applied to tools) (N=28) in 385; (N=28) in 485
|
|
Outcome` |
SP 385 competency 3 |
Sp 485 competency 1 |
Sp 485 competency 2 |
Sp 485 competency 3 |
|
4 |
Student activities and/or assignments demonstrate knowledge of
basic theories/concepts/skills and their development in the communication
discipline, as well as the ability to use that knowledge. This knowledge is
demonstrated through activities and/or assignments that show students are
able to define key theories and concepts, are able to utilize basic skills,
and are able to analyze and evaluate these theories and concepts, including
showing how these concepts have developed over time. |
7 |
28 |
28 |
28 |
|
3 |
Student activities and/or assignments demonstrate knowledge of
basic theories/concepts/skills, as well as the ability to use that knowledge.
This knowledge is demonstrated through activities and/or assignments that
show students are able to define key theories and concepts, are able to
utilize basic skills, and are able to analyze and evaluate these theories and
concepts. |
10 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
Student activities and/or assignments demonstrate knowledge of
basic theories/concepts/skills, as well as the ability to use that knowledge.
This knowledge is demonstrated through activities and/or assignments that
show students are able to define key theories and concepts, and are able to
utilize basic skills. |
7 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
Student activities and/or assignments demonstrate knowledge of
basic theories/concepts/skills, or the ability to use that knowledge. This
knowledge is demonstrated through activities and/or assignments that show
students are able to define key theories and concepts, or are able to utilize
basic skills. |
4 |
|
|
|
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; 100% of assessed population meets or exceeds level 2; 100% 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 develop assignments
which allow students to demonstrate knowledge of the development and history of
the field of communication. Students
are understanding and applying theory in a variety of contexts. Upon completion of 385 students are, in
general, less proficient in communication research than we would like. This situation has been dealt with by the
department by replacing Speech 385 with Speech 290 and other courses. The
benefit of a Communication research course is that students will receive a deeper
understanding of the research process (and the opportunity to create a real
research project, rather than the mini-projects necessitated by the combination
of their and research in sp 385.
.
5. How did the department make use of the
feedback from last year’s assessment report?
This outcome has not been revisited since 2001. The
department has learned from these results that students were not comfortable
with moving away from the text in order to analyze or critique theory and
concept. Students had trouble seeing the connection between theory and
application. The department developed a required course in communication
theory. Part of the purpose of this course is to improve student use and
analysis of theories and concepts in communication. Additionally, the course has now been split
into 2 courses one emphasizing theory and the other emphasizing research. The change to 2 course sequence will allow
more time for students to assimilate and apply theory.
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 2: demonstrate sufficient pedagogical and professional skills to
succeed as a teacher of public communication
Linked to College Goals # 1,
2, 4
Linked to University Goals #
1, 2
Dept goals #1, 2, 3,
6, 7
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 Portfolios, Philosophy of
Speech Education, and Micro-teaching Reflection Papers in speech 404
All students in SPEE 404 Methods of Teaching Speech complete an
electronic teaching portfolio. The portfolio includes the creation of
lesson plans for a micro-teaching session and a reflection paper which
demonstrate student’s ability to assess their own performance as a teacher. Each student also crafts a philosophy of
speech education. These three “critical”
assignments serve to demonstrate students’ ability to apply knowledge of speech
communication to their own plans to teach public speaking. These opportunities 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 2005 were
assessed. (n=21)
c. When was it assessed?
Fall semester 2005
3. What was learned? (Rubric applied to tools)
|
|
Digital Teaching 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. |
21 |
|
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. |
21 |
|
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. |
21 |
|
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. |
21 |
|
|
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. |
21 |
|
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. |
21 |
|
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 |
21 |
|
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. |
21 |
|
|
Philosophy of Speech Education |
Met Outcome |
|
4 |
Student
addresses the minimum five (questions) components of the philosophy and
rationale statement and offers additional considerations. Student response
shows thorough consideration of all components, and the paper contains no
grammatical errors. |
21 |
|
3 |
Student
addresses the minimum five (questions) components of the philosophy and
rationale statement. Student response shows thorough consideration of the
components, and the paper contains several grammatical errors. |
21 |
|
2 |
Student
addresses the minimum five (questions) components of the philosophy and
rationale statement. Student response shows limited consideration of the
components, and the paper contains many grammatical errors. |
21 |
|
1 |
1
Student fails to address all five (questions) components of the philosophy
and rationale statement. The paper contains numerous grammatical errors. |
21 |
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 all levels.
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. Additionally, by crafting the philosophy of
speech education, the students are addressing dispositions and attitudes about
education. This philosophy allows
students to see the connection between their own future students, their
parents, and their colleagues in the field.
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 #1 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 demonstrate professional competence in oral communication.
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 oral 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
·
Linked to department goals #1, 2, 3,
6, 7
2. How were they (was it) assessed?
Tools employed:
a. What methods were
used?
