UAM School of Arts and Humanities Assessment Report

ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT

2004 – 2005 YEAR

School of Arts and Humanities

University of Arkansas at Monticello

School of Arts and Humanities

2004-2005 Annual Program Review

I. REVIEW

BA Graduates:

Art B 6

English B 9

Journalism – 1

Speech Communication B 8

AA Graduates:

Art – 0

English – 0

Journalism – 1

Speech Communication – 3

Enrollment Data:

B Majors by discipline by class B

Art English Journalism Speech

Pre-Freshman --- --- --- ---

Freshman 7 11 3 6

Sophomore 1 11 2 7

Junior 2 7 2 9

Senior 4 17 1 9

Graduate 1 2 --- ---

B Minors by discipline by class B

Art English French Journalism Spanish Speech

Pre-Freshman --- --- --- --- --- ---

Freshman --- 1 --- 1 --- 1

Sophomore --- 2 --- --- 5 1

Junior --- 4 1 2 5 2

Senior --- 4 --- --- 9 ---

Graduate --- --- --- --- --- ---

B Course enrollments/Credit/Contact Hours/SSCH by term B

Credit Hours Contact Hours SSCH Enrollment

Summer II 2004 48 33 459 153

Fall 2004 358 339 5923 1998

Spring 2005 336 320 4922 1654

Summer I 2005 54 51 624 208

Annual Program Review for School of Arts and Humanities

2004-2005

I. ACTIVITIES AND CHALLENGES

SCHOOL-WIDE ACTIVITIES

· Sponsored two-day, on-campus showing of Hot Springs Documentary Film Festival.

· Held recognition ceremony for outstanding SAH students in Fall and Spring Semesters.

· Established annual film series.

ART

Activities:

· Sponsored two senior exhibits, K-through-12 exhibit, and Cronshey exhibit.

· Supported Art faculty presentations at various statewide exhibits.

· Sponsored Art faculty and student workshop at Clinton Library opening.

Challenges:

· To increase number of faculty.

· To obtain sufficient money for supplies and equipment.

ENGLISH

Activities:

· Published The Foliate Oak, a literary magazine containing the work of students, staff, faculty, and writers from across the United States and beyond.

· Supported several faculty members in giving literary readings and conducting workshops at Monticello and Drew Central schools.

· Supported campus poetry reading by Marck Beggs.

· Established campus wide Theatre Club.

Challenges:

· To prepare students for teacher certification.

FOREIGN LANGUAGES

Activities:

· Sponsored foreign-language festival for area high-school students.

· Sponsored student film-and-foreign-food festival on campus.

· Conducted workshops for area foreign-language teachers.

· Supported grant-sponsored reading program for Hispanic children in Monticello directed by Ms. Bacon.

Challenges:

· To increase number of faculty.

· To improve technology in Language Lab.

· To develop MAT in Spanish.

JOURNALISM

Activities:

· Published student on-line newspaper, The Voice of UAM.

· Published student yearbook.

· Supported faculty in attending state journalism meeting.

Challenges:

· To further develop the recently implemented journalism program.

· To advertise availability of the journalism degree.

SPEECH COMMUNICATION

Activities:

· Supported the Debate and Forensics program in hosting two college tournaments and one high-school tournament.

· Conducted performance activities at selected statewide and out-of-state sites.

Challenges:

· To acquire additional classroom space.

· To obtain electronic classroom.

II. MISSION/DESCRIPTION

The Division of Arts and Languages was formed when the University of Arkansas at Monticello reorganized its academic structure in 1993. It was composed of the former Department of Communication Arts and the Art Department, which was previously a constituency of Fine Arts. On July 1, 1998 the former Division became the School of Arts and Humanities to better delineate the breadth of academic areas in the unit: Art, English, Foreign Language, Journalism and Speech Communication. Instructional emphasis in the School is upon the major and minor areas of Art, English, Journalism and Speech Communication and in the minor areas of French and Spanish. The School also offers additional course work in Philosophy. Because many students come to the University in need of more academic preparation for college than the high school has provided, the School offers considerable help in the area of fundamentals of oral communication, writing, and reading. The School’s dual function will continue to be that of providing courses for its own baccalaureate programs, significant minors, and for the general education program in the areas of writing, speaking, and art appreciation. The School offers four Bachelor of Arts alternatives of specialization in Art, English, Journalism, and Speech Communication. A major concentration in writing is also offered.

The mission of the School of Arts and Humanities is to offer significant exposure to language, literature, communication, and artistic expression and appreciation by providing students the information and experiences necessary to develop personal and professional skills in these areas. The School mission supports the University mission in several ways as stated in the current catalog, but especially in the statement regarding the offering of a well-rounded program of general education designed to broaden and enrich students’ awareness of the world around them. The liberal arts commitment of the program also strengthens the institution’s ability to enhance cultural and aesthetic experiences.

A major goal of the School is to help students who enroll in the institution toward success in college and beyond. To do this, the faculty members bring to bear their skills and knowledge based upon improving reading skills, composition competency, and critical thinking strategies. Wherever a student may be in terms of academic preparedness when he/she begins work at the University, the faculty members are committed to helping through a variety of teaching strategies. Those teaching students in the "Block," a cluster of courses especially designed or selected for academically under-prepared students, use every resource available to them to assure success. As an example, the Writing Center, described elsewhere in this report, is one of the most useful areas of academic help on campus. It is housed in the School of Arts and Humanities and operates not only as a tutorial center, but also as a training center for junior-level and senior-level tutors in writing composition.

The School seeks to provide all students with an appreciation for literature and to help them develop their skills in the study of and writing about literary works and topics. English majors and minors build upon the literature courses offered in the General Education program and receive instruction in the English language and its literature. The English faculty members are dedicated to the task of instilling knowledge of and appreciation for the great tradition of letters in English, as well as developing skilled artisans in written discourse. Students are encouraged to submit works for publication.

Another important goal of the School involves improving student skills in oral communication. This foundational goal of acquiring sound behavioral skills associated with the oral communicative arts is critical to success in every facet of life. One feature of the communication constituency of the School is the excellent, award-winning Debate and Forensics Team. Attracting students from several majors, the team sets high standards and gives the faculty members and students involved high profiles on campus. The work they do fosters self and social development through planning and hosting tournaments, traveling together, and sharing triumph, as well as debacle. In the last ten years, this group has traveled as far as Washington state, New Jersey, North Dakota, Idaho, Maryland, and the British Isles.

For the academically under-prepared, UAM offers developmental courses in English and preparatory courses for algebra. Social and cultural needs of all students are addressed through the course content of the School's varied areas of study from art to foreign language. Communication courses address encoding clear messages, describing versus evaluating, and backing up opinions with support. The courses address cultural diversity, critical listening, and those responses that encourage understanding and/or evaluation. The theory and skills of speaking and listening combine in applications to problem solving, persuasion, argumentation, and conflict resolution. This marriage of theory and skill is essential in mutually productive interaction with family, friends, colleagues, and strangers.

The School of Arts and Humanities, especially through a study of art, seeks not only to provide students with an appreciation for a variety of artistic media but also to enhance artistic skills by providing studio courses.

Finally, an important goal of the School is to provide Spanish minors and French minors with skills in, knowledge of, and appreciation for these fields of study and to help students achieve their goals in an ever-expanding global society. Students may opt for study abroad to fulfill the foreign language requirements in Spanish. Study abroad is required for students wishing to complete the minor in French.

a. Number of Full-Time Faculty

Art: 2

English: 12

Foreign Language: 2

Journalism: 1

Speech Communication: 4

b. Curriculum

The English Modified Major with a Required Collateral was deleted because of redundancy with the traditional English major. Other curricular changes mainly occurred in the further development of graduate courses in the various majors and/or education certification programs to meet the Master of Art in Teaching requirement.

c. Facilities

1) Memorial Classroom Building

The primary building for the School of Arts and Humanities is the MCB. The first floor of the MCB accommodates most English classes. Also located on the first floor is the office of the Dean as well as the offices of professors and equipment/ storage rooms. One professor is housed on the second floor and one on the third floor of MCB. The third floor of MCB houses the foreign languages area and laboratory. The stability of classroom availability has been greatly enhanced with the addition of an elevator. The addition of two “Smart” rooms on the first and third floors has increased the use of technology for various courses. At present there is a need for additional classrooms to house the two Schools and various programs that occupy the MCB.

2) Sorrells Hall

Sorrells Hall houses the offices of all speech professors, a journalism professor, and one English faculty member. Most speech classes are held on the second floor of Sorrells. These classrooms are not accessible for individuals with certain disabilities. The first floor of Sorrells accommodates the UAM Debate and Forensics office and work room along with a computer lab.

3) Performing and Visual Arts Complex

This facility, part of the old student union and cafeteria, has been developed to house the department of Art in a single location. An office for two art professors is located within the complex. A single location now provides the opportunity for creative talent to be stimulated through interaction of the senses. Work on upgrading the facility to meet the specialized requirements of the program continues.

4) Jeter Hall Journalism Lab

Four rooms in this facility have been converted to house a journalism lab and production work facilities for the yearbook and the online student newspaper. Students have twenty-four hour access to the facility. A staff meeting room and lounge is provided.

d. Equipment

Equipment needs, especially in the area of technology, undergo periodic assessment in order to keep pace with the current demands of students and faculty. Internet access to all classrooms, with the exception of art, is now available. Cable access is available to classrooms in Sorrells Hall. The need for computers and computer projectors in the classrooms remain as well as upgrades for existing faculty computers. The need for a wireless computer classroom for English is a priority.

e. Activities

The School of Arts and Humanities is involved in a plethora of activities provided for and involving both students and faculty. These activities, including on and off campus outreach opportunities, and those involving faculty are enumerated elsewhere in this document. Activities and faculty professional accomplishments are communicated each month on the SAH website under news entitled “Let’s Communicate.” “Let’s Communicate” is archived on the SAH website.

