Florida State College at Jacksonvilleold.fscj.edu/district/institutional-effectiveness/compliance-cert... · Florida State College at Jacksonville. ... n=10; Cecil/Kent, n=59; North,

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 1 of 27

Florida State College at Jacksonville

Detailed Assessment Report 2011-2012 Communications Discipline (DE, L)

(Includes those Action Plans with Budget Amounts marked One-Time, Recurring, No Request.)

Mission / Purpose

The mission for the Communications area (English, reading, and speech) is to enhance the lives of our students by preparing them to be effective communicators in their academic, career, and community endeavors. Through practical written and oral applications, the Communications curriculum enables students to choose the appropriate means for obtaining, generating, and using information and language to interact successfully in the world.

Connected Documents • Communication Info Lit Rubric • Communications Written Rubric • Information Literacy Rubric • Oral Communications Rubric • Written Communication Rubric

Student Learning Outcomes/Objectives, with Any Associations and Related Measures, Targets, Findings, and Action Plans

SLO 1:Organization of Written and Oral Messages Students will be able to write and present logically organized essays/speeches that demonstrate a clear progression of ideas.

Relevant Associations:

General Education/Core Curriculum Associations:

1 Communication 3 Information Literacy 6 Discipline/Program-Specific Learning Outcome

Institutional Priority Associations:

1.1 Collegewide Goal One (as of Aug 2011): Prepare students for distinctive success in their academic, career and personal goals through collaboration within the College community and individual collaboration

Related Measures:

M 1:Thesis-based essay ENC 1101 students will write an in-class based upon an appropriate topic that is selected by the instructor. The essay should be 450-550 words in length. The essay should be thesis-based and follow a standard 4 or 5-paragraph format (an opening, body paragraphs, closing). The essay should be completed near midterm. Students should be given 50 minutes to complete this essay. A random sample of these thesis-based essays will be scored for the Organization performance indicator, using the five- level Written Communication rubric that was

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 2 of 27

developed by FSCJ faculty. Essays will be scored by a collegewide interdisciplinary group of faculty, but primarily English faculty, at the end of the spring semester. The data will be collected/distributed by the Office of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The Letters Council will analyze the scores for each indicator on the rubrics for student level of achievement. Five is the highest level of achievement and one is the lowest level of achievement on the Written Communication rubric. Source of Evidence: Written assignment(s), usually scored by a rubric

Target: ENC 1101 70% of the scores will be 3 or higher on the organization indicator of the written communication rubric across all face-to-face, hybrid, and distance learning students.

Findings (2011-2012) - Target: Met A total of 187 artifacts were scored. Each artifact was read and scored by a single rater for this performance indicator. Following is a breakdown of the number of artifacts scored by campus: Downtown, n=10; Cecil/Kent, n=59; North, n=21; Open, n=14; Deerwood/South, n=83. The percentage breakdown for scores at a level three or higher is as follows: Downtown (50%); Cecil/Kent (85%); North (81%); Open (93%); Deerwood/South (60%). Following is a breakdown of the number of artifacts scored by delivery method: Face-to-face, n=173; Online, n=14. The achievement target was met in regards to each delivery method (Face-to-face (71%); Online (93%)). 75% of the overall scores were at a level 3 or higher; the aggregated target (70%) was therefore met in this area. Data for this indicator was disaggregated by location and modality, but given the sampling methodology that was used, it is the faculty's opinion that these results should be considered with some caution. Indeed, though the percentage of students who performed below target in online courses was lower (7%) than the percentage who performed in this range in face-to-face classes (29%), 173 artifacts came from face-to-face courses, while only 14 came from online courses. In addition, the faculty continues to feel that disaggregating results by campus does not necessarily lead to productive conversations about how to improve student learning because the variables that could lead to achievement gaps by campus are difficult to pinpoint.

Related Action Plans (by Established cycle, then alpha):

Dissemination of Best Practices

For the 2010-2011 cycle, faculty developed a list of best instructional practices for the written communication competencies (see attached document); the faculty has decided to continue using these best practices, but given that approximately 25% of our students still need to improve their organizational skills, we also will integrate Smart-thinking technology and Turnitin's "Grademark" option as best practice options. This list will be distributed to all English faculty so that they can begin to implement these strategies in their courses. These practices will be recommended for use in all composition courses because it is believed that they will help to promote student success in these learning outcome areas. To ensure that students have comparable learning experiences across campuses and modalities, the list of suggested curricular modifications will be disseminated

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 3 of 27

through multiple modes to facilitate broad-ranging faculty involvement in the implementation of these curricular interventions. The material will be e-mailed to all faculty and posted in the Letters Council's Blackboard community. We will also distribute rubrics and best practices to tutors in the various campus LLC's.

Established in Cycle: 2011-2012 Implementation Status: Planned Priority: High Relationships (Measure | Outcome/Objective):

Measure: Thesis-based essay | Outcome/Objective: Organization of Written and Oral Messages

Implementation Description: The faculty has organized into an eight-person committee to address action plan modifications, and those modifications will be presented to the Letters' Council in the fall.The final best practices document will be e-mailed to all faculty and posted in the Letters Council's Blackboard community. We will also distribute rubrics and best practices to tutors in the various campus LLC's. Responsible Person/Group: Letters Council

M 2:Informative speech (org, evidence, citing sources) SPC 2017/SPC 2065/SPC 2608 * Students will present an informative speech of 5 - 7 minutes in length following standard organization (introduction, body, and conclusion) and using a minimum of 3 sources. A random sample of these informative speeches will be scored, according to a five-level Oral Communication rubric on the indicators of organization, subject knowledge, vocal delivery, and non verbal delivery, by a collegewide interdisciplinary group of faculty, primarily speech faculty, at the end of the spring semester. The data will be collected/distributed by the Office of Student Analytics and Research. In addition, these same speeches will be scored, according to a three-level Information Literacy rubric on the indicators of Uses Information and Uses Information Ethically/Legally, by another collegewide indisciplinary group of faculty, but primarily speech faculty, at the end of the spring semester. The Speech Council will analyze the scores for each indicator on the rubrics for student level of achievement. Five is the highest level of achievement and one is the lowest level of achievement for the Oral Communication rubric and three is the highest level and 1 is the lowest level on the Information Literacy rubric. Source of Evidence: Presentation, either individual or group

Target: 70% of the scores will be 3 or higher on the organization indicator of the oral communication rubric across all face-to-face, hybrid, and distance learning students.

Findings (2011-2012) - Target: Met 87% of the scores were at a level 3 or higher for face-to-face, online, and hybrid courses. This is aggregated data for this outcome across all sampled SPC 2608, SPC 2017, and SPC 2065 sections. The target was met in this area. A total of 199 artifacts were scored. Following is a breakdown of the number of artifacts scored by location and modality:

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 4 of 27

Deerwood/South n=90, Downtown n=9, Kent n=47, North n=23, Open n=26, Face-to-Face n=131, Hybrid n=23, Online n=26. Based upon the recommendations of the Office of Student Analytics and Research, all general education disciplines were sampled based upon course enrollment patterns. Thus campuses that offered a larger number of courses in the discipline area were represented more heavily in the sample. These numbers are reflected in the breakdown of artifact numbers above. Sample sizes by modality were also impacted by this methodology. The overall results showed consistency in the organizational scores among campuses and course delivery methods.


