April 1, 1999
I. Background: Development of the Plan
Following appointment of a departmental Outcomes Assessment Coordinator in fall, 1997, the Coordinator began meeting regularly with the department Head to discuss approaches to assessment. In these discussions a general approach emerged that subsequently was discussed informally with appropriate faculty members. Based on these discussions, the proposed approach was refined and presently formally to the departmental Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee approved the approach, and the Head proceeded to draft a detailed plan for discussion by the departmental faculty. The faculty discussed and approved the plan in March, 1999.
We have taken the assessment mandate as an occasion to review the requirements for our undergraduate major (Appendix 1), which have not been changed in more than 20 years. The "Rhetorical and Communication Theory Option," which is chosen by nearly all of our students, has a distribution requirement in which students must take a minimum amount of work in each of four broad disciplinary areas, supplemented by cognate work which may be taken outside the department. This structure represented the organizing rubrics of our discipline at the time it was devised, ensures a fair amount of breadth in students' programs, and provides students with great freedom to choose courses of interest to them. The "Interpretation Option," which has been chosen by a steadily dwindling number of students over the last two decades, provides considerable focus and depth in an area that was an important focus of disciplinary attention at the time the current structure of our major was implemented.
Our undergraduate major is one of the most popular in Liberal Arts and Sciences, and indications from the campus' regular alumni surveys and other information suggest that graduates are successful and believe that their education prepared them well to succeed. Nevertheless, for some years the feeling had been growing among faculty members that the old structure had become outmoded. We have done an effective job over the years of reallocating resources and revising and creating courses to keep abreast and ahead of disciplinary developments but-as examination of the programs of graduating seniors over successive years confirmed-the present requirements for our major do not assist students to construct programs of study which take full advantage of the curriculum. It was judged that more structured requirements would be desirable in order to assure appropriate focus and adequate coherence in students' programs, and guarantee that each student attained the minimal competencies that now are expected of all Speech Communication graduates. Moreover, the evolution and natural development of the discipline's teaching and research have relegated work in Interpretation to a peripheral role, and there is no longer justification for continuing to offer a separate emphasis within the major devoted to Interpretation.
Thus, the first and most important step in developing an assessment plan was to consider what structure of requirements would most effectively assure the undergraduate learning outcomes that would best serve our students. We consulted with our undergraduate adviser, evaluated the results of the campus' surveys of our graduates over a period of many years, considered trends in the requirements for undergraduate majors in counterpart departments in other universities, and weighed carefully the feedback from recent graduates we regularly receive through our career nights and other channels of communication with alumni. The outcome of our deliberations is a revised structure for our major presented in Appendix 2. In the proposed new structure, we have moved from a distributional model that was designed to represent the organization of our discipline to a competency-based model that will best prepare our students for the varied career paths which Speech Communication graduates pursue. The new requirements will more effectively assure that all graduates: (a) have broad acquaintance with our discipline's theory and research; (b) pursue coherent courses of study which focus in depth on one of two broad domains of theory, research, and practical application-interpersonal and organizational communication, and public communication; (c) complement their work in the department with judiciously selected supporting courses in other units; and (d) develop at an advanced level the communication skills expected of all our graduates: in argument and reasoning, the analysis and use of evidence, persuasion, and oral presentations.
We also considered whether fundamental changes were needed at the graduate level in order to assure that our students received the best education and preparation that we could offer them. During the last decade, especially, we have evaluated on an almost annual basis the appropriateness of the requirements of our master's and doctoral programs in order to assure the quality of our students' education. As a result, the effective requirements for graduate degrees have evolved to keep pace with disciplinary developments and students' needs. A particular outcome of this process of continuous evaluation has been creation of a separately defined program for the growing number of students who seek master's level education as communication specialists to prepare for a variety of careers in such fields of communication consulting and training and development. The available evidence-students' success in securing appropriate positions, graduates' career success, feedback from graduate alumni and their coworkers-did not indicate need for programmatic changes in graduate requirements.