III. SWOT PROFILE OF THE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES

STRENGTHS:

Well qualified and accomplished faculty committed to School and UAM mission.
Student-centered faculty.
Small classes.
Active SAH student organizations in all departments.
Periodic curricular reviews.
Writing Center as excellent retention tool.
Presence of faculty to further develop writing concentration of the English degree.
School focus on communication (visual, oral, and written) and critical thinking.
Availability of smart room technology in MCB.
New art faculty.

WEAKNESSES:

Lack of a functional computer Foreign Language Laboratory.
Absence of technology upgrades on a consistent basis.
Heavy teaching load.
Lack of adequate number of faculty in foreign language.
Insufficient funding for faculty salaries.

Salary inequities.

OPPORTUNITIES:

To further develop the program in Journalism.

· To develop a major in Liberal Arts.

· To develop an annual UAM Reading Series.

· To expand the Writing Concentration program.

· To incorporate more web research and technology into our classroom instruction.

· To expand use of distance education.

· To increase community outreach.

· To initiate a Writing/Speaking Across the Curriculum program.

· To create a University Community of Scholars.

THREATS:

Distance education opportunities offered by other universities.
Common courses offered at reduced rates by other universities in region.
Inconsistent communication between faculty/administration/staff/students.
Lack of persistence in maintaining the night-course offerings.
Inadequate state funding.

School of Arts and Humanities

Memorandum

TO: Academic Affairs

FROM: Mark Spencer

DATE: August 1, 2005

SUBJ: Annual Assessment Reports

Enclosed you will find the School of Arts and Humanities Annual Assessment Reports covering four distinct areas. These areas are 1) Annual General Education Assessment Reports for English and Speech Communication, 2) Annual Assessment Reports for majors in Art, English, Journalism and Speech Communication, 3) Evaluation of the unit assessment plan, and 4) Assessment Plans for Art, English and Speech Communication.

It should be noted that the assessment plans for English and Speech Communication were minimally modified following faculty evaluation and discussion of the plan.

Please let me know if additional information is needed.

MS:agm

School of Arts and Humanities

Memorandum

TO: Academic Affairs

FROM: Mark Spencer

DATE: August 1, 2005

SUBJ: Report on General Education English Assessment 2004-2005

Enclosed are the complete reports of pre-testing and post-testing of the Fundamentals of English (ENGL 0133) courses during the fall 2004 and spring 2005 semesters prepared by Dr. Roiger.

A pre-test and post-test was administered for all sections of ENGL 0133 at the beginning and end of the fall 2004 and spring 2005 semester. The results indicate that Fundamentals of English does make a considerable difference in the students’ perceptions of their writing skills, as well as the development of their writing skills, by reducing apprehension.

Also enclosed is the assessment of the English general education courses Composition I and Composition II. It should be noted that both of these courses increase the capability and effectiveness of student writing.

MS:agm

To: Dr. Erin O’Neill, Interim Dean, School of Arts and Humanities

From: James Roiger, Statistical Technician and Consultant

Date: June 16, 2005

Subject: Report on Assessment of General Education Fundamentals of English Course

Reporting Period: Fall 2004 Semester and Spring 2005 Semester

Assessment Method

The English 0133 course, Fundamentals of English, was assessed using a pretest-posttest methodology and tested with a 1-tailed matched-pairs t-test, p<.05. The reliability of the instruments was measured using Cronbach's a.

Assessment Instrument

Course Name Author

Engl 0133 Writing Apprehension Scale Daly (1985)

Course Assessed

Fall 2004 Semester

Course Name No. of Sections No of Students

Engl 0133 Fundamentals of English 15 255

Spring 2004 Semester

Course Name No. of Sections No of Students

Engl 0133 Fundamentals of English 5 78

Instrument Reliability

Fall 2004 Semester

Cronbach's a No. of Items

Pretest Posttest

Engl 0133 .9012 .9070 26

Spring 2005 Semester

Cronbach's a No. of Items

Pretest Posttest

Engl 0133 .9092 .9279 26

Assessment Results

Fall 2004 Semester

Means

Course T Value D. F. Prob. Pretest Posttest

Engl 0133 6.31 157 .0001 67.69 64.76

Spring 2005 Semester

Means

Course T Value D. F. Prob. Pretest Posttest

Engl 0133 1.38 28 .1770 71.62 66.23

Accumulative Assessment Results

1997-2005

Means

Course T Value D. F. Prob. Pretest Posttest

Engl 0133 19.55 1921 .0001 73.91 67.54

Discussion

The results of the assessment of the Fundamentals of English course for the Fall 2004 semester indicate that English 0133 course does make a significant difference in the students perceptions of their writing skills for the students completing the class. The results for the Spring 2005 semester were not significantly different. This is attributable to the small sample size because a comparison of pretest and post test Means show a comparable difference to the Fall 2004 and the accumulative differences in Means.

The accumulative results of the English 0133 assessment data over the eight years of assessment using the Writing Apprehension Scale instrument suggests that the instrument is a consistent and reliable indicator that the Fundamentals of English course is a significant factor in the development of students' writing skills by reducing their anxiety about writing.

References

Daly, J. A. (1985). Writing Apprehension. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can't write (pp. 43-82). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

English Department Assessment Summary: 2003-2004

I. A brief description of the Assessment process for Composition I & II

On Thursday, August 19, 2004, 10 UAM English faculty spent the morning reading and evaluating student essay folders from Composition I and Composition II classes. Our aim was to judge the efficiency of our composition program by judging whether the student writers we assessed showed improvement or maintained an acceptable level of competence in their semester in Composition. We evaluated 3 portfolios from each section of composition. Each of the 3 portfolios contained the first and last, or nearly last, essay of one student. The students were selected on a random basis (the first 3 odd-numbered students on the class roster) and the judging was a blind judging (no names of either teacher or student). Each portfolio was read and evaluated by 2 English department faculty, using the following 3 categories: 1) improved, 2) satisfactory, or 3) not improved. Where there was a split-decision, a third reader made the final decision. For our purposes, a “split-decision” was defined as “Only one ‘improved’ or ‘satisfactory’ overall evaluation coupled with one ‘not improved’.” Where there were 2 evaluations of ‘improved’ or ‘satisfactory’, we took this as agreement, and where there were 2 ‘not improved’ for any portfolio, we took this as agreement. Where there was one evaluation of “improved” or “satisfactory” and one of “not improved” we took this as a “split decision” and celled for a 3^rd reader to break the deadlock. Our criteria for evaluating single essays were as follows: 1)Focus or central idea; 2)Reasoning skills, development, elaboration; 3)Organization of paper; 4)Language usage; 5)mechanics; and 6)overall rating (please see “standard criteria & definitions” on page 9-10) . We then added up the point totals for essay #1 and essay #2. If the point total for essay #2 was greater than that for #1, the folder was given a rating of “improved.” If the point total for essay #2 was less than, or the same as, essay #1, but the paper was judged as acceptable college writing, it was given a rating of “satisfactory”; however, if the point total for essay #2 was lower than essay #1, or if the total was the same, or even if the point total for essay #2 was greater than #1, but it was felt that the writing was not acceptable at the college level, then the folder was given a rating of “not improved.”

**One important caveat in any comparison between this year’s scores and those of other years is to note this: there appeared to be a tightening, even a toughening up, of the evaluators’ standards of judgement this year, compared with other years. Thus the scores are slightly lower this year as a result. It may not mean the teaching is different, but the evaluating is.

II. Composition I Assessment: Brief Summary

Table 1: Total Numbers

CATEGORY	TOTALS
folders read	34
essays read	68
Composition I sections evaluated	12 (5 deleted)*
# of evaluations (incl. split decisions)	74

* a total of 13 folders (5 sections) were deleted for errors

Table 2: Overall Folder Assessment (total divided by # evaluations)

CATEGORIES	TOTALS	PERCENTAGE
improved	33	45 %
satisfactory*	27	37 %
not improved	13	18 %

*new category, so no comparisons with prior years is possible

III. Composition II Assessment: Brief Summary

Table 3: Total Numbers

CATEGORY	TOTALS
folders read	38
essays read (folders X 2)	76
Composition II sections evaluated	13 (2 deleted)*
# of evaluations (incl. split decisions)	85

*a total of 5 folders (2 sections) were deleted for errors

Table 4: Overall Folder Assessment

CATEGORIES	TOTALS	PERCENTAGE
improved	37	45 %
satisfactory	21	26 %
not improved	24	29 %

IV. Breakdown By Evaluation Criteria (Comp. I)

Key: Each paper was evaluated on 6 criteria, and rated 1-5 on each criteria. A rating of 5 is equivalent to an ‘A’, a 4 to a ‘B’ and so forth through 1=F.

The total points are derived by adding all papers evaluated in each category (if 5 papers received a rating of 5 in the category “focus” then this would = 25 points; if 10 received a 4=40 points, etc.).

The average score is derived by dividing the total # of points by the # of evaluations

Table 5: Paper #1 (Comp. I) (based on 34 folders =74 evaluations)

(Total pts. divided by # of evaluations)

Criteria	1	2	3	4	5	total pts.	average score 2004	avg. score 2003
focus	4	19	35	27	0	256	3.45	2.88
elaboration	5	20	33	17	6	274	3.70	2.74
organization	9	23	28	18	4	231	3.12	2.56
language	6	22	30	18	2	223	3.01	2.43
mechanics	8	26	23	17	3	203	2.74	2.71
overall rating	5	25	30	18	1	222	3.00	2.72

Table 6: Paper #2 (Comp. I)

criteria	1	2	3	4	5	total pts.	Average score 2004	avg. score 2003
focus	0	11	36	23	5	237	3.20	3.22
elaboration	1	17	27	27	3	239	3.22	3.15
organization	2	18	32	19	5	240	3.24	2.97
language	3	17	33	19	2	222	3.00	3.00
mechanics	6	24	26	13	4	204	2.75	2.92
overall rating	4	18	33	16	3	218	2.94	3.01

V. Brief Analysis

The first thing to look at here is the comparison between paper #1 and paper #2, to see if these numbers tell us anything. In theory, what we hope to see is that the average scores from the first to (nearly) the last papers in Composition I remain either the same or improve significantly.