Organization Action Plan

Based upon last year's results we worked with Open Campus to improve the quality of the online speech course offerings. We made great strides this year and will continue to work with them over the next year to enhance the quality of the online speech course offerings and promote consistency among delivery methods. Our scores for this year reflect the work that was done this year to have consistency in our rubric for scoring for student speeches.

Established in Cycle: 2011-2012 Implementation Status: In-Progress Priority: Medium Relationships (Measure | Outcome/Objective):

Measure: Informative speech (org, evidence, citing sources) | Outcome/Objective: Organization of Written and Oral Messages

Responsible Person/Group: Speech Council and Open Campus Administration

SLO 2:Use of Appropriate Evidence in Written and Oral Messages

Students will be able to write and present essays/speeches with a clear thesis that is supported by appropriate, sufficient evidence.




Related Measures:

M 1:Thesis-based essay ENC 1101 students will write an in-class based upon an appropriate topic that is selected by the instructor. The essay should be 450-550 words in length. The essay should be thesis-based and follow a standard 4 or 5-paragraph format (an opening, body paragraphs, closing). The essay should be completed near midterm. Students should be given 50 minutes to complete this essay. A random

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 5 of 27

sample of these thesis-based essays will be scored for the Organization performance indicator, using the five- level Written Communication rubric that was developed by FSCJ faculty. Essays will be scored by a collegewide interdisciplinary group of faculty, but primarily English faculty, at the end of the spring semester. The data will be collected/distributed by the Office of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The Letters Council will analyze the scores for each indicator on the rubrics for student level of achievement. Five is the highest level of achievement and one is the lowest level of achievement on the Written Communication rubric. Source of Evidence: Written assignment(s), usually scored by a rubric

Target: 70% of the scores will be 3 or higher on the content indicator of the written communication rubric across all face-to-face, hybrid, and distance learning students.

Findings (2011-2012) - Target: Met A total of 187 artifacts were scored. Each artifact was read and scored by a single rater for this performance indicator. Following is a breakdown of the number of artifacts scored by campus: Downtown, n=10; Cecil/Kent, n=59; North, n=21; Open, n=14; Deerwood/South, n=83. The percentage breakdown for scores at a level three or higher is as follows: Downtown (90%); Cecil/Kent (87%); North (63%); Open (100%); Deerwood/South (66%). Following is a breakdown of the number of artifacts scored by delivery method: Face-to-face, n=173; Online, n=14. The achievement target was met in regards to each delivery method (Face-to-face (73%); Online (100%)); 75% of the overall scores were thus at a level 3 or higher. Data for this indicator was disaggregated by location and modality, but given the sampling methodology that was used, it is the faculty's opinion that these results should be considered with some caution. Indeed, though the percentage of students who performed below target in online courses was lower (0%) than the percentage who performed in this range in face-to-face classes (27%), 173 artifacts came from face-to-face courses, while only 14 came from online courses. In addition, the faculty continues to feel that disaggregating results by campus does not necessarily lead to productive conversations about how to improve student learning because the variables that could lead to achievement gaps by campus are difficult to pinpoint.



For the 2010-2011 cycle, faculty developed a list of best instructional practices for the written communication competencies (see attached document); the faculty has decided to continue using these best practices, but given that approximately 25% of our students still need to improve their ability to write adequate thesis statements and support their claims with appropriate evidence, we also will integrate Smart-thinking technology and Turnitin's "Grademark" option as best practice options. This list will be distributed to all English faculty so that they can begin to implement these strategies in their courses. These practices will be recommended for use in all composition courses because it is believed that they will help to promote student success in these learning outcome areas. To ensure that students

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 6 of 27

have comparable learning experiences across campuses and modalities, the list of suggested curricular modifications will be disseminated through multiple modes to facilitate broad-ranging faculty involvement in the implementation of these curricular interventions. The material will be e-mailed to all faculty and posted in the Letters Council's Blackboard community. We will also distribute rubrics and best practices to tutors in the various campus LLC's.


Measure: Thesis-based essay | Outcome/Objective: Use of Appropriate Evidence in Written and Oral Messages


M 2:Informative speech (org, evidence, citing sources) SPC 2017/SPC 2065/SPC 2608 * Students will present an informative speech of 5 - 7 minutes in length following standard organization (introduction, body, and conclusion) and using a minimum of 3 sources. A random sample of these informative speeches will be scored, according to a five-level Oral Communication rubric on the indicators of organization, subject knowledge, vocal delivery, and non verbal delivery, by a collegewide interdisciplinary group of faculty, primarily speech faculty, at the end of the spring semester. The data will be collected/distributed by the Office of Student Analytics and Research. In addition, these same speeches will be scored, according to a three-level Information Literacy rubric on the indicators of Uses Information and Uses Information Ethically/Legally, by another collegewide indisciplinary group of faculty, but primarily speech faculty, at the end of the spring semester. The Speech Council will analyze the scores for each indicator on the rubrics for student level of achievement. Five is the highest level of achievement and one is the lowest level of achievement for the Oral Communication rubric and three is the highest level and 1 is the lowest level on the Information Literacy rubric. Source of Evidence: Presentation, either individual or group

Target: 70% of the scores will be 3 or higher on the subject knowledge indicator of the oral communication rubric across all face-to-face, hybrid, and distance learning students.

Findings (2011-2012) - Target: Met 90% of the scores were at a level 3 or higher on the subject knowledge indicator of the oral communication rubric across all face-to-face, hybrid, and distance learning students. The target was met in this area. A total of

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 7 of 27

199 artifacts were scored. Following is a breakdown of the number of artifacts scored by location and modality: Deerwood/South n=90, Downtown n=9, Kent n=47, North n=23, Open n=26, Face-to-Face n=131, Hybrid n=23, Online n=26. Based upon the recommendations of the Office of Student Analytics and Research, all general education disciplines were sampled based upon course enrollment patterns. Thus campuses that offered a larger number of courses in the discipline area were represented more heavily in the sample. These numbers are reflected in the breakdown of artifact numbers above. Sample sizes by modality were also impacted by this methodology. The overall results showed consistency in the organizational scores among campuses and course delivery methods.


Subject Knowledge Action Plan

Our scores reflect great achievement in the area of subject knowledge. We worked with Open Campus to improve the quality of the online speech courses and our scores reflect this work. We worked toward greater consistency in our expectations by developing a common rubric. Our scores reflect our efforts and we are encouraged by the outcome.


Measure: Informative speech (org, evidence, citing sources) | Outcome/Objective: Use of Appropriate Evidence in Written and Oral Messages


SLO 3:Citing Sources

Students will be able to cite/document information sources correctly in their essays and speeches.