Student oral presentations in Departmental Colloquia were assessed
by graduate faculty using the rubric below. Presentations were assessed Spring
2006.
b. Who was assessed?
All graduate students who will graduate
this spring (N=11)
c. When was it assessed?
Spring 2006
3. What was learned? (Rubric applied to tools)
|
|
|
Met Outcome |
|
2 |
Student oral defense of thesis
or alternate plan paper and/or oral presentation in public setting
demonstrates that the student is able to successfully synthesize information
in a written form of communication for presentation in an oral format.
Student is able to highlight the thesis, the key supporting evidence, the key
theoretical elements, and the conclusion and present these in a manner that
helps the audience follow and understand the content and the organizational
structure. The student uses appropriate verbal and nonverbal skills in the
presentation, and is able to successfully defend statements made in the oral
presentation. |
11 |
|
1 |
Student oral defense of thesis
or alternate plan paper and/or oral presentation in public setting
demonstrates that the student is able to adequately synthesize information in
a written form of communication for presentation in an oral format. Student is
able to highlight the thesis, the key supporting evidence, the key
theoretical elements, and the conclusion and present these in a manner that
does not hinder the audience from following and understanding the content and
the organizational structure. The student uses appropriate verbal and
nonverbal skills in the presentation, and attempts to defend statements made
in the oral presentation. |
11 |
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 exceed both levels 1and 2
4. What will the department do as a result of
that information?
Individual student evaluations, from which the above results were derived, indicated that our graduate students demonstrate satisfactory and adequate oral communication skills which lead to successful oral communication. As a department, we will continue to provide opportunities for public presentations and feedback and constructive criticism for our students and ourselves. Achievement of competency in the affective domain is an implied domain within the graduate program. Students are involved in the program because they “like” or “value” the skills and knowledge they receive. While there are very few tools in place to measure their attitudes, it seems inherent and self evident. An examination of the alumni survey also indicates students are satisfied with the program; again, not a specific tool, but an inherent positive result of the degree. As indicted in the alumni survey of graduate students, the most important reason for pursuing the Speech Communication degree was a strong interest in the subject matter.
5. How did the department make use of the feedback from last
year’s assessment report?
Regarding last year’s plan assessed (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.), the Department continues to strengthen mastery of written
communication. There were many formal
discussion about the department’s qualification exam (quals). Discussion revolved around how to assess
student writing, how to use the data and skills generated by the quals process,
and how to increase written competency by all graduate students.
Appendix A
Alumni Survey Results
2005-06
Speech Communication Department
The Speech Communication
Department conducted a regularly scheduled survey of alumni from the last five
years. (Every four years the department will conduct a survey of alumni from
the last five years.) The survey was modeled on previous surveys conducted for
the 1989 Program Review, and for the 2001-2002 regular assessment plan directive. This survey was
designed to assess alumni satisfaction with the program, gauge program
strengths and weaknesses, and determine how students were using their speech
communication degrees. Relevant date from the 2001-2002 survey is included and shown in red.
Results:
199 postcards were mailed asking alumni from the last five years to respond to an online survey. There was no follow-up. The return rate was 10 percent with 19 surveys returned.
Background Data:
Degree Received: (N=19)
·
3 respondents received
a BA degree
·
10 respondents
received a BS degree
·
3 respondents received
a BST (Teaching) degree
·
1 respondents received
an MA as a second degree from this program)
·
3 respondents received
a MS degree
·
0 respondents received
a MFA degree
Reasons for seeking degree/enrollment status:
·
15 respondents
reported they received the degree in order to get a job
·
6 respondents reported
they received the degree in order to enhance their education
·
2 respondents reported
"other" as a response, with no preponderance of specificity
·
·
89% of the respondents
were enrolled full-time as they sought their degree
·
The average student
took 3.66 (previous 4.01) years to achieve an undergraduate degree
·
The average student
took 2.25 (previous 2.95) years to achieve a graduate degree
Gender
·
11 female
·
8 male
Age
17-20
0
21-23
5
24-26
10
27+ 4
Satisfaction Measures:
Overall Curriculum
On a
scale of 1-5 (1=very dissatisfied; 5=very satisfied)
The
response was a mean of 4.21 (previous was based
on a reverse 1-4 scale 1.53)
Internship Opportunities
On a scale
of 1-5 (1=very satisfied; 4=very dissatisfied)
The
response was a mean of 3.31 (previous was based on a reverse 1-4 scale 2.0)
Independent Study Opportunities
On a
scale of 1-5 (1=very satisfied; 4=very dissatisfied)
The
response was a mean of 3.94 (previous was based on a reverse 1-4 scale 1.64)
Pedagogy
On a scale of 1-4 (4=very useful;
1=not at all useful)
· Discussions: Mean of 3.63 (3.48)
· Group Projects: Mean of 3.21 (3.28)
· Presentations: Mean of 3.68 (3.55)
· Individual Projects: Mean 3.63 (new category for 2005-06)