What the numbers reveal is that in the first 2 listed categories, “focus” and “elaboration,” there is in fact a drop between the first and last paper of 0.25 and 0.48 points respectively in these categories. Our wish would be that each of these 5 categories finds students at 3.0 or above on average (‘C’-level work) at the end of the semester, which they are in everything but ‘mechanics’. The drop of 0.25 points in ‘focus’ may not be statistically significant—likewise the difference in ‘overall’ rating from 3.0 (first paper) to 2.94 (second paper), a difference of 0.06 points which is statistically meaningless.

However, the drop in ‘elaboration’ of 0.48 points, nearly ½ a point, may be worth contemplating. See the explanation of evaluation rubrics below, at the end of this document for a detailed explanation of the categories. But briefly, we take ‘elaboration’ to mean supporting documentation, how well a student supports her ideas, using specific details and examples. We need to make sure that paragraph development is receiving continued emphasis throughout the semester, so as to avoid a drop-off in this category.

Nevertheless, several things ought to be clear from the paper comparison chart: this year our freshman began the semester at a higher competency level than they did last year (2003) in every single category (see 2004-2003 comparison in tables above); these students began, on average, as competent ‘C’ students and remained at this level on average. In 2003 there average end-scores were greater than 2004 because they had further to come to be in the ‘C’ level, and mainly there final averages are about equivalent to 2004's in all categories. A slight drop-off in ‘mechanics’ of 0.17 points between 2003 & 2004 is more than offset by a 1/4 point rise (0.27 points) in ‘organization.’

criteria	1	2	3	4	5	total pts.	Average score 2004	avg. score 2003
focus	8	10	39	20	4	245	2.88	3.01
elaboration	8	24	33	16	1	224	2.82	2.92
organization	10	26	24	20	0	214	2.82	2.81
language	11	21	34	12	3	218	2.56	3.15
mechanics	10	26	27	17	1	216	2.54	2.96
overall rating	8	24	30	18	0	218	2.56	2.89

Table 10: Paper #2 (Comp. II)

criteria	1	2	3	4	5	total pts.	average score 2004	avg. score 2003
focus	1	11	37	25	8	274	3.22	3.22
elaboration	1	19	30	26	6	263	3.09	3.16
organization	2	27	28	19	4	236	2.77	3.15
language	5	27	29	13	10	233	2.74	3.07
mechanics	5	25	28	15	5	224	2.63	3.03
overall rating	4	25	31	21	4	251	2.95	3.14

IX. Brief Analysis

1) As in tables #5 & #6, the most important column to look at in Tables #9 & #10 is the column labeled “average score.” What this shows us is whether, on the average, there was improvement in the overall writing of our students after a semester in Composition II. What we see here is that in only 1 category was there a decrease in the score from paper #1 to paper #2 (a statistically insignificant drop of O.05 points), whereas in 5 of the 6 categories evaluated, there was some statistical improvement, although slight or statistically insignificant (‘language’=0.18 and ‘mechanics’=0.08) in 2 of the 5 categories.

Important advances, or at least advances with some statistical meaning, were made in 3 categories: focus (+0.34), ‘elaboration’ (+0.27), and ‘overall’ (+0.39). What is most encouraging about these numbers is the more than 1/3 of a point improvement ‘overall’ in our Composition II students during the semester. They wound up, on average, right at the ‘C’ level (2.95 with 3.0 being pure ‘C’). Our Composition I students wound up with an ‘overall’ of 2.94 so what this indicates is that we are able to maintain the gains from Fundamentals and Composition I, though we are not showing statistical improvement beyond this basic level.

2) A few things are troubling about these numbers, especially when one views the comparison between 2003 & 2004, and likewise the comparison between

Composition I and Composition II.

First, to compare 2003 & 2004 numbers, which are the most troubling, though offer no cause for alarm. We will know more in the next few years as these comparisons have more range, more numbers, and we can see whether they represent trends or cycles. The most important comparison is in table #10, which offers evaluations of the final paper and ‘overall’ evaluations. Here we see that in 3 categories there are some small but not insignificant drops in our 2004 numbers, as compared to 2003. These are as follows:

a. organization: -0.38

b. language: -0.33

c. mechanics: -0.40

What I conclude from these numbers is that in 2004 our students did not perform at the same level as they did in 2003 in these categories. Also, they were below average in 2004, whereas in 2003 they were average or very slightly above in each category. In mechanics, the drop is close to ½ a point (.40) and in the other 2, 1/3 of a point. I want to see an increase in these numbers in 2005 and I feel that at the least they should motivate us to focus on mechanics (essay form, spelling, punctuation, and grammar) with real attention in our Composition II classes, instead of letting these things slide after Fundamentals and Comp. I.

3) We cannot call these numbers trends after only 2 years worth of data. By 2006 or 2007 we can make some intelligent judgements. Now we can only be aware that mechanics, language, and organization skills need to be addressed in Composition II as frequently and with as much vigor as they are in the other beginning writing courses. This is not to say that things like literature cannot or should not be addressed in this course, only that they are secondary to the fundamentals of good writing, which ought to be our first priority in Fundamentals, Comp. I, and Comp. II. The numbers may indicate a slight shift in focus in the Comp. II course away from writing fundamentals. Please note the emphasis on “may indicate” in this analysis. It is at this point merely food for thought. {**Please note the caveat at the bottom of page #1 & top of page #4 of this document, RE: the change in attitude of the evaluators this year. This alone can account for statistical variations between 2003–2004.}

4) What is very encouraging in these numbers is that they show our students coming out of Composition II with their writing skills at an ‘overall’ statistical level of ‘C ‘. Considering that 52% of our incoming Freshman classes must take remediation in English, this is a very clear indication of the effectiveness of our Arts & Humanities writing program. Frankly, this fact is remarkable.

X. Key to Evaluation Criteria (tables #5–#10)

RATING COMPOSITION PORTFOLIOS

Standard Criteria & Definitions

Focus:

5 (superior) =A clear & sophisticated main idea which is original, interesting, & skillfully developed.

4 (above average)=A clear focus, although it is not as sophisticated or original as a 5. The focus is well developed.

3 (average)=Paper has a focus, but it is somewhat vague or general. The point is simplistic and not very engaging.

2 (below average)=Paper has no clear focus, or focus is so general & simplistic as to be uninteresting. May move from one idea to another.

1 (unacceptable on a college level)

Elaboration:

5= Examples, facts, &/or arguments are accurate, appropriate, & engaging.

4= Supporting material is good, but not as thorough or effective as a 5.

3= Focus not well developed. Some support, but not enough. Supporting material is not always clearly connected to the focus.

2= Examples, facts, &/or arguments are missing or inadequately developed. Supporting material is not clearly related to the apparent focus.

1= unacceptable on a college level.

Organization:

5= Has an effective introduction, purposeful development, and a thoughtful conclusion.

4= Clearly developed. However, the introduction, development or conclusion is too general & not as effective as it could be.

3= Somewhat underdeveloped. May not have either an introduction or a conclusion or they are poorly developed.

2= Rambles without having any discernable development. Lacks a clearly defined beginning, middle, and end. May have problems with paragraphing.

1= unacceptable on a college level.

Language:

5= Register is appropriate for topic. Writing is precise & fluent. Phrasing is skillfully chosen to add to overall impact. Voice is skillfully used.

4= Language is clear & appropriate, but less skillfully executed than in 5. Has less of a sense of voice than in 5.

3= Has mixed registers. Some phrasing is pretentious & some too colloquial. The vocabulary is restricted.

2= Has no consistent register. Word choice is frequently inappropriate & vague. Phrasing is elementary.

1= unacceptable on a college level.

Mechanics:

5= No mechanical problems that interfere with reader comprehension.

4= A few mechanical problems, but they are neither serious nor frequent.

3= Some noticeable problems with spelling, punctuation, &/or grammar. Still readable, but mechanical problems are frequent & annoying.

2= Frequent elementary spelling, punctuation, & grammar problems that interfere with reader comprehension.

1= unacceptable on a college level.

Overall Impression:

5= Unique & enjoyable to read. It is one the reader is likely to remember pleasurably for some time.

4= A “solid” piece of writing. It shows that the writer is mastering the basic skills of effective writing.

3= Reveals that the writer has not yet mastered the skills for effective writing. The paper needs more work.

2= Does not develop an idea in a significant way. It reveals that the writer has serious problems with the basic conventions of written expression.

1= Unacceptable on a college level.

From: English Department Evaluation Committee:

Kate Stewart, Sandra Watson, Julie Sparks, Betty Hendricks, Diane Payne, Mark Wegley (Secretary), and Bob Moore (chair).

School of Arts and Humanities

Memorandum

TO: Academic Affairs

FROM: Mark Spencer

DATE: August 1, 2005

SUBJ: Report on General Education Speech Communication Assessment 2004-2005

Enclosed is the complete report of pre-testing and post-testing of the general education speech courses during the fall 2004 and spring 2005 semesters prepared by Dr. Roiger.

A pre-test and post-test was administered for all sections of general education speech courses at the beginning and end of the fall 2004 and spring 2005 semester.

The results were positive, indicating that the general education speech communication courses do make a substantial difference in the communication skills of students completing the courses.