Related Measures:

M 1:Thesis-based essay ENC 1101 students will write an in-class based upon an appropriate topic that is selected by the instructor. The essay should be 450-550 words in length. The essay should be thesis-based and follow a standard 4 or 5-paragraph format (an opening, body paragraphs, closing). The essay should be completed near

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 8 of 27

midterm. Students should be given 50 minutes to complete this essay. A random sample of these thesis-based essays will be scored for the Organization performance indicator, using the five- level Written Communication rubric that was developed by FSCJ faculty. Essays will be scored by a collegewide interdisciplinary group of faculty, but primarily English faculty, at the end of the spring semester. The data will be collected/distributed by the Office of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The Letters Council will analyze the scores for each indicator on the rubrics for student level of achievement. Five is the highest level of achievement and one is the lowest level of achievement on the Written Communication rubric. Source of Evidence: Written assignment(s), usually scored by a rubric

Target: 70% of the scores will be 2 or higher on the accesses and uses information ethically and legally indicator of the information literacy rubric across all face-to-face, hybrid, and distance learning students.

Findings (2011-2012) - Target: Not Reported This Cycle This outcome was not measured with essays during this cycle; see the Information Literacy Quiz measure for this outcome's results.


Written Communication

Faculty will implement 2 of 5 best practices: Documentation practice through "Exercise Central," one graded assignment requiring students to demonstrate critical thinking about sources, an academic integrity agreement or contract, use of "turnitin.com," and classroom activity designed to provide hands-on practice for citing and integrating sources.

Established in Cycle: 2010-2011 Implementation Status: In-Progress Priority: High Relationships (Measure | Outcome/Objective):

Measure: Thesis-based essay | Outcome/Objective: Citing Sources

Implementation Description: Practices will be implemented in the spring semester 2011. Projected Completion Date: 05/05/2011 Responsible Person/Group: Nancy Lany and Herschel Shepard as Letters Council co-chairs and the appropriate campus associate deans and deans of liberal arts. Additional Resources Requested: Create database of sample assignments that meet the artifact parameters. Arrange training through AFPD centered on helping instructors develop their own assignments in line with the assessment and the best practice recommendations. Funds to compensate adjunct faculty for attending workshops are requested.

M 2:Informative speech (org, evidence, citing sources)

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 9 of 27

SPC 2017/SPC 2065/SPC 2608 * Students will present an informative speech of 5 - 7 minutes in length following standard organization (introduction, body, and conclusion) and using a minimum of 3 sources. A random sample of these informative speeches will be scored, according to a five-level Oral Communication rubric on the indicators of organization, subject knowledge, vocal delivery, and non verbal delivery, by a collegewide interdisciplinary group of faculty, primarily speech faculty, at the end of the spring semester. The data will be collected/distributed by the Office of Student Analytics and Research. In addition, these same speeches will be scored, according to a three-level Information Literacy rubric on the indicators of Uses Information and Uses Information Ethically/Legally, by another collegewide indisciplinary group of faculty, but primarily speech faculty, at the end of the spring semester. The Speech Council will analyze the scores for each indicator on the rubrics for student level of achievement. Five is the highest level of achievement and one is the lowest level of achievement for the Oral Communication rubric and three is the highest level and 1 is the lowest level on the Information Literacy rubric. Source of Evidence: Presentation, either individual or group

Target: SPC 2017/SPC 2065/SPC 2608 70% of the scores will be 2 or higher on the Evaluation of Information indicator of the information literacy rubric across all face-to-face, hybrid, and distance learning students.

Findings (2011-2012) - Target: Met 86% of the scores were a level 2 or higher on the evaluation of information indicator of the information literacy rubric across all face-to-face, hybrid, and distance learning students. A total of 161 artifacts were scored. Following is a breakdown of the number of artifacts scored by location and modality: Deerwood/South n=90 Downtown n=9, Kent n=13, North n=23, Open n=26, Face-to-Face n=131, Hybrid n=4, Online n=26. Based upon the recommendations of the Office of Student Analytics and Research, all general education disciplines were sampled based upon course enrollment patterns. Thus campuses that offered a larger number of courses in the discipline area were represented more heavily in the sample.


Evaluation of Information Action Plan

Our scores show a vast improvement. The Speech Council partnered with the Open Campus Administration to improve the quality of the online speech courses. We developed a rubric to gain greater consistency of expectations. Our scores reflect the work done over the past year.


Measure: Informative speech (org, evidence, citing sources) | Outcome/Objective: Citing Sources

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 10 of 27

M 5:Information Literacy Quiz ENC 1102 and LIT 2000 students will complete a twenty-item information literacy quiz generated from questions submitted by English faculty. The quiz should be administered after the key information literacy competencies are addressed in the course; it may be given as a paper quiz or electronically. The quiz will be scored using an answer key that is agreed upon by English faculty. Source of Evidence: Standardized test of subject matter knowledge

Target: At least 70% of answers to questions in each information literacy category (works cited, signal phrases, academic honesty, quotation, and paraphrasing) on the quiz will be correct.

Findings (2011-2012) - Target: Partially Met A total of 235 artifacts were scored. The items on the artifact were broken up into five categories: works cited (5 questions); signal phrases (2 questions); quoting (7 questions); academic honesty (1 question); paraphrasing (4 questions). Each artifact was scored by a single rater using a general answer key. The percentage of correct answers for each information literacy category is as follows: works cited (76%); signal phrases (59%); quoting (62%); academic honesty (54%); paraphrasing (66%). Thus, though the target was met for the works cited category, the target was not met for the other categories. The breakdown of the number of artifacts scored by campus and by delivery method is as follows: Downtown, n=16; Cecil/Kent, n=50; North, n=33; Open, n=19; Deerwood/South, n=117; Face-to-face, n=147; Hybrid, n=67; Online, n=19.The percentage of correct answers for each question according to location and delivery method is available on the attached GE Data Spring 2012 document. Data for this indicator was disaggregated by location and modality, but given the sampling methodology that was used, it is the faculty's opinion that these results should be considered with some caution, as 147 artifacts came from face-to-face courses, while only 19 came from online courses. In addition, the faculty continues to feel that disaggregating results by campus does not necessarily lead to productive conversations about how to improve student learning because the variables that could lead to achievement gaps by campus are difficult to pinpoint.


Dissemination of Best Practices and Alteration of Measure

The faculty has decided to continue implementing two of the five information literacy best practices (see attached document) established in the previous cycle into ENC 1102 and Lit 2000 courses: documentation practice through "Exercise Central," one graded assignment requiring students to demonstrate critical thinking about sources, an academic integrity agreement or contract, use of "turnitin.com," and classroom activity designed to provide hands-on practice for citing and integrating sources. Given our students' continuing struggle to understand how to correctly integrate sources into academic essays, we will change our measure, editing the quiz to focus on three essential information literacy skills: academic honesty,

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 11 of 27

paraphrasing, and quoting.The faculty has organized into a five-person committee to address measure modifications, and those modifications will be presented to the Letters Council in the fall.


