Program Review and Assessment: TP 4/02/07

Minnesota State University

Assessment of Student Learning

Department and Program Report

 

Please enter the appropriate information concerning your student learning assessment activities for this year. 

 

Academic Year of Report: 2006-2007 College or Support Area: Arts and Humanities Department or Program: Speech Communication – Bachelor of Science (Teaching)

 

Check here if your assessment report covers all undergraduate degree programs: [  ]

Check here if your assessment report covers all graduate degree programs: [   ]

 

1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?

In answering this question, please identify the specific student learning outcomes you assessed this year, reasons for assessing these outcomes, with the outcomes written in clear, measurable terms, and note how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.

 

Program:     Bachelor of Science-Teaching

                        Speech Communication

 

Student Learning Outcome

Students will:

University Goal

College Goal

Method of Assessment

Assessment Date

Standard of Mastery

Persons (Courses) Responsible

LO 3 - be able to assess student learning in the area of public communication.

MSU 1: engaged and inclusive learning community;MSU 2: prepared for careers and for life-long learning

Dept goal 1, 5

A&H 1: offer quality undergraduate and graduate programs; A&H 2: acquire disciplined habits of critical thinking and creative expression; A&H 4: engage in meaningful practice

(1) SPEE 430 Directing Forensic Activities: Assessment of Student Critique Sheets; (2) SPEE 430 Directing Forensic Activities: Assessment of Micro-coaching sessions

2006-7

See rubric below

Methods faculty

 

 

 

 *NCATE, MNBOT, ISTE and NCA K-12 standards are embedded in the broader learning outcome statements. Specific learning outcomes will indicate which broader standards are embedded in the outcomes. These standards are available by linking to the following websites:

 

 

 

Learning Outcome 3: Students demonstrate sufficient knowledge and skills to assess student learning in the area of public communication.

Embedded Outcomes: NCATE 2000 Candidate Performance Standard 1; MNBOT Communication Arts and Literature Standards C: 3; ISTE Category 4; NCA K-12: Standards 4.15

 

2. How were they assessed?

In answering these questions, please concisely describe the specific methods used in assessing student learning. Please also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place, and the standard of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessment results. If appropriate, please list survey or questionnaire response rate from total population.

 

(1)

A)     Description: SPEE 430 Critique Sheets: All students took part in an in-class speech tourney, performing and serving as judges. All students (N=11) wrote a minimum of 20 critique sheets over a period of 4 class days. Students were asked to select 1 representative critique sheet each day and submit it as part of the assessment process. The produced a sample of 30 critique sheets (student absences created the lower number). Student critique sheets were then assessed according to the rubric standards.

B)      Population: Students in SPEE 430 Directing Forensic Activities (N=11)

C)      Date of Assessment: April 16-27, 2006

D)     Standard of Mastery: Level of Mastery: 100% of assessed population meets or exceeds level 1; 80% of assessed population meets level 2. (see rubric below for levels)

(2)

A) Description: SPEE 430 Micro-coaching sessions. All students (N=11) in SPEE 430 prepared and took part in a micro-coaching/teaching session on either a Public Address or Interpretation event (based on MSHSL speech event categories). The student sessions were recorded for both student reflection and for instructor evaluation. Student recorded performances were assessed according to the rubric at the end of this report.

B)  Population: Students in SPEE 430 Directing Forensic Activities (N=11)

C)  Date of assessment: The assessment took place April 9, 11, 13 and 27th.

D)     Standard of Mastery: Level of Mastery: 100% of assessed population meets or exceeds level 1; 80% of assessed population meets level 2. (see rubric below for levels)

 

3. What was learned?

In answering this question, please report results in specific qualitative or quantitative terms, with the results linked to the outcomes you assessed, and compared to the standard of mastery (criterion) you noted above. Please also include a concise interpretation or analysis of the results.

 

(1)    Twenty-three of the sample critique sheets met level 2 (exceeded level 1); seven critique sheets met level 1. Level of Mastery (80% of assessed population meets level 2) was NOT met. In general, student performance was acceptable; however, sub-level 2 performance by three students lead to the mastery level not being met by the population.

(2)    Eleven of the micro-coaching sessions met level 2 (exceeded level 1). All student coaching sessions demonstrated acceptable assessment and evaluation tools through the use of a variety of assessment and evaluation techniques that were part of the sessions.

 

4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?

In answering this question, please note specific changes to your program as they affect student learning, and as they are related to results from the assessment process. If no changes are planned, please describe why no changes are needed.

 

(1)    Based on these results, faculty teaching SPEE 430 in 2007-2008 will need to provide more instruction in and evaluation of student performance in writing speech critiques.

(2)  Based on these results, no changes are planned.

5. What did the department or program do in response to the feedback from last year's assessment report?

In answering this question, please describe any changes that have been made to improve student learning based on previous assessment results. Please also discuss any changes you have made to your assessment plan or assessment methods.

 

6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Minnesota State University, Mankato: Who will be responsible for evaluating and reporting on these assessment reports?

 

Assessment Rubric

2

Student unit plans and learning activities contain acceptable assessment and evaluation tools as evidenced by well constructed rubrics and successfully created objective and essay questions and other assessment and evaluation tools.

1

Student unit plans and learning activities contain minimally acceptable assessment and evaluation tools as evidenced by poorly constructed rubrics and/or poorly created objective and essay questions and other assessment and evaluation tools.