MS:agm

To: Dr. Erin O’Neill, Interim Dean, School of Arts and Humanities

From: James Roiger, Statistical Technician and Consultant

Date: June 17, 2005

Subject: Report on Assessment of General Education Speech Courses

Reporting Period: 2004 Fall Semester and 2005 Spring Semester

Assessment Method

All courses were assessed using a pretest-posttest methodology and tested with a 1-tailed matched-pairs t-test, p<.05. The reliability of the instruments was measured using Cronbach's a.

Assessment Instruments

Course Name Authors

Speech 1023 Communication Anxiety Instrument (Booth-Butterfield & Gould, 1986)

Speech 2203 Communication Competence Scale (Rubin & Martin, 1994)

Speech 2283 Communication Anxiety Instrument (Booth-Butterfield & Gould, 1986)

Current Year Results

Courses Assessed

Fall 2004 Semester

Course Name No. of Sections No of Students

Speech 1023 Public Speaking 8 141

Speech 2203 Interpersonal Communication 3 51

Speech 2283 Business & Professional Speech 3 60

Spring 2005 Semester

Course Name No. of Sections No of Students

Speech 1023 Public Speaking 7 111

Speech 2203 Interpersonal Communication 1 16

Speech 2283 Business & Professional Speech 2 42

Instrument Reliability

Fall 2004 Semester

Course Name Cronbach's a No. of Items

Pretest Posttest

Speech 1023 Communication Anxiety Instrument . 9043 .8280 20

Context Anxiety Scale .8580 .7487 14

Trait Anxiety Scale .8031 .6459 6

Speech 2203 Communication Competence Scale

Competence Scale .6696 .4803 30

Anxiety Scale .7938 .3946 6

Speech 2283 Communication Anxiety Instrument .8558 .8792 20

Context Anxiety Scale .8010 .8138 14

Trait Anxiety Scale .6941 .7476 6

Spring 2005 Semester

Course Name Cronbach's a No. of Items

Pretest Posttest

Speech 1023 Communication Anxiety Instrument . 9091 .8754 20

Context Anxiety Scale .8772 .8047 14

Trait Anxiety Scale .7794 .7631 6

Speech 2203 Communication Competence Scale

Competence Scale .3925 .4317 30

Anxiety Scale .7776 .6785 6

Speech 2283 Communication Anxiety Instrument . 9232 .9090 20

Context Anxiety Scale .8838 .8618 14

Trait Anxiety Scale .8112 .7994 6

Assessment Results

Fall 2004 Semester

Means

Course T Value D. F. Prob. Pretest Posttest

Speech 1023

Context Anxiety 4.21 62 .0001 41.77 36.56

Trait Anxiety 3.26 62 .003 16.46 14.79

Speech 2203

Competence 2.28 44 .027 101.24 104.18

Trait Anxiety -.38 44 .704 16.71 16.93

Speech 2283

Context Anxiety 2.90 47 .006 42.85 39.69

Trait Anxiety 3.01 47 .004 17.77 15.98

Spring 2005 Semester

Means

Course T Value D. F. Prob. Pretest Posttest

Speech 1023

Context Anxiety 3.27 54 .002 38.64 35.02

Trait Anxiety 2.66 54 .01 15.80 14.15

Speech 2203

Competence 0.89 6 .419 100.38 101.75

Trait Anxiety 0.13 6 .897 18.63 18.50

Speech 2283

Context Anxiety 1.83 31 .078 41.03 38.22

Trait Anxiety 2.76 31 .01 17.16 15.69

Cumulative Assessment Results: 1995 - 2005

Means

Course T Value D. F. Prob. Pretest Posttest

Speech 1023

Context Anxiety 14.40 1018 .0001 40.94 37.04

Trait Anxiety 11.64 1018 .0001 16.59 15.10

Speech 2203

Competence 7.22 560 .0001 105.11 108.69

Trait Anxiety 2.34 560 .02 16.32 16.00

Speech 2283

Context Anxiety 8.01 562 .0001 41.19 38.46

Trait Anxiety 7.63 562 .0001 16.76 15.40

Discussion

The results of the assessment of the General Education Speech courses indicate that the Speech 1023 course and the Speech 2283 course did make a significant difference in the communication skills of the students completing the classes during the Fall 2004 semester. The speech 1023 course did make a significant difference in the communication skills of the students during the Spring 2005 semester. The speech 2283 course did make a significant difference for the trait anxiety component of the students’ communication skills but did not make a significant difference for the context anxiety component although the means are in the predicted direction. The lack of significance is probably attributable to the small sample size.

The Speech 2203 did record significant results for student interpersonal competence during the Fall 2004 but not the interpersonal anxiety scale and the means for this scale are not in the predicted direction. Neither measure for the Speech 2203 course was significant for the Spring 2005 semester, although the means are in the predicted direction. The sample size was extremely small (N of 7) and would account for the lack of significant results.

A comparison of this year’s Speech 2203 competence scale Means with the cumulative Means indicates that this year’s measurement is somewhat abnormal. This year’s pretest Mean is four and seven points lower than the cumulative Mean and the posttest Mean is four and five points lower than the cumulative posttest Mean. This is the second year in a row that this Mean variation has occurred and may signal a more significant change in the students, the course content, the course materials, or the instructors. Continued monitoring is recommended at this time but the Speech Communication faculty may want to begin investigations into why the student pretest scores are lower than in the past and why the amount of change the course provides are lower.

The cumulative results of the assessment of the three General Education Speech courses from 1995 through 2005 indicate that the courses continue to make a significant difference in the communication skills of the students completing the courses.

The results of the Speech 2203 trait anxiety analysis for individual years affirms that this form of anxiety is not successfully addressed by the Interpersonal Communication course, although the cumulative results would suggest otherwise. While the results of the eight year cumulative analysis are statistically significant for the trait anxiety scale, they are probably not substantively significant.

References

Booth-Butterfield, S., & Gould, M. (1986). The communication anxiety inventory: Validation of state- and context-communication apprehension, Communication Quarterly, 34, 194-205.

Rubin, R. B., & Martin, M. M. (1994). Development of a measure of interpersonal communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 11, 33-44.

ART MAJOR ASSESSMENT:

I. What we planned to do:

Assess students critical knowledge of art from Art Appreciation through essay writing and analysis, artwork characteristic identification, visual identification, projects, and/or presentations.

Assess students’ critical interpretation and knowledge of art forms in a historical perspective from Art History through student presentations to the class, through essay writing, and through exams.

Monitor students’ successful completion of the required major courses through advisor checks of transcripts and conferences with students.

Monitor students’ successful completion of the required 18 hours of studio electives through advisor checks of transcripts and conferences with students.

Monitor students’ successful completion of planning, promoting, and holding a senior exhibition. Interviewing students who have completed this process for their impressions leading to faculty discussion and curriculum modification.

II. What we did:

Studio courses: Students are assessed at the completion of each studio art class based upon their portfolios of work completed. These portfolios should contain art works (both finished pieces and preliminary studies) which address the specific techniques and abilities of that medium. The mastering of the medium should be shown in relation to divergent subject matter, the use of different formal relationships, and knowledge of audiences.

Lecture/Seminar classes: Students in the art classes: Art Appreciation, Art History, Art for Elementary Teachers are assessed through tests, exams and written papers. In those, the student must recognize and name important artists and artworks, demonstrate knowledge of the history, practice, and the use of art in different cultures and historical periods, and define, explain, and critically interpret art concepts.

III. What we learned from the assessment:

Portfolios are a good measure of success in studio classes. Portfolios should be evaluated on a regular schedule to insure that satisfactory progress is being made. Standard means of evaluation provide satisfactory measures in classes other than those designated “studio.”

IV. What we recommend regarding future actions:

Studio classes: Discussions and plans are being formulated to have the portfolio requirement for each studio class to include: original work, slides of the artwork, and/or digital images on CD-ROM.

Lecture/Seminar classes: Tests and research projects are continually being reevaluated and updated to ensure information and knowledge is current and pertinent.

ENGLISH MAJOR ASSESSMENT:

IV What we recommend regarding future action:

Collecting data from graduating seniors continues to be a challenge. Apparently some of our majors don’t know exactly when they are graduating; we therefore seen their names listed on graduation lists for two years running. In light of the comments from our NCA team about UAM’s assessment plan, we need to revise our method of assessing the effectiveness of the English major. This survey is of limited value in determining what skills our majors have actually acquired. This survey fulfills neither the letter nor the spirit of the law in terms of assessment. Since we must fill a progress report with NCA in 2007 about assessment and planning, we likely need to implement a different assessment tool.

Note: See attachments for the type of instruments used to gather information in the English assessment program.

SPEECH MAJOR ASSESSMENT:

A Synopsis of Speech Communication Major Assessment:

After review of the results provided by our Exit Interview Survey Instrument. The six (n=6) graduating majors (from December through May 2003) reported that their understanding and application of the speech communication discipline - influenced during their enrollment as Baccalaureate Candidates in our program - was, on average: excellent. Although the sample from 2003 was small we received a rating of 4.4, compared to 3.7 in 2002, on a continuum ranging from one (poor) to five (outstanding).

I. What we planned to do:

The Speech Communication Major Assessment Survey Instrument was drafted primarily by Dr. Linda J. Webster, with the input of the entire UAM Speech Communication Faculty. The instrument is designed to sample the degree to which students attributed their mastery of foundational concepts in the major, by speech communication faculty instruction. A Likert-type scale, with five responses, is used; where POOR = 1, FAIR = 2, GOOD = 3, EXCELLENT = 4, and OUTSTANDING = 5.

There are a total of sixteen (16) survey questions, covering the chief perspectives of the speech communication discipline: rhetoric, theater, public address, interpretational studies, and communication science. The questions deal with either: (A) general communication concepts that transcend sub-disciplinary territories [the first eight questions]; or, (B) specific upper-division course work designed for the major [the final eight questions].

After review, the surveys were approved by the Speech Communication Faculty and Dean of the School of Arts and Humanities, photocopied in the main office, and distributed to all participants in the major assessment process. In addition to the survey, all students are asked (optionally) to place a copy of one of their original research papers written in an upper-division course, and/or their portfolio for the School’s future assessment needs.