Measure: Information Literacy Quiz | Outcome/Objective: Citing Sources

Implementation Description: Best practices will be disseminated to all faculty via email and made available in the Letters Council Blackboard shell. The faculty has organized into a five-person committee to address measure modifications, and those modifications will be presented to the Letters Council in the fall. Responsible Person/Group: Letters Council

SLO 4:Non-Verbal Delivery

Students will be able to present speeches that use the non-verbal elements of delivery effectively and appropriately for the message, audience, and occasion.



1 Communication

Related Measures:

M 3:Informative Speech (nonverbal delivery) Students will present an informative speech of 5 - 7 minutes in length following standard organization (introduction, body, and conclusion) and using a minimum of 3 sources. Source of Evidence: Presentation, either individual or group

Target: 70% of the scores will be 3 or higher on the non verbal delivery indicator of the oral communication rubric across all face-to-face, hybrid, and distance learning students.

Findings (2011-2012) - Target: Met 72% of the scores were at a level 3 or higher for this indicator of the oral communication rubric across all face-to-face, hybrid, and distance learning students. A total of 199 artifacts were scored. Following is a breakdown of the number of artifacts scored by location and modality: Deerwood/South n=90, Downtown n=9, Kent n=47, North n=23, Open n=26, Face-to-Face n=131, Hybrid n=23, Online n=26. Based upon the recommendations of the Office of Student Analytics and Research, all general education disciplines were sampled based upon course enrollment patterns. Thus campuses that offered a larger number of courses in the discipline area were represented more heavily in the sample. These numbers are reflected in the breakdown of artifact numbers above. Sample sizes by modality were

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 12 of 27

also impacted by this methodology. The achievement target was met in this area, but not by a significant amount. There was some disparity with the percentage of students achieving a level 1 or level 2 at Downtown Campus (67%). However, there were only 9 students sampled from Downtown Campus, so the population is not large enough to determine if this is an area of concern. A more balanced sample size for each campus would be helpful in the future. This outcome will be assessed in the 2012-2013 cycle.


Speech Communication

Speech faculty will host a Nonverbal Communication Workshop on January 7, 2011, to share nonverbal communication exercises. Speech faculty will increase time spent on teaching nonverbal communication in their speech courses and will incorporate new nonverbal communication exercises.


Measure: Informative Speech (nonverbal delivery) | Outcome/Objective: Non-Verbal Delivery

Implementation Description: Activities will be incorporated in speech classes during the spring semester 2011. Projected Completion Date: 05/05/2011 Responsible Person/Group: Karen Otto as Speech Council Chair and the appropriate campus associate deans and campus deans of liberal arts. Additional Resources Requested: Funds to purchase videos on nonverbal communciation for each campus.

Nonverbal Delivery Action Plan Nonverbal delivery will be assessed in the 2012-213 cycle to continue to improve assessment results. We will work to implement practice sessions among the students in each of the speech courses in order to allow the students time to work on their speech delivery.



Responsible Person/Group: Speech council under the leadership of Karen Otto

SLO 5:Vocal Delivery

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 13 of 27

Students will be able to speak using grammatically correct standard American English, proper diction, appropriate tone, and correct word usage.



1 Communication

Related Measures:

M 4:Informative Speech (vocal delivery) Source of Evidence: Presentation, either individual or group SPC 2017, SPC 2065, and SPC 2608 students will present an informative speech of 5 -7 minutes in length following standard organization (introduction, body, and conclusion) and using a minimum of 3 sources. A random sample of these informative speeches will be scored for Vocal Delivery, using the five-level Oral Communication rubric that was developed by FSCJ faculty. Speeches will be scored by a collegewide interdisciplinary group of faculty, primarily speech faculty, at the end of the spring semester. The data will be collected/distributed by the Office of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Source of Evidence: Presentation, either individual or group

Target: 70% of the scores will be level 3 or higher on the Vocal Delivery indicator of the Oral Communication rubric across all face-to-face, hybrid, and distance learning students.

Findings (2011-2012) - Target: Met 81% of the scores were at a level 3 or higher for this indicator of the oral communication rubric across all face-to-face, hybrid, and distance learning students. A total of 199 artifacts were scored. Following is a breakdown of the number of artifacts scored by location and modality: Deerwood/South n=90, Downtown n=9, Kent n=47, North n=23, Open n=26, Face-to-Face n=131, Hybrid n=23, Online n=26. Based upon the recommendations of the Office of Student Analytics and Research, all general education disciplines were sampled based upon course enrollment patterns. Thus campuses that offered a larger number of courses in the discipline area were represented more heavily in the sample. These numbers are reflected in the breakdown of artifact numbers above. Sample sizes by modality were also impacted by this methodology. The achievement target was met in this area, but not by a significant amount. There was some disparity with the percentage of students achieving a level 1 or level 2 at Downtown Campus (66%). However there were only 9 students sampled from Downtown Campus, so the population is not large enough to determine if this is an area of concern. A more balanced sample size would be helpful in the future. This outcome will be assessed in the 2012-2013 cycle.


Vocal Delivery Action Plan

Vocal delivery will be assessed in the 2012-213 cycle to continue to improvement of assessment results. We will work to implement practice sessions among the students in each of the speech courses

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 14 of 27

in order to allow the students time to work on their vocal delivery.


Measure: Informative Speech (vocal delivery) | Outcome/Objective: Vocal Delivery

Details of Action Plans for This Cycle (by Established cycle, then alpha)

Dissemination of Best Practices via Workshops. Podcasts, Emailed Handouts Action Plan for Outcome 1: This outcome will be assessed in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle to allow for a comparison of results. After considering the curriculum for Communications courses, ENC 1101 was selected as the appropriate course for the assessment of this learning outcome in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle. ENC 1101 is the one common course in the general education curriculum that all students are required to complete and is an ideal place to gather some baseline data about students' writing performance. Faculty have developed a list of best instructional practices for the written communication competencies for which the achievement targets were not met. A link to this document is included in the WEAVE assessment plan. By October 2011, this list will be distributed to all English faculty so that they can begin to implement these strategies in their courses. These practices will be recommended for use in all composition courses because it is believed that they will help to promote student success in this learning outcome area. To ensure that students have comparable learning experiences across campuses and modalities, the list of suggested curricular modifications will be disseminated through multiple modes to facilitate broad-ranging faculty involvement in the implementation of these curricular interventions. The material will be e-mailed to all faculty and posted in the Letters Council's Blackboard community. Additionally, the Letters Council will create and disseminate a video podcast by December 2011 in which they will outline the components of the action plan so that distance learning and adjunct faculty will be more engaged in the process. Liberal arts deans at all campuses will also be asked to assist in disseminating pertinent information regarding this plan to English faculty. The faculty also recognize that good student writing performances are linked to the quality of the writing prompts that they are given. The Letters Council will host an AFPD workshop by December 2012 to help faculty develop effective writing prompts. This workshop will be open to all faculty who are interested in teaching writing, not just those in the Communications discipline. A list of potential topics for the in-class essay will also be distributed electronically and via the Blackboard community so that faculty will have the option of selecting appropriate topics from this pre-determined list. A resource that would assist the faculty in this discipline in fostering gains in student performance in this learning outcome area is the creation of additional writing tutor positions at each of the campuses.