II. Desired Learning Outcomes
At the undergraduate level, ours is a liberal arts degree. Graduates work in a great variety of occupations and pursue advanced study in a number of different fields. Speech Communication students are best prepared for the many career paths open to them when: (a) they have broad acquaintance with communication theory and research; (b) they understand in depth both relevant theory and research and its practical applications to a broad domain of communication practice-the domain of interpersonal and organizational communication practices, or the domain of public communication practices; and, (c) they develop at an advanced level key communication skills expected of Speech Communication graduates in virtually all occupations-skills in argument and reasoning, the analysis and use of evidence, persuasion, and oral presentations.
At the applied master's level, students prepare for careers as communication specialists. They are well prepared to succeed when: (a) they understand at an advanced level theory and research in interpersonal communication and organizational communication; (b) they understand the applications of theory and research to communication in organizations; (c) they are able to apply appropriate diagnostic and remediation strategies and techniques to solving communication problems and enhancing the quality and effectiveness of communication in organizations; and, (d) they are able to provide effective instruction in communication principles and practices.
At the doctoral level, students prepare for careers as university faculty members. They are well prepared to succeed when: (a) they have developed effective instructional skills; (b) they have developed sophisticated mastery of theory and research in a disciplinary specialization; and, (c) they are able to devise and pursue a program of independent research that makes original contributions to the relevant research community.
III. Methods for Measuring the Success of Learning Outcomes
With the new requirements for our undergraduate major in place, we plan to assess the success of our preparation of undergraduates in the following ways. First, specific learning outcomes will be assessed by these means: (a) students' broad knowledge of communication theory and research will be assessed by their successful completion of the newly required survey course in the subject (SpCom 102); (b) their understanding of relevant theory and research and its practical applications within a focused domain of communication practice will be assessed by their successful completion of a suite of appropriate courses within the specified requirements of the public communication or interpersonal and organizational communication options of the major; and, (c) their mastery at an advanced level of key communication skills will be assessed by their successful completion of newly required advanced theory and performance courses in Persuasion (SpCom 221) and Argumentation (SpCom 223). Second, the following general indicators will be consulted to gauge students' overall success (that is, the relevance of specific learning outcomes to students' general, sustained career success): (a) the campus' annual surveys of alumni at regular intervals following completion of their degrees; and, (b) regular channels of communication with alumni (continuous informal communication with faculty members, feedback received from alumni at departmental career and placement events and activities, alumni reports of careers, advancement, and career changes received for distribution in the departmental newsletter and by other means). Third, current student opinion on relevant dimensions of evaluation will be examined by means of ICES evaluations in every course every semester as well as the Senior Survey on the Undergraduate Experience.
The success of our preparation of terminal master's students for communication specialist careers will be assessed by: (a) their successful completion of required theory and research courses in organizational and interpersonal communication; (b) their successful completion of required applied courses and practicums in applications of organizational communication research to diagnostic and remedial strategies and tactics in organizations; and (c) their successful performance in instructional roles as teaching assistants, reflected by their students' ICES evaluations and the judgments of course directors. Students' success also will be judged by three more general indicators: (a) the students' ability to secure suitable positions; (b) the students' assessments of the extent to which their study prepared them to succeed in their positions as reported in the campus' regular alumni surveys; and, (c) the students' career progress as reported to faculty and the department formally and informally.
The success of our preparation of doctoral students for university faculty careers will be judged by: (a) the students' success in securing suitable positions; (b) the students' career success. We maintain regular contact with doctoral alumni, through which we stay informed about their careers.
IV. Process for Using the Results
The department Head and Advisory Committee, in consultation with the undergraduate adviser, will formally review the results of outcomes indicators for the undergraduate major every three years, and will be charged to recommend curricular, programmatic, and other changes as indicated by these reviews.
The Director of Applied Communication Studies, who administers the terminal master's program for communication specialists, will formally review the results of outcomes indicators for this program every three years and will be charged to recommend curricular, programmatic, and other changes as indicated by these reviews.
The Director of Graduate Study will formally review the outcomes indicators for doctoral students every three years and will be charged to recommend curricular, programmatic, and other changes as indicated by these reviews.
V. Timetable for Implementation
The proposal to change requirements for the undergraduate major will be submitted for approval in fall, 1999. The outcomes assessment plan will be implemented immediately after the new requirements go into effect.
Plans for assessing outcomes of the terminal master's and doctoral programs will be implemented in AY 2000.
VI. Support Needs
None.