Oral Discourse Results 2010-2011

How to use this page

To enter your Oral Discourse assessment results on this page, follow these steps:

• Log in (above right).
• Click Edit.
• Choose the Rich Text tab above the edit box.
• Scroll down the page to find your department.
• Replace the question marks in the table with the appropriate numbers.
• Under the department comment heading, replace the boilerplate text with some Reflection on your results.
• Click Save.

Notes

• You may conduct your assessment in either the fall or spring semester.
• In the column labeled Total Number, indicate, for the semester in question, the number of students taking a course in your department in which a research project was required. In the column labeled Number Assessed, indicate the number of students assessed.
• Reflection on assessment results is a critical part of The Assessment Loop and is required by SUNY as part of general education assessment. (SUNY has issued its