Established in Cycle: 2010-2011 Implementation Status: Planned Priority: High

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 15 of 27

Projected Completion Date: 01/07/2012 Responsible Person/Group: Letters Council

Dissemination of Best Practices via Workshops. Podcasts, Emailed Handouts

Action Plan for Outcome 1: This outcome will be assessed in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle to allow for a comparison of results. After considering the curriculum for Communications courses, ENC 1101 was selected as the appropriate course for the assessment of this learning outcome in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle. ENC 1101 is the one common course in the general education curriculum that all students are required to complete and is an ideal place to gather some baseline data about students' writing performance. Faculty have developed a list of best instructional practices for the written communication competencies for which the achievement targets were not met. A links to this document is included in the WEAVE assessment plan. By October 2011, this list will be distributed to all English faculty so that they can begin to implement these strategies in their courses. These practices will be recommended for use in all composition courses because it is believed that they will help to promote student success in these learning outcome areas. To ensure that students have comparable learning experiences across campuses and modalities, the list of suggested curricular modifications will be disseminated through multiple modes to facilitate broad-ranging faculty involvement in the implementation of these curricular interventions. The material will be e-mailed to all faculty and posted in the Letters Council's Blackboard community. Additionally, the Letters Council will create and disseminate a video podcast by December 2011 in which they will outline the components of the action plan so that distance learning and adjunct faculty will be more engaged in the process. Liberal arts deans at all campuses will also be asked to assist in disseminating pertinent information regarding this plan to English faculty. The faculty also recognize that good student writing performances are linked to the quality of the writing prompts that they are given. The Letters Council will host an AFPD workshop by December 2011 to help faculty develop effective writing prompts. This workshop will be open to all faculty who are interested in teaching writing, not just those in the Communications discipline. A list of potential topics for the in-class essay will also be distributed electronically and via the Blackboard community so that faculty will have the option of selecting appropriate topics from this pre-determined list. A resource that would assist the faculty in this discipline in fostering gains in student performance in this learning outcome area is the creation of additional writing tutor positions at each of the campuses.

Established in Cycle: 2010-2011 Implementation Status: Planned Priority: High Projected Completion Date: 01/08/2012 Responsible Person/Group: Letters Council


Action Plan for Outcome 2: This outcome will be assessed in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle to allow for a comparison of results. After considering the curriculum for Communications courses, ENC 1101 was selected as the appropriate course for the assessment of this learning outcome in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle. ENC 1101 is the one common course in the general education curriculum that all students are required to complete and is an ideal place to gather some baseline data about students' writing performance. Faculty have developed a list of best instructional practices for the written communication competencies for which the achievement targets were not met. A link to this document is included in the WEAVE assessment plan. By October 2011, this list will be distributed to all English faculty so that they can begin to implement

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 16 of 27

these strategies in their courses. These practices will be recommended for use in all composition courses because it is believed that they will help to promote student success in this learning outcome area. To ensure that students have comparable learning experiences across campuses and modalities, the list of suggested curricular modifications will be disseminated through multiple modes to facilitate broad-ranging faculty involvement in the implementation of these curricular interventions. The material will be e-mailed to all faculty and posted in the Letters Council's Blackboard community. Additionally, the Letters Council will create and disseminate a video podcast by December 2011 in which they will outline the components of the action plan so that distance learning and adjunct faculty will be more engaged in the process. Liberal arts deans at all campuses will also be asked to assist in disseminating pertinent information regarding this plan to English faculty. The faculty also recognize that good student writing performances are linked to the quality of the writing prompts that they are given. The Letters Council will host an AFPD workshop by December 2012 to help faculty develop effective writing prompts. This workshop will be open to all faculty who are interested in teaching writing, not just those in the Communications discipline. A list of potential topics for the in-class essay will also be distributed electronically and via the Blackboard community so that faculty will have the option of selecting appropriate topics from this pre-determined list. A resource that would assist the faculty in this discipline in fostering gains in student performance in this learning outcome area is the creation of additional writing tutor positions at each of the campuses.

Established in Cycle: 2010-2011 Implementation Status: Planned Priority: High Projected Completion Date: 01/08/2012 Responsible Person/Group: Letters Council and Deans


Action Plan for Outcome 2: This outcome will be assessed in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle to allow for a comparison of results. After considering the curriculum for Communications courses, ENC 1101 was selected as the appropriate course for the assessment of this learning outcome in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle. ENC 1101 is the one common course in the general education curriculum that all students are required to complete and is an ideal place to gather some baseline data about students' writing performance. Faculty have developed a list of best instructional practices for the written communication competencies for which the achievement targets were not met. A link to this document is included in the WEAVE assessment plan. By October 2011, this list will be distributed to all English faculty so that they can begin to implement these strategies in their courses. These practices will be recommended for use in all composition courses because it is believed that they will help to promote student success in this learning outcome area. To ensure that students have comparable learning experiences across campuses and modalities, the list of suggested curricular modifications will be disseminated through multiple modes to facilitate broad-ranging faculty involvement in the implementation of these curricular interventions. The material will be e-mailed to all faculty and posted in the Letters Council's Blackboard community. Additionally, the Letters Council will create and disseminate a video podcast by December 2011 in which they will outline the components of the action plan so that distance learning and adjunct faculty will be more engaged in the process. Liberal arts deans at all campuses will also be asked to assist in disseminating pertinent information regarding this plan to English faculty. The faculty also recognize that good student writing performances are linked to the quality of the writing prompts that they are given. The Letters Council will host an AFPD workshop by December 2012 to help

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 17 of 27

faculty develop effective writing prompts. This workshop will be open to all faculty who are interested in teaching writing, not just those in the Communications discipline. A list of potential topics for the in-class essay will also be distributed electronically and via the Blackboard community so that faculty will have the option of selecting appropriate topics from this pre-determined list. A resource that would assist the faculty in this discipline in fostering gains in student performance in this learning outcome area is the creation of additional writing tutor positions at each of the campuses.