On behalf of each major advisor(s request, the Dean of the School of Arts and

Humanities completes a follow-up graduation “check” on each Baccalaureate Candidate.

Upon determining their prospect for graduation, each likely graduate is asked to meet with the Chair of the Major Assessment Committee, select one or more faculty members to be present at their exit interview, and schedule a mutually appropriate interview time.

Importantly, the Dean of the School of Arts and Humanities has the privilege of selecting one faculty member for this process. The student may select one or all members of the faculty to appear at his or her exit interview.

At the exit interview, the student is asked to respond to the survey, in an item-by-item fashion, while each faculty member records the stated response for reliability purposes. The student is informed that at any given time during this process, he/she may feel free to elaborate on certain aspects or issues bearing upon his/her response(s). The faculty member is to record these in the margins of his/her survey. Concluding the Likert-type portion of the survey, the student is provided with an open forum in which he/she is allowed to freely express their feelings and thoughts about the program. We customarily ask about the program’s strengths and weaknesses during this segment.

II. What we did (A. Quantitative results - number of students = 6) 2003

Exit Interviews (2003). Please note that we received no surveys in 2004 and are therefore providing the most recent data (from 2003) to preserve the historical patterns.

SKILL ITEM	STUDENT AVG
1. To identify the basic concepts of oral communication.	4.3
2. To identify the barriers to effective communication.	4.2
3. To design and deliver a public speech.	5
4. To use techniques to reduce speaker and speaking anxiety.	4.3
5. To analyze common communication situations and problems peculiar to interpersonal communication in multiple settings.	4
6. To demonstrate basic skills in handling communication situations and conflicts.	5
7. To identify, observe, and analyze nonverbal communication channels.	5
8. To identify, observe, and analyze systems used to process information in verbal, nonverbal, and mediated channels.	4
9. To have a basic understanding of contemporary performance and literary theory.	3.5
10. To construct effective persuasive arguments in a variety of settings.	4.3
11. To demonstrate skill in directing stage performance.	4
12. To demonstrate skill as an actor in stage performances.	4.2
13. To conduct oral presentations and interviews in professional and organizational settings.	5
14. To understand the practical application of communication skills in organizational settings.	4.5
15. To understand the practical application of communication skills in task-oriented small groups.	5
16. To have the understanding to apply communication theory to the everyday world of communication.	4

Surveys completed following graduation (number of students = 2) 2004. Unlike the above data, the following are from 2004.

FACULTY	STUDENT AVG
Knowledgeable in their field	2
Accessible to students	2.5
Dedicated to students	2
Concerned with student progress	2
Provided specific career guidance	3
Role model	2.5
COURSES	STUDENT AVG
Challenging content	3
Broad range of courses	2
Reflect career needs of graduates	2.5
COURSES (cont.)	STUDENT AVG
Applied content (i.e. lab)	3
Internship	2
Preparation/grad school	2.5
Usefulness of textbooks	2.5
Outside reading assignments	3
SUPPORT SERVICES	STUDENT AVG
Library offerings in speech communication	3
Support from office staff	2
Support from division chair	2
CO-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES	STUDENT AVG
Pi Kappa Delta	2
Debate Society	2
Lambda Pi Eta	3
Forensics program	2
Student research - competitive	3.5

II. What we did (B. Add-on survey responses)

Add-on Responses to Survey Questions

The original survey forms and notations are cataloged in the School of Arts and Humanities main office for inspection by the faculty.

Free-form Survey Responses

The anecdotal information provided by the student respondees continues to be useful to speech communication faculty. The original survey forms and notations are cataloged in the School of Arts and Humanities main office for inspection by the faculty.

Positive Comment/s (generalized)

“Speech faculty are committed to speech majors.”

“Good mix of hands-on and research learning in lower level speech courses.”

Negative Comment/s

“Would like to have emphasis areas (public relations, interpersonal, etc.) in the speech major”

“Involve majors more in conferences dealing with communication associations.”

III. What we learned (2004):

We did not receive any exit interviews from students in 2004; therefore, no data is available. We have included the exit interview data from 2003. Although we did not receive exit interviews from 2004, we did receive the graduate surveys from 2004-05.

From the quantitative data of the exit interviews (2003), three general conclusions can be drawn: First, on the whole, our students believe that the UAM Speech Communication Major prepares them to be effective communicators in a variety of areas. Second, when our major course offerings, averaged at a 4.3 rating, (operationalized in questions 9-16) are compared to our general education course offerings, averaged at a 5 rating, (operationalized in questions 1-8) there is a noted similarity of effectiveness. This data informs us that we have a relatively balanced program concerning the quality among our general education and disciplinary offerings. The results were similar to the 2002 findings. And lastly, these statistics tell us where we need to focus our instruction and course content based upon student evaluations as noted in quantitative data. We must be better prepared to help our students to: “To have a basic understanding of contemporary performance and literary theory.” (3.5) “To identify barriers to effective communication.” (4.2) Theater courses have now been removed from the speech curriculum.

In addition, the speech communication alumni survey conducted in 2004 revealed some important characteristics of the program. The speech faculty were highly rated by graduates in content knowledge, dedication to students, and concern for student progress. Course content was noted as challenging. The broad range of courses was rated as excellent in equipping students. Support services and co-curricular activities for the most were rated as good.

IV. What we recommend regarding future actions:

Based upon the information in this assessment survey, it is clear that we are adequately providing for our students’ needs. At the moment - job placement - continues to elude our reportability. Future reports will continue to reflect the results of an ongoing “follow-up” survey that the faculty has produced, currently being conducted by Professor Marshall. Additional knowledge about the program will be gleaned from students as they put their knowledge into practice and have been in the field for a period of time.

Note: See attachments for the type of instruments used to gather information in the Speech Communication assessment program.

GRADUATING SENIOR ENGLISH MAJOR SURVEY

Please answer each of the following questions as accurately as possible. We are interested in assessing the effectiveness of our program in preparing English majors for the job market in business, for teaching in secondary schools, and for graduate school. This document is not designed to elicit comments about individual instructors, either positive or negative, but about the course offerings, materials, and activities. On questions where choices are listed, please circle your answer. All responses will be kept confidential.

Did you complete all English courses at the 3000 level and above at UAM? [circle] Yes No

Were you an English major or an English minor? Major Minor

Did you take the PPST? Yes No

Did you take the NTE? Yes No

Did you take the GRE? Yes No

Did you take the English Area Exam (Literature in English) portion of the GRE? Yes No

Did you take other placement or qualifying exams (LSAT, GMAT, other _______________)?

On the test(s) named above, how helpful did you find the specific information you remembered from UAM English courses?

Very Helpful Moderately Helpful Not Very Helpful

On the test(s) mentioned above, please list some items of information which you found useful

On the test(s) mentioned above, please list some items you wish you had known.

On the test(s) mentioned above, please list some analytical skills and/or writing skills which you found useful.

In your search for a job or your application process for graduate school, are there specific skills or techniques (writing, analysis, interview, presentation, other) to which your English classes contributed? What skills or techniques?

Did your advisor or other members of the department you consulted provide useful information about selecting a graduate school or looking for a job? Yes No

What was especially useful?

What other information would have been particularly helpful?

How would you rate your research skills in the library? Excellent Adequate Modest Weak

How would you rate your computer research skills? Excellent Adequate Modest Weak

How would you rate your knowledge of documentation? Excellent Adequate Modest Weak

Overall, how would you assess the contribution of English courses you have taken to your level of preparation for employment and/or graduate school?

Very Helpful Moderately Helpful Not Very Helpful

Briefly describe your employment or education after leaving UAM.

Exit Interview - Speech Major

Each member of the committee shall fill out a separate form based on the information shared by the graduating student during the interview. The forms become part of the Unit Assessment of the speech major.

Student Name: _______________________________________ Date: ___________________

Faculty member name________________________________________________

The student feels that their mastery of the following concepts/skills while enrolled as a candidate for a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Speech would be rated as indicated:

1. To identify the basic concepts of poor fair good excellent outstanding

oral communication

2. To identify barriers to effective poor fair good excellent outstanding

communication

3. To design and deliver a public poor fair good excellent outstanding

speech

4. To use techniques to reduce poor fair good excellent outstanding

speaker and speaking anxiety

5. To analyze common communication poor fair good excellent outstanding

situations and problems peculiar to

interpersonal communication in

multiple settings

6. To demonstrate basic skills in poor fair good excellent outstanding

handling communication situations

and conflicts

7. To identify, observe, and analyze poor fair good excellent outstanding

nonverbal communication channels

8. To identify and utilize techniques that poor fair good excellent outstanding

promote effective listening

9. To have a basic understanding of poor fair good excellent outstanding

contemporary performance and

literary theory

10. To construct effective persuasive poor fair good excellent outstanding

arguments in a variety of settings

11. To demonstrate skill in directing poor fair good excellent outstanding

stage performances

12. To demonstrate skill as an actor poor fair good excellent outstanding

in stage performances

13. To conduct oral presentations and poor fair good excellent outstanding

interviews in professional and

organizational settings

14. To understand the practical poor fair good excellent outstanding

application of communication

skills in organizational settings

15. To understand the practical poor fair good excellent outstanding

application of communication

skills in task-oriented small groups

16. To have the understanding to poor fair good excellent outstanding

apply communication theory to

the everyday world of communication

Comments:

UAM SPEECH MAJOR

GRADUATION AEXIT@ SURVEY

Please complete the following survey, seal it into the enclosed envelope, and return it to Dr. Gary Marshall, in the Arts and Humanities office.

