To develop student competencies in locating, understanding, assessing, and reporting communication research findings. This includes training in the use of both print and electronic media sources and focuses attention on published scholarly research.
Objective
Research Literacy
Graduates will be able to understand, assess, and report the results of communication research.
Indicator
Student Research Literacy
We will measure Goal 3 with an annual evaluation of a sample of student papers involving reviews of research literature assigned in such courses as Introduction to Communication Theory and Communication Theory. We will use a numeric scale as follows: 1=fails to meet the goal, 2=minimally meets the goal, 3=satisfactorily meets the goal, 4=meets the goal in an exemplary fashion, 5=exceeds expectations in meeting the goal.
Criterion
Grade for Literature Reviews
An average grade of 3 is the criterion for satisfying the target outcome. This average will be taken over all literature reviews and all reviewers (faculty committee).
Finding
Research Literacy
Three faculty members appointed by the Chair evaluated a sample of 10 literature reviews from an upper-level course and assigned an average score of 3.33.
Action
Research Literacy
The faculty will repeat this evaluation in the next reporting period but will expand both the number of papers examined and courses represented.
Goal
Application of Theory
To develop student understanding and utilization of rhetorical and communication theory in all major communication contexts, including the development of critical thinking skills. These contexts include interpersonal and family relationships, small group professional and business situations, and public/media messages.
Objective
Applying Rhetorical and Communication Theory
Graduates will be able to apply rhetorical and communication theory to specific communication contexts.
Indicator
Student Application of Theory
We will measure attainment of Goal 1 through an annual evaluation of a sample of final student term papers in 300 and 400 level courses, such as Intercultural Communication, Small Group Communication, Nonverbal Communication, Communication Theory, and Family Communication. We will use a numeric scale as follows: 1=fails to meet the goal, 2=minimally meets the goal, 3=satisfactorily meets the goal, 4=meets the goal in an exemplary fashion, 5=exceeds expectations in meeting the goal.
Criterion
Grade for Term Papers
An average grade of 3 is the criterion for satisfying the target outcome. This average will be taken over all term papers and all reviewers (faculty committee).
Finding
Application of Theory
Three faculty members appointed by the Chair evaluated seven term papers from an upper-level class and assigned an average score of 3.43.
Action
Application of Theory
The faculty will repeat this evaluation in the next reporting period but will expand both the number of papers examined and courses represented.
Goal
Communication Presentations
To train students to make a variety of effective communication presentations in different professional, educational, and social contexts. These presentations include public speeches, group discussion, and argumentation and debate.
Objective
Communication Presentations
Graduates will be able to communicate effectively in a variety of oral communication situations.
Indicator
Student Presentations
We will measure attainment of Goal 2 through an annual evaluation of a sample of recorded final student presentations given in such courses as Public Speaking, Speech for Business and the Professions, Speech for Teachers, and the like. We will use a numeric scale as follows: 1=fails to meet the goal, 2=minimally meets the goal, 3=satisfactorily meets the goal, 4=meets the goal in an exemplary fashion, 5=exceeds expectations in meeting the goal.
Criterion
Grade for Presentations
An average grade of 3 is the criterion for satisfying the target outcome. This average will be taken over all presentations and all reviewers (faculty committee).
Finding
Communication Presentations
Three faculty members appointed by the Chair evaluated a sample of 30 recorded speeches from two performance classes and assigned an average score of 2.67.
Action
Communication Presentations
The faculty as a whole will discuss the reasons for not meeting the criterion and offer suggestions for improvement. Evaluation will be repeated in the next reporting period using a larger sample of presentations from a greater variety of courses.