Established in Cycle: 2010-2011 Implementation Status: Planned Priority: High Projected Completion Date: 01/08/2012 Responsible Person/Group: Letters Council and Deans Additional Resources Requested: Additional Writing Tutors in the LACs


Action Plan for Outcome 3: This outcome will be assessed in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle to allow for a comparison of results. After considering the curriculum for Communications courses, ENC 1101 was selected as the appropriate course for the assessment of this learning outcome in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle. ENC 1101 is the one common course in the general education curriculum that all students are required to complete and is an ideal place to gather some baseline data about students' writing performance. Faculty have developed a list of best instructional practices for the information literacy competencies for which the achievement targets were not met. A link to this document is included in the WEAVE assessment plan. By October 2011, this list will be distributed to all English faculty so that they can begin to implement these strategies in their courses. These practices will be recommended for use in all composition courses because it is believed that they will help to promote student success in this learning outcome area. To ensure that students have comparable learning experiences across campuses and modalities, the list of suggested curricular modifications will be disseminated through multiple modes to facilitate broad-ranging faculty involvement in the implementation of these curricular interventions. The material will be e-mailed to all faculty and posted in the Letters Council's Blackboard community. Additionally, the Letters Council will create and disseminate a video podcast by December 2011 in which they will outline the components of the action plan so that distance learning and adjunct faculty will be more engaged in the process. Liberal arts deans at all campuses will also be asked to assist in disseminating pertinent information regarding this plan to English faculty. The faculty also recognize that good student writing performances are linked to the quality of the writing prompts that they are given. The Letters Council will host an AFPD workshop by December 2012 to help faculty develop effective writing prompts. This workshop will be open to all faculty who are interested in teaching writing, not just those in the Communications discipline. A list of potential topics for the in-class essay will also be distributed electronically and via the Blackboard community so that faculty will have the option of selecting appropriate topics from this pre-determined list. A resource that would assist the faculty in this discipline in fostering gains in student performance in this learning outcome area is the creation of additional writing tutor positions at each of the campuses.


6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 18 of 27

Responsible Person/Group: Letters Council Additional Resources Requested: Additional writing tutors

Dissemination of Best Practices via Workshops. Podcasts, Emailed Handouts Plus Quiz Development

Action Plan for Outcome 3: This outcome will be assessed in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle to allow for a comparison of results. The faculty have determined that ENC 1102 and LIT 2000 (which are analogous courses) are the most appropriate courses in which to assess students in the area of information literacy and to acquire some formative data related to their performance in this area. In ENC 1101, students are given only a very rudimentary introduction to information literacy competencies. Best practices in assessment suggest that when assessing student learning outcomes, some consideration should be given to whether students have been given the opportunity to develop/practice the competencies that they are being assessed for. Assessing students for this competency in these courses that represent the second stage in the progression of written communication courses is more appropriate and will provide a more accurate picture of student performance in this area. The faculty have determined that we will use a multiple-choice quiz to assess this outcome in the upcoming cycle. The faculty feel that it is difficult to assess this information literacy competency within the context of written assignments because faculty readers often find it challenging to separate a consideration of the information literacy components from an assessment of overall writing quality. Using a multiple-choice instrument will also allow for the possibility of item analysis and the ability to pinpoint the areas in which students need additional help in a more focused way. Faculty have developed a list of best instructional practices for the information literacy competencies for which the achievement targets were not met. A link to this document is included in the WEAVE assessment plan. By October 2011, this list will be distributed to all English faculty so that they can begin to implement these strategies in their courses. These practices will be recommended for use in all composition courses because it is believed that they will help to promote student success in this learning outcome area. To ensure that students have comparable learning experiences across campuses and modalities, the list of suggested curricular modifications will be disseminated through multiple modes to facilitate broad-ranging faculty involvement in the implementation of these curricular interventions. The material will be e-mailed to all faculty and posted in the Letters Council's Blackboard community. Additionally, the Letters Council will create and disseminate a video podcast by December 2011 in which they will outline the components of the action plan so that distance learning and adjunct faculty will be more engaged in the process. Liberal arts deans at all campuses will also be asked to assist in disseminating pertinent information regarding this plan to English faculty. The faculty also recognize that good student writing performances are linked to the quality of the writing prompts that they are given. The Letters Council will host an AFPD workshop by December 2012 to help faculty develop effective writing prompts. This workshop will be open to all faculty who are interested in teaching writing, not just those in the Communications discipline. A list of potential topics for the in-class essay will also be distributed electronically and via the Blackboard community so that faculty will have the option of selecting appropriate topics from this pre-determined list. A resource that would assist the faculty in this discipline in fostering gains in student performance in this learning outcome area is the creation of additional writing tutor positions at each of the campuses.


6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 19 of 27

Projected Completion Date: 01/08/2012 Responsible Person/Group: Letters Council and Deans Additional Resources Requested: Additional Writing Tutors

Speech Communication

Speech faculty will host a Nonverbal Communication Workshop on January 7, 2011, to share nonverbal communication exercises. Speech faculty will increase time spent on teaching nonverbal communication in their speech courses and will incorporate new nonverbal communication exercises.



Implementation Description: Activities will be incorporated in speech classes during the spring semester 2011. Projected Completion Date: 05/05/2011 Responsible Person/Group: Karen Otto as Speech Council Chair and the appropriate campus associate deans and campus deans of liberal arts. Additional Resources Requested: Funds to purchase videos on nonverbal communciation for each campus.

Standardization of Assignment and Rubric

Action Plan for Outcome 2: In the area of speech communication, great strides were made in improving organization. This is reflected in the scores achieved by the students in the face-to-face courses. We need to work in our online classes to make sure we are meeting the needs of our students to improve the scores in organization. The full-time faculty will partner with online instructors to set clear expectations for the students as well as the faculty teaching the online courses. This outcome will be assessed in all speech courses in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle to allow for a comparison of results, with particular attention being given to performance by modality. The Speech Council will work with Open Campus administration to ensure that distance-learning faculty have better awareness of the goals they are seeking to achieve with students and to promote a more collaborative environment, fostering greater student achievement in oral communication. The Speech faculty will use the same informative speech as a measure for this outcome. However, in the 2011-2012 cycle, the assignment will be standardized to ensure that faculty are using an identical assignment rubric and expectations. It is the belief of the faculty that this kind of standardization is important so that results will not be impacted by flaws in assignment design. There have been numerous difficulties in completing assessments over the past few years due to poor equipment and lack of technological assistance. To be able to hear each speaker and to assess fairly and correctly, each campus needs a standard camera and lapel microphone. The cost to acquire the best equipment possible in order to standardize the assessments is approximately $5000.00.


6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 20 of 27

Responsible Person/Group: Speech Council


Action Plan for Outcome 2: In the area of speech communication, great strides were made in improving subject knowledge. This is reflected in the scores achieved by the students in the face-to-face courses. We need to work in our online classes to make sure we are meeting the needs of our students to improve the scores in subject knowledge. This outcome will be assessed in all speech courses in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle to allow for a comparison of results, with particular attention being given to performance by modality. The full-time faculty will partner with online instructors to set clear expectations for the students as well as the faculty teaching the online courses. The Speech Council will work with Open Campus administration to ensure that distance-learning faculty have better awareness of the goals they are seeking to achieve with students and to promote a more collaborative environment, fostering greater student achievement in oral communication. The Speech faculty will use the same informative speech as a measure for this outcome. However, in the 2011-2012 cycle, the assignment will be standardized to ensure that faculty are using an identical assignment rubric and expectations. It is the belief of the faculty that this kind of standardization is important so that results will not be impacted by flaws in assignment design. There have been numerous difficulties in completing assessments over the past few years due to poor equipment and lack of technological assistance. To be able to hear each speaker and to assess fairly and correctly, each campus needs a standard camera and lapel microphone. The cost to acquire the best equipment possible in order to standardize the assessments is approximately $5000.00.