1. NAME: _______________________________________

2. HOME ADDRESS: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

3. HOME PH. ( ) __________________________________

4. E-MAIL ADDRESS: _______________________________________

5. UAM GRADUATION DATE: ___________________________

6. MAJOR: _______________________________________

7. MINOR: _______________________________________

8. COLLATERAL: _______________________________________

9. PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOXES BELOW:

$ [ ] female, [ ] male

$ [ ] divorced, [ ] married, [ ] single, [ ] widowed

$ [ ] American Indian, [ ] Asian, [ ] African American, [ ] Hispanic, [ ] Caucasian

10. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EMPLOYMENT AND/OR EDUCATION AFTER GRADUATION FROM UAM. (POSITION, TITLE, DEGREE SOUGHT, ASSISTANTSHIP, FELLOWSHIP, SCHOLARSHIP, ETC.):

11. PLEASE LIST YOUR EMPLOYER OR GRADUATE SCHOOL=S CONTACT INFORMATION:

ADDRESS _______________________________________

_______________________________________

WORK PH. ( )__________________________________

12. GROSS SALARY:

[ ] $0 - 10,000

[ ] $10,001 - 15,000

[ ] $15,001 - 25,000

[ ] $25,001 - 30,000

[ ] $30,001 - 35,000

[ ] above $35,000

13. YOUR EVALUATION OF US:

Please circle the appropriate number below--1 being best and 5 being worst--based upon your appraisal of each component.

5 = outstanding 4 = excellent 3 = good 2 = fair 1 = poor

FACULTY

Knowledgeable in their field 1 2 3 4 5

Accessible to students 1 2 3 4 5

Dedicated to students 1 2 3 4 5

Concerned with student progress 1 2 3 4 5

Provided specific career guidance 1 2 3 4 5

Role model 1 2 3 4 5

COURSES

Challenging content 1 2 3 4 5

Broad range of courses 1 2 3 4 5

Reflect career needs of graduates 1 2 3 4 5

Applied content (i.e. lab) 1 2 3 4 5

Internship 1 2 3 4 5

Preparation for grad school 1 2 3 4 5

Usefulness of textbooks 1 2 3 4 5

Outside reading assignments 1 2 3 4 5

SUPPORT SERVICES

Library offerings in speech communication 1 2 3 4 5

Support from office staff 1 2 3 4 5

Support from division chair 1 2 3 4 5

CO-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Pi Kappa Delta 1 2 3 4 5

Debate Society 1 2 3 4 5

Lambda Pi Eta 1 2 3 4 5

Forensics program 1 2 3 4 5

Competitive student research 1 2 3 4 5

Theatrical Productions 1 2 3 4 5

14. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY TO YOUR UAM EXPERIENCE:

/ SPEECH FACULTY

/ SPEECH ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF

/ SPEECH COURSES YOU HAVE TAKEN:

/ CLASS ASSIGNMENTS AND PROJECTS:

/ TEXTS AND READING ASSIGNMENTS:

/ FORENSICS PROGRAM / DEBATE SOCIETY:

/ PI KAPPA DELTA:

/ LAMBDA PI ETA:

/ PERFORMANCES:

/ PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS:

UAM SPEECH MAJOR/MINOR

AFOLLOW-UP@ SURVEY

As the UAM speech faculty continues to evaluate its program, your insights are critically important. Please be kind enough to complete the following survey and return it to us in the accompanying stamped, self-addressed envelope. We thank you for your time, honesty, and cooperation in advance.

1. NAME: _______________________________________

2. HOME ADDRESS: _______________________________________

_______________________________________

3. HOME PH. ( )__________________________________

4. E-MAIL ADDRESS: _______________________________________

5. UAM GRADUATION DATE: ___________________________

6. MAJOR: _______________________________________

7. MINOR: _______________________________________

8. COLLATERAL: _______________________________________

9. PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOXES BELOW:

$ [ ] female, [ ] male

$ [ ] divorced, [ ] married, [ ] single, [ ] widowed

$ [ ] American Indian, [ ]Asian, [ ] African American, [ ] Hispanic, [ ] Caucasian

10. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EMPLOYMENT AND/OR EDUCATION AFTER GRADUATION FROM UAM. (POSITION, TITLE, DEGREE SOUGHT, ASSISTANTSHIP, FELLOWSHIP, SCHOLARSHIP, ETC.):

11. PLEASE LIST YOUR EMPLOYER OR GRADUATE SCHOOL=S CONTACT INFORMATION:

ADDRESS _______________________________________

_______________________________________

WORK PH. ( )____________________________

14. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY TO YOUR UAM EXPERIENCE:

/ SPEECH FACULTY

/ SPEECH ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF

/ SPEECH COURSES YOU HAVE TAKEN:

/ CLASS ASSIGNMENTS AND PROJECTS:

/ TEXTS AND READING ASSIGNMENTS:

/ FORENSICS PROGRAM / DEBATE SOCIETY:

/ PI KAPPA DELTA:

/ LAMBDA PI ETA:

/ PERFORMANCES:

/ PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS:

SCHOOL OF ARTS AND HUMANIITES

SAH ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT 2004

PART I

1) How does the academic unit’s mission statement and goals flow from and contribute to the University’s mission statement?

The School’s mission and goals support the institutional mission by delineating specific areas of knowledge acquisition, development, and skills attainment.

2) How are the major field assessments based on the mission and goals of the academic unit and University?

The mission and goals statement were used to drive the assessment methodology in art, English, journalism and speech communication. Comparison of documents was used to determine if appropriate methods were being utilized to achieve goals.

3) How are the data being gathered used to support assessment of the academic unit’s goals and mission?

Attention has been given to gathering and assessing data that is relevant to the stated purpose of general education and major specific departments within the school. An example of this method is the assessment of English essays to determine level of writing ability and to determine effectiveness of written communication. Relevant methods are used to assess general education speech courses.

4) Describe how faculty are involved in the process (es) of assessing student learning.

The appropriate area faculty (art, English, journalism, speech communication) were involved in every instance involving assessment program rules and procedures. This year the faculty in art, English, and speech communication were given the opportunity to evaluate existing plans. Periodic changes to standards and process have occurred when deemed necessary by faculty.

5) Describe your use of multiple forms of data gathering to assess student learning.

The plan shows that a variety of measures are in place for assessment purposes in all areas. Samples of writing, speaking, and artistic works are examined to determine proficiency. Evaluation using “effectiveness” as the standard in each area is considered.

6) Describe how data are being used to make programmatic changes in your academic unit.

Data has proven useful in making alterations to programs as needed in the school. Based upon faculty evaluation of the assessment program and process, changes are made as deemed necessary. The most recent change has occurred in the development of assessing writing ability.

7) Describe how both faculty and students are given feedback concerning assessment results.

Procedures and data undergo periodic faculty review. As reports are completed, the faculty is given the opportunity to review them. The reports serve as a basis for faculty deliberations. A plan was developed for assessing Journalism majors. The English and speech plans underwent minor changes due to curriculum adjustment. Students become aware of assessment evaluation in periodic changes in course content and curricular adjustments. Students are given immediate feedback in some instances depending on the level of assessment.

Arts and Humanities Assessment Evaluation Report Page 2

8) Describe how your assessment plan is cost effective and reflects access, equity and diversity

Monetary costs continue to be minimal, other than human resources in time and effort. Monetary costs are for computer time, paper supplies, postage, and storage containers. School secretarial support is used for the collection of surveys, English essays (copying and storing), and typing. Care has been given not to be exclusionary, but to assess a representative sample of 100% of student participants as needed in the various discipline areas.

9) How does your unit’s assessment system link to research on learning theories, constructing vs. acquiring knowledge, and active learning strategies?

The School of Arts and Humanities, for the most part, is concerned with “doing” rather than being told what something is, although principle acquisition often comes in the form of lecture. “Performance” based courses are a standard in SAH utilizing problem solving and critical thinking skills. Many of our classes are designed for discussion and student interaction. IN English, collaborative learning is used extensively through peer interaction and involvement. Research papers allow students to “construct” ideas at all levels. Speech and art are heavy on performance based activities. Internships in various areas now embrace the Experiential Learning Theory concept.

10) How are students required to present verbal and written explanations of how their work products demonstrate attainment of publicly stated goals and objectives for their learning?

Course syllabi state what is to be accomplished and often why certain assignments are developed. Students do realize and understand that preliminary assignments and essays lead to the culmination of a final assignment, for example, the research paper in Composition II. Each student assignment properly completed and shown to be evaluated with high marks by faculty speaks to the attainment of learned and demonstrated concepts.

11) How do course syllabi state measurable objectives for student learning and provide for the assessment of students’ academic achievement?

A number of syllabi in SAH state student expectation, whether in the area of effective writing or speaking or the creation of artistic works. For example, “what is a good essay or a good speech?” is clearly delineated as a means of understanding and exhibiting desired effect.

12) How are students involved in the assessment process? For example, do students participate in your unit’s assessment committee activities?

Students do not sit on the school assessment committees. However, student input is sought during periods of explanation and results given in an effort to enhance methodology of assessment.

PART II

1) Alumni/post graduate surveys that indicate satisfaction with program(s).

See appendices.

2) Aggregated results of certification/licensure examinations that are required for post-graduation employment.

No new art, English, or speech education students certified or licensed in 2003.

3) Exit interviews with graduating seniors that ask students to reflect on programs and experiences.

See appendices.

4) CAAP scores (general education) for your majors and how this information is used to improve both general educational experiences and majors. For example, writing scores are consistently below the mean for UAM students. Consequently, how is writing reinforced/improved in both general education courses and subsequent major area courses?

Based upon faculty discussion in English the necessity for enforcement of standards was emphasized by the Dean. Also, the standards for courses were discussed and adjusted to achieve a more favorable result. Common syllabi reflect minimal standards. It can be shown that “improvement” in writing has occurred as validated by the writing samples secured for assessment purposes. It is realized that continued improvement in the area of student writing is needed.

5) Aggregated data from individual students, specified groups of students, and/or courses or groups of courses that describe and reflect the attainment of the academic unit’s goals and mission.

See appendices for general education in English and also in speech.

6) Examples of student data acquired from surveys, checklists, unit-level oral/written examinations, interviews, portfolios, etc., standardized national exams, internships, juried reviews and performances that reflect their achievement of predetermined goals and objectives.

Speech communication internships have shown favorable results for students involved at the local and regional level.

EVALUATION OF UNIT ASSESSMENT PLANS

1. Do the academic unit’s mission statement and goals flow from and contribute to the University mission statement?

Yes. The School’s mission and goals support the institutional mission.

2. Were the major field assessments based on the mission and goals of the academic unit?

Yes. The mission and goals statement were used to drive the assessment methodology in art, English, Journalism, and speech communication.

3. Are the data being gathered being used for the intended purposes?

Attention has been given to gathering and assessing data that is relevant to the purpose. Data has proven useful in making alterations to programs as needed in the school. Based upon faculty evaluation of the assessment program and process, changes are made as deemed necessary.

4. Were the faculty involved in the process?

Yes. The appropriate area faculty (art, English, Journalism, speech communication) were involved in every instance involving assessment program rules and procedures. This year the faculty in art, English, and speech communication were given the opportunity to evaluate existing plans. A plan was developed this year for assessing the Journalism major. Periodic changes to standards and process have occurred when deemed necessary. Minor changes were noted in English and speech communication due to changes in curriculum.

5. Were multiple measures used in gathering data?

Yes. The plan shows that a variety of measures are in place for assessment purposes in all areas. Evaluation using “effectiveness” as the standard in each area is considered.

6. Were multiple measures used in making programmatic changes?

Yes. Procedures undergo periodic faculty review. Minor changes were noted in English and speech communication due to changes in curriculum as noted in item #4.

7. Were students given feedback?

Yes. Essays in English and some tests in speech have been returned. Plans for reporting to students generally and sometimes specifically (essays and tests) are to be accomplished as feasible. Survey results of graduates in both English and speech have not been returned to respondees. At present the survey results have been used only by the faculty for evaluative purposes.

8. Were the faculty of the academic unit given feedback?

Yes. As reports are completed, the faculty are given the opportunity to review them. The reports serve as a basis for faculty deliberations.

9. Is the plan cost effective?

10. Was access, equity, or diversity restricted in any way?

No. Care was given not to be exclusionary, but to assess a representative sample of 100% of student participants as needed in the various discipline areas.

SAH Evaluation of Unit Assessment Plans Page 2

11. What improvements were made based on information flowing from the unit’s assessment process?

The procedure of reviewing and evaluating samples of student writings in Composition I and II was instituted in the 2001-02 academic year. The W.A.S. (Writing Apprehension Scale) has been used as the general education English assessment instrument since fall 1997 and will continue to be used for Fundamentals of English.

Due to the size (numbers) of general education speech courses surveyed and the consistency of results over a period of years a sample of courses has now been instituted.

Faculty were given opportunity to suggest changes in the plans for assessing majors in art, English, and speech communication via e-mail this year and any suggested changes circulated to all faculty in the discipline.

12. Are changes needed in the unit’s assessment plan?

Minor changes were noted in English and speech communication due to changes in curriculum. Continued monitoring will be necessary to establish the effectiveness of the overall plan or portions of the plan that might warrant future alteration of the plan.

ART MAJOR

Goals: The Bachelor of Arts degree in Art is designed to provide students with an understanding of different practices and media in making art, to prepare students with skills of critical inquiry into studio practices, and to prepare students for advanced study or career skills.

Learning

Objectives: A student who graduates with a Bachelor of Arts degree in art should be able to:

C Understand and be proficient with different art media.

C Use effective research skills in the discipline of art.

C Have a basic knowledge of the history, practice, and use of art in history.

C Recognize and demonstrate knowledge of major periods, artists, and artworks of importance.

C Produce artworks from a variety of conceptual, theoretical, or inspirational points of view.

C Plan, promote, and hold an exhibition of their work.

C Present a concise portfolio of their work which would allow them to apply for further study or secure employment in the arts.

Practices Used to Assess the Objectives for the Art Major

Art faculty will employ the following practices to assess the progress of Art majors:

C Assess students= critical knowledge of art from Art Appreciation through essay writing and analysis, artwork characteristic identification, visual identification, projects, and/or presentations.

C Assess students= critical interpretation and knowledge of art forms in a historical perspective from Art History through student presentations to the class, through essay writing, and through exams.

C Monitor each student=s successful completion of the required major courses through advisor checks of transcripts and conferences with students.

C Monitor each student=s successful completion of the required 18 hours of studio electives through advisor checks of transcripts and conferences with students.

C Monitor each student=s successful completion of planning, promoting, and holding a senior exhibition. Interviewing students who have completed this process for their impressions leading to faculty discussion and curriculum modification.

ENGLISH MAJOR

Goals: The Bachelor of Arts degree in English is designed to provide students with an understanding of literature and the English language, to prepare students to write effectively in academic and professional settings, and to prepare students for advanced study.

Learning

Objectives: A student who graduates with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English should be able to:

C Write effectively in a variety of styles.

C Use effective research skills in the discipline of English.

C Have a basic knowledge of the history, structure, and use of the English language.

C Recognize significant periods, authors, and works in world literature.

C Demonstrate knowledge of major periods, authors, and works in American and British literature.

C Analyze literary texts for features such as form, point of view, characterization, and the use of literary devices. Develop and defend judgments about these works.

C Cultivate critical and creative thinking, reading, and writing that are fundamental to academic and career success.

Practices Used to Assess the Objectives for the English Major

English faculty will employ the following practices to assess the progress of English majors:

C Assess students= writing skills from English Composition I and II through essay writing and analysis in Advanced Composition. The first assignment in Advanced Composition will be a traditional essay which will be used for review and diagnostic purposes. Individual essays will be returned to student with written comments, and the instructor will discuss overall results with the class. As necessary, the instructor will also hold individual writing conferences with students.

C Assess students= reading skills from English Composition I and II and World Literature by analyzing their ability to interpret a variety of texts in upper-division literature courses. Instructors will provide written comments to students on such assignments as essays, book reviews, and research projects. Instructors will discuss overall results of these activities, as well as results of small-group and class discussions, with the class as a whole. Interested faculty will meet to discuss overall student performance and possible means of improving this performance.

C Monitor students= successful completion of Advanced Composition and upper-level elective writing courses through advisor checks of transcripts and conferences with students.

C Monitor students= successful completion of required survey courses in British and American literature, as well as upper-level literature electives, through advisor checks of transcripts and conferences with students.

C Monitor students= successful completion of Language Study through advisor checks of transcripts and conferences with students.

C Collect and analyze the scores made by English majors on the Graduate Record Examination. Interview students who have taken the examination for their impressions, leading to faculty discussion and curriculum modification.

C Collect and interpret responses to a survey of students who graduated with an English major, leading to faculty discussion and curriculum modification.

ENGLISH MAJOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION)

Goals: The Bachelor of Arts degree in English (Secondary Education) is designed to provide students with an understanding of writing, literature, and the English language necessary for effective teaching at the secondary level.

Learning

Objectives: A student who graduates with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English (Secondary Education) should be able to:

C Write effectively in a variety of styles.

C Use effective research skills in the discipline of English.

C Have a basic knowledge of the history, structure, and use of the English language.

C Recognize significant periods, authors, and works in world literature.

C Demonstrate knowledge of major periods, authors, and works in American and British literature.

C Analyze literary texts for features such as form, point of view, characterization, and the use of literary devices. Develop and defend judgements about these works.

C Cultivate critical and creative thinking, reading, and writing that are fundamental to academic and career success.

C Demonstrate a knowledge of effective methods for teaching English at the secondary level.

Practices Used to Assess the Objectives for the English Major for Teachers

English faculty will employ the following practices to assess the progress of English majors (secondary education):

C Assess students= writing skills from English Composition I and II through essay writing and analysis in Advanced Composition. The first assignment in Advanced Composition will be a traditional essay which will be used for review and diagnostic purposes. Individual essays will be returned to students with written comments, and the instructor will discuss overall results with the class. As necessary, the instructor will also hold individual writing conferences with students.

C Monitor students= successful completion of Advanced Composition and upper-level elective writing courses through advisor checks of transcripts and conferences with students.

C Monitor students= successful completion of Language Study and Advanced Grammar through advisor checks of transcripts and conferences with students.

C Monitor students= successful completion of the Methods Seminar in Teaching English through analysis of sample lesson plans and observation of and comment upon video tapes of teaching samples.

C Collect and analyze the scores made by English majors on the Praxis Examination and the Graduate Record Examination. Interview students who have taken the examination for their impressions, leading to faculty discussion and curriculum modification.

C Collect and interpret responses to a survey of students who graduated with an English major, leading to faculty discussion and curriculum modification.

ENGLISH MAJOR (CONCENTRATION IN WRITING)

Goals: The Bachelor of Arts Degree in English with a concentration in writing is designed to cultivate creative and critical thinking through the reading and especially writing of professional, literary, and other texts.

Learning A student who graduates with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in English with a

Objectives: concentration in writing should be able to:

$ Write effectively in a variety of styles.

$ Integrate literary and rhetorical theory and practice.

$ Use effective research skills in the discipline of English.

$ Have a basic knowledge of the history, structure, and use of the English

language.

$ Examine the literary heritage of English-speaking cultures, including British, American, and post-Colonial cultures.

$ Appreciate, analyze, and interpret various kinds of texts from a historical

and contemporary perspective. Understand terms and concepts used in

writing and literary studies.

$ Cultivate critical and creative thinking, reading, and writing within the

disciplines of English. Promote active engagement and heightened

appreciation within those discourse communities. Mutually challenge,

support and encourage critical and creative reading, thinking, speaking,

and writing.