Established in Cycle: 2010-2011 Implementation Status: Planned Priority: High Projected Completion Date: 01/08/2012 Responsible Person/Group: Speech Council Additional Resources Requested: cameras and lapel microphones Budget Amount Requested: $5,000.00 (recurring)


Action Plan for Outcome 3: The target was not met for this outcome. We need to work in our online classes to make sure we are meeting the needs of our students to improve the scores in information literacy. This outcome will be assessed in all speech courses in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle to allow for a comparison of results, with particular attention being given to performance by modality. The full-time faculty will partner with online instructors to set clear expectations for the students as well as the faculty teaching the online courses. The Speech Council will work with Open Campus administration to ensure that distance-learning faculty have better awareness of the goals they are seeking to achieve with students and to promote a more collaborative environment, fostering greater student achievement in oral communication. The Speech faculty will use the same informative speech as a measure for this outcome. However, in the 2011-2012 cycle, the assignment will be standardized to ensure that faculty are using an identical assignment rubric and expectations. It is the belief of the faculty that this kind of standardization is important so that results will not be impacted by flaws in assignment design. There have been numerous difficulties in completing assessments over the past few years due to poor equipment and lack of technological assistance. To be able to hear each speaker and to assess fairly and correctly, each campus needs a standard camera and lapel microphone. The cost to acquire the best equipment

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 21 of 27

possible in order to standardize the assessments is approximately $5000.00.


Standardization of Assignment and Rubric Plus Compilation of Sample Speeches

Action Plan for Outcome 4: The target was not met for this outcome. Students performed poorly in this area across all modalities. The Speech Council is very concerned about students' performance in both the verbal and nonverbal dimensions of oral communication. Both of these dimensions of delivery will be a major focus of the Speech Council's curricular interventions for the 2011-2012 assessment cycle. The Speech Council will create a compilation of student speeches that instructors can require students to watch that will give greater understanding of the expectations of a well-delivered speech and will encourage students to critique student speeches in areas of vocal and nonverbal delivery. Overall, faculty will be encouraged to give more focus in their classes on improving delivery skills. The performance of students in online courses, in particular, highlights that we need to work in our online classes to make sure we are meeting the needs of our students to improve the scores in nonverbal delivery. This outcome will be assessed in all speech courses in the 2011-2012 assessment cycle to allow for a comparison of results, with particular attention being given to performance by modality. The full-time faculty will partner with online instructors to set clear expectations for the students as well as the faculty teaching the online courses. The Speech Council will work with Open Campus administration to ensure that distance-learning faculty have better awareness of the goals they are seeking to achieve with students and to promote a more collaborative environment, fostering greater student achievement in oral communication. The Speech faculty will use the same informative speech as a measure for this outcome. However, in the 2011-2012 cycle, the assignment will be standardized to ensure that faculty are using an identical assignment rubric and expectations. It is the belief of the faculty that this kind of standardization is important so that results will not be impacted by flaws in assignment design. There have been numerous difficulties in completing assessments over the past few years due to poor equipment and lack of technological assistance. To be able to hear each speaker and to assess fairly and correctly, each campus needs a standard camera and lapel microphone. The cost to acquire the best equipment possible in order to standardize the assessments is approximately $5000.00.


Written Communication

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 22 of 27

Faculty will implement 2 of 5 best practices: Documentation practice through "Exercise Central," one graded assignment requiring students to demonstrate critical thinking about sources, an academic integrity agreement or contract, use of "turnitin.com," and classroom activity designed to provide hands-on practice for citing and integrating sources.


Measure: Thesis-based essay | Outcome/Objective: Citing Sources

Implementation Description: Practices will be implemented in the spring semester 2011. Projected Completion Date: 05/05/2011 Responsible Person/Group: Nancy Lany and Herschel Shepard as Letters Council co-chairs and the appropriate campus associate deans and deans of liberal arts. Additional Resources Requested: Create database of sample assignments that meet the artifact parameters. Arrange training through AFPD centered on helping instructors develop their own assignments in line with the assessment and the best practice recommendations. Funds to compensate adjunct faculty for attending workshops are requested.


For the 2010-2011 cycle, faculty developed a list of best instructional practices for the written communication competencies (see attached document); the faculty has decided to continue using these best practices, but given that approximately 25% of our students still need to improve their ability to write adequate thesis statements and support their claims with appropriate evidence, we also will integrate Smart-thinking technology and Turnitin's "Grademark" option as best practice options. This list will be distributed to all English faculty so that they can begin to implement these strategies in their courses. These practices will be recommended for use in all composition courses because it is believed that they will help to promote student success in these learning outcome areas. To ensure that students have comparable learning experiences across campuses and modalities, the list of suggested curricular modifications will be disseminated through multiple modes to facilitate broad-ranging faculty involvement in the implementation of these curricular interventions. The material will be e-mailed to all faculty and posted in the Letters Council's Blackboard community. We will also distribute rubrics and best practices to tutors in the various campus LLC's.


Measure: Thesis-based essay | Outcome/Objective: Use of Appropriate Evidence in Written and Oral Messages

Implementation Description: The faculty has organized into an eight-person committee to address action plan modifications, and those modifications will be presented to the Letters' Council in the fall.The final best practices document will be

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 23 of 27

e-mailed to all faculty and posted in the Letters Council's Blackboard community. We will also distribute rubrics and best practices to tutors in the various campus LLC's. Responsible Person/Group: Letters Council


For the 2010-2011 cycle, faculty developed a list of best instructional practices for the written communication competencies (see attached document); the faculty has decided to continue using these best practices, but given that approximately 25% of our students still need to improve their organizational skills, we also will integrate Smart-thinking technology and Turnitin's "Grademark" option as best practice options. This list will be distributed to all English faculty so that they can begin to implement these strategies in their courses. These practices will be recommended for use in all composition courses because it is believed that they will help to promote student success in these learning outcome areas. To ensure that students have comparable learning experiences across campuses and modalities, the list of suggested curricular modifications will be disseminated through multiple modes to facilitate broad-ranging faculty involvement in the implementation of these curricular interventions. The material will be e-mailed to all faculty and posted in the Letters Council's Blackboard community. We will also distribute rubrics and best practices to tutors in the various campus LLC's.


Measure: Thesis-based essay | Outcome/Objective: Organization of Written and Oral Messages


Dissemination of Best Practices and Alteration of Measure

The faculty has decided to continue implementing two of the five information literacy best practices (see attached document) established in the previous cycle into ENC 1102 and Lit 2000 courses: documentation practice through "Exercise Central," one graded assignment requiring students to demonstrate critical thinking about sources, an academic integrity agreement or contract, use of "turnitin.com," and classroom activity designed to provide hands-on practice for citing and integrating sources. Given our students' continuing struggle to understand how to correctly integrate sources into academic essays, we will change our measure, editing the quiz to focus on three essential information literacy skills: academic honesty, paraphrasing, and quoting.The faculty has organized into a five-person committee to address measure modifications, and those modifications will be presented to the Letters Council in the fall.


6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 24 of 27

Measure: Information Literacy Quiz | Outcome/Objective: Citing Sources

Implementation Description: Best practices will be disseminated to all faculty via email and made available in the Letters Council Blackboard shell. The faculty has organized into a five-person committee to address measure modifications, and those modifications will be presented to the Letters Council in the fall. Responsible Person/Group: Letters Council

Evaluation of Information Action Plan

Our scores show a vast improvement. The Speech Council partnered with the Open Campus Administration to improve the quality of the online speech courses. We developed a rubric to gain greater consistency of expectations. Our scores reflect the work done over the past year.


Measure: Informative speech (org, evidence, citing sources) | Outcome/Objective: Citing Sources

Nonverbal Delivery Action Plan Nonverbal delivery will be assessed in the 2012-213 cycle to continue to improve assessment results. We will work to implement practice sessions among the students in each of the speech courses in order to allow the students time to work on their speech delivery.



Responsible Person/Group: Speech council under the leadership of Karen Otto

Organization Action Plan

Based upon last year's results we worked with Open Campus to improve the quality of the online speech course offerings. We made great strides this year and will continue to work with them over the next year to enhance the quality of the online speech course offerings and promote consistency among delivery methods. Our scores for this year reflect the work that was done this year to have consistency in our rubric for scoring for student speeches.

Established in Cycle: 2011-2012 Implementation Status: In-Progress Priority: Medium

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 25 of 27

Relationships (Measure | Outcome/Objective):

Measure: Informative speech (org, evidence, citing sources) | Outcome/Objective: Organization of Written and Oral Messages


Subject Knowledge Action Plan

Our scores reflect great achievement in the area of subject knowledge. We worked with Open Campus to improve the quality of the online speech courses and our scores reflect this work. We worked toward greater consistency in our expectations by developing a common rubric. Our scores reflect our efforts and we are encouraged by the outcome.


Measure: Informative speech (org, evidence, citing sources) | Outcome/Objective: Use of Appropriate Evidence in Written and Oral Messages


Vocal Delivery Action Plan

Vocal delivery will be assessed in the 2012-213 cycle to continue to improvement of assessment results. We will work to implement practice sessions among the students in each of the speech courses in order to allow the students time to work on their vocal delivery.


Measure: Informative Speech (vocal delivery) | Outcome/Objective: Vocal Delivery

Analysis Questions and Analysis Answers

1. (ALL) Describe up to three of the most significant/important improvements in your program or unit. What primary changes are you making to improve student learning (in academic programs and educational support units) or improve achievement of unit outcomes (for non-academic programs and educational support units) as a result of the findings?

Our comprehensive action plans for written communication, along with our improved measures and rubric, bolstered our success for both outcomes one and two (organization and content). Every instructor used at least three of the written

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 26 of 27

communication action plan's best practices in his or her course, and our students appeared to show improvement in their ability to establish a thesis, support it with relevant evidence, and demonstrate a clear progression of ideas. We streamlined the essay assignment this cycle, specifying that all essays were written without students having prior knowledge of the prompt(s) and were developed based upon personal experience, not outside material. We also provided a list of sample essay prompts designed to elicit the types of illustrative essays that reflect a clear progression of ideas. The rubric itself has been disseminated to other disciplines, and the faculty's long-term goal is for this rubric to be accepted across the curriculum to serve as a foundation for the College's assessment of student writing. Though some of its questions need to be revised, our information literacy measure afforded us the ability to disaggregate student success rates for the various information literacy skills required for college-level research work, data our 2010-2011 measure did not afford. Every instructor implemented at least three of the information literacy action plan's best practices in his or her course, and student awareness of the quiz may itself have emphasized the academic importance of information literacy as a whole. The Speech Council worked closely with the Open Campus administration to improve the quality of the online speech courses. Over several meetings we agreed to common course expectations and speech rubrics. We worked to have greater consistency in expectations across all faculty and delivery methods. Our implementation of a common rubric to assess the informative speeches produced excellent results as seen in meeting all achievement targets for the 2011-212 cycle.

2. (ACAD and EDUC SUPPORT ONLY) How do your outcome assessment findings differ by modality (“face-to-face,” hybrid, and distance education program delivery) and by location (if program is offered on more than one campus or center)? Please discuss the assessment data results and action plan college-wide and per campus, center, distance education, and military education, if applicable.

The written communication faculty noted the following imbalances in sample sizes by location and modality: no hybrids at all were sampled for the writing outcomes; only 14 artifacts were collected from online courses for the writing outcomes (versus 173 from face-to-face courses); only 19 artifacts were collected from online courses for the information literacy outcome (versus 149 face-to-face and 67 hybrid). The oral communication faculty noted an imbalance in sample size from the Downtown Campus. Only 9 student artifacts were assessed out of a total of 199. There were a few amount of hybrids sampled, especially in the information literacy portion. There were only 4 student artifacts out of 161 total assessed. The faculty therefore believes that a comparative analysis of the data using these parameters does not yield particularly meaningful or actionable information. It is the recommendation of all communications faculty that the sampling methodology be amended in future assessment cycles so that the sample sizes for modality will be more comparable and a comparative analysis by modality will be more meaningful. The faculty also strongly believes that disaggregating results by campus does not adequately account for the variables that could lead to the achievement gaps such results may suggest.

3. (ACAD) How have results been disseminated and discussed with advisory committee? Were all curriculum changes discussed with the Program Advisory Committee before submission to the Curriculum Committee?

The assessment results were disseminated to faculty in Written Communications (Letters Council) and Oral Communications (Speech Council) by the Office of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Members of the Letters Council and the Speech Council discussed the results, and these discussions led to the development of the current assessment plan. Neither council recommended any curriculum changes.

6/26/2012 10:56 AM Page 27 of 27

4. (ALL) Who was involved in the development of the plan/report?

The Letters Council (Written Communications) and the Speech Council (Oral Communications) invited all members of the discipline to discuss the development of the assessment plan. Once developed, the IE Process Facilitators entered the information approved by the councils.

5. (ACAD and EDUC SUPPORT) In assessment plan development and implementation, what process did you use to ensure sampling of all campuses, centers, high school dual enrollment, distance education, and military education, if applicable to your program?

The numbers and locations of the sections were representative of the distribution of classes of each type across the college. Specific sections selected were done so randomly with the exception of no faculty member selected for artifact submission for more than a single section. Where that occurred during sampling, another section was selected as a substitute. Based upon the recommendations of the Office of Student Analytics and Research, courses were sampled for artifact assessment based upon course enrollment patterns. Thus campuses or modalities with higher enrollment numbers were represented more heavily in the sample. Sample sizes by modality were also impacted by this methodology. Given the unevenness in sample sizes by location and modality, the faculty feels that a comparative analysis of the data using these parameters does not yield particularly meaningful or actionable information. It is the recommendation of the faculty that the sampling methodology be amended in future assessment cycles so that the sample sizes for modality will be more comparable and a comparative analysis by modality will be more meaningful. Additionally, the faculty feels that disaggregating results by campus does not necessarily lead to productive conversations about how to improve student learning because the variables that could lead to achievement gaps by campus are difficult to pinpoint.