Practices Used to Assess the Objectives for the English Major With Concentration in Writing:

English faculty will employ the following practices to assess the progress of English majors with concentration in writing:

$ Assess students= writing skills from English Composition I and II through

essay writing and analysis in Advanced Composition. The first

assignment in Advanced Composition will be used for review and

diagnostic purposes. Individual essays will be returned to students with

written comments, and the instructor will discuss overall results with the

class. As necessary, the instructor will also hold individual writing

conferences with students.

$ Assess students= reading skills from English Composition I and II and

World Literature by analyzing their ability to interpret a variety of texts in

upper-division literature courses. Instructors will provide written

comments to students on such assignments as essays, book reviews, and

research projects. Instructors will discuss overall results of these

activities, as well as results of small-group and class discussions, with the

class as a whole. Interested faculty will meet to discuss overall student

performance and possible means of improving this performance.

$ Monitor students= successful completion of Advanced Composition, upper-

level elective writing courses, and a senior writing project through advisor

checks of transcripts and conferences with students.

$ Monitor students= successful completion of required survey courses in

literature, as well as upper-level literature electives, through advisor

checks of transcripts and conferences with students.

$ Monitor students= successful completion of Language Study and Critical

Approaches to Literature through advisor checks of transcripts and

conferences with students.

$ Collect and interpret responses to a survey of students who graduated

with an English Major with concentration in writing, leading to faculty discussion and curriculum modification.

· Monitor students successful completion of the required 18 hours of studio electives through advisor checks

7/7/05

JOURNALISM MAJOR

Goals: The Bachelor of Arts degree in journalism is designed to prepare students with an understanding of different practices in multiple media, to prepare students with skills to write effectively in multiple media, and to prepare students for advance study or professional work.

Learning

Objectives: A student who graduates with a Bachelor of Arts degree in journalism, depending upon choices in the core curriculum, should be able to:

C Understand the impact of books, newspapers, magazines, film, radio, TV and the Internet on the individual and society, as well as understand how public relations and advertising in the mass media shape consumer perceptions and behaviors.

C Write publishable news under deadline pressure with no mechanical errors or factual errors.

C Write articles following Associated Press style, answering the five W's and H, and offering context.

C Write hard news using the inverted pyramid, i.e. the most important news followed by information of lesser importance.

C Have a basic understanding of contemporary media theory, e.g. agenda-setting, framing, etc., and how it affects the modern journalist.

C Use the Internet as a resource.

C Stay abreast of current events in business, politics, the arts, finance, science, media and international affairs.

C Practice advanced writing and reporting techniques, including an in-depth analysis of newsgathering and a focus on beats likely to be covered by aspiring writers, such as government, public safety, education, business, the courts, environment, health and elections.

C Practice basic editing skills, including correcting errors of fact, spelling, grammar, Associated Press style, punctuation and usage; ensuring stories are accurate, fair, newsworthy, clear and complete; eliminating libel; writing headlines, captions and other display copy; laying out pages.

C Quickly produce professionally written public relations materials expected of the entry-level practitioner that match a message to an audience.

C Provide prospective employers with a portfolio of written work which would allow them to apply for further study or secure employment.

Practices Used to Assess the Objectives of the Journalism Major:

Journalism faculty will employ the following practices to assess the progress of Journalism majors.

§ Assess understanding of the multicultural impact of media on society through essay writing and analysis, projects and presentations.

· Assess writing publishable news under deadline pressure through timed writings, in-class and out-of-class writing assignments, published work, campus briefs, and news, style and reading quizzes.

· Assess understanding of media theory through essay writing, characteristic identification and through exams.

· Monitor each student’s successful completion of the required major courses through adviser checks of transcripts and conferences with students.

· Monitor each student’s successful completion of writing and revisions through the required portfolio.

· Assess students’ understanding and interest in the coursework through midterm student and faculty evaluations, leading to curriculum modification where needed.

SPEECH COMMUNICATION MAJOR

Goals: The student should be able to deliver effective oral presentations and practice effective communication in interpersonal relations across different situations in his/her chosen career.

Learning

Objectives: A student who graduates with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Speech Communication, depending upon choices in the core curriculum, should be able to:

C Identify the basic concepts of oral communication.

C Identify barriers to effective communication.

C Design and deliver an effective speech in a variety of settings.

C Use techniques to reduce speaker and speaking anxiety.

C Analyze common communication situations and problems specific to interpersonal communication in multiple settings.

C Demonstrate basic skills in handling common communication conflicts.

C Identify, observe and analyze nonverbal communication channels.

C Have a basic understanding of contemporary performance and literary theory.

C Construct effective persuasive arguments in a variety of settings.

C Understand the practical application of communication skills in organizational settings, including interviewing, and in task-oriented small groups.

C Have the understanding to apply communication theory to the everyday world of communication.

Practices Used to Assess the Theoretical Elements of the Speech Communication Major:

1. Progress Reviews. A student=s knowledge of basic theoretical principles in speech, performance studies, and communication may be assessed by:

Passing scores on examinations. When applicable, written classroom examinations will be administered periodically throughout the semester with scores recorded by the instructor. The students will review the results with the instructor who will identify areas of strength and of weakness, both in class and in private appointments, if necessary or desired.

Passing scores on course assignments. Assignments will address appropriate topic areas for the course being taken which will be used for review and diagnostic purposes. Individual critiques will be returned to students with written comments, and the instructor will discuss overall results with the class. As necessary, the instructor will also hold individual conferences with students.

Passing grade in the course. Final grades for a course will serve as a summation of a student=s progress in mastering the materials covered in the course, and may be based on examination scores, essay scores, oral presentations, class exercises, and other assignments an instructor might assign. Students will be notified of their final grades by the university, although individual instructors may make additional arrangements for their classes and individual students in the class.

2. Career Outcomes. The following criteria will be used to assess how successful our speech communication major graduates are doing outside the university:

Has the student obtained employment relevant to the major in a timely manner? Has the student been admitted to a post-graduate program?

This information will be obtained via word-of-mouth, the news media, and follow-up surveys of graduates. The Speech Communication faculty in the School of Arts and Humanities will be informed of the career outcomes of speech communication majors.

Practices Used to Assess the Practical Elements of the Speech Communication Major

3. Practical Demonstrations. A student=s skill in delivering oral presentations may be assessed by:

Passing scores on in-class oral presentations. Courses stressing skills training, such as public speaking, oral interpretation, etc., will include oral presentations that will be critiqued by the instructor. The instructor will provide individual written comments to each student as well as an overall evaluation of the class effort on each assignment. As necessary, the instructor will also hold individual conferences with students. Instructors may also videotape presentations to allow the student to review his or her performance and to receive a point-by-point evaluation from the instructor during a joint viewing.

Passing grade on an external-to-university internship. When possible, students will be encouraged to make arrangements for obtaining a semester-long, part-time position as a communication practitioner within an external organization. The student will provide the instructor with periodic updates and will provide a written summary of the experience at the end. The instructor will interview the employer at the completion of the internship to provide the student with feedback about his or her performance during the internship. Faculty members will review the internship efforts of all speech communication majors each academic year.

Students will be encouraged to join the university forensic team and participate in intercollegiate competition. Students will receive written comments of their tournament efforts from the tournament judges and post-tournament comments from the Director of Forensics.

Successful oral presentation of literary or creative works. Students will research, collect, and prepare literary works for oral presentations. Students will receive written comments on individual performances, and classes will receive an overall assessment of efforts on individual assignments. Students will also be encouraged to make presentations of such works in public settings, such as elementary and secondary schools and before civic groups. Faculty will be advised of known student performances.

Practices Used to Assess General Education Elements of Speech Communication Major

General Knowledge. A student=s general knowledge, as dictated by the general education requirements, may be assessed by:

Scores made on the Rising Junior Examination. This state standardized test is given at the end of the sophomore year to assess a student=s general education knowledge. Students will receive the test score.

Delivering oral presentations on topics of general interest. Oral presentations not only provide an assessment of speaking skills, but also of a student=s critical thinking skills in the selection, analysis, research, and development of topics of general interest. Instructor=s written comments of student presentations will also include an assessment of these critical thinking skills that should be enhanced by the general education curriculum. Instructors will also provide an overall assessment of the assignment to the class.

Research studies and/or oral presentations that demonstrate research skills and critical thinking in the analysis of the topic chosen. Instructors will provide written comments to students about the research and thinking done on the topic, as well as an overall assessment of the class effort on the assignment.

Demonstrated growth using a pre-treatment/post-treatment social skills inventory measure, with the course being the treatment. Social Skills Inventories, such as Riggio and Friedman=s, assess an individual=s verbal and nonverbal skills, sensitivity to others messages, and control of these behaviors. By completing the survey at the beginning of the course and again at the finish of the course, instructors may use statistical methods, such as a matched pairs t-test, to determine if there is a significant difference between the two scores. A significant difference indicates an increase in students= practical skills.

Evaluation of the Assessment Plan for the Speech Communication Major

The speech communication faculty will use the assessment tools to help students in the pursuit of their education and career goals. The assessment results may be used to suggest remedial training, if necessary, to recommend an appropriate program of study, and to recommend individual courses that will aid the student in achieving his or her goals.

The Speech Communication faculty in the School of Arts and Humanities will review the practices used to assess the speech communication major and the results thereof. At any or all of the semester meetings, faculty are encouraged to voice their concerns about the assessment of the major field and to offer suggestions on how it might be improved.

Recommendations made by the speech communication faculty will be documented and will become a part of the records in the school office.

Submitted 8/1/05

Criteria	1	2	3	4	5	total pts.	average score 2004
focus			4	10	1	57	3.80
elaboration		1	2	12		56	3.73
organization			7	7	1	54	3.60
language		1	7	7		51	3.40
mechanics		1	11	3		47	3.13
overall rating			6	9		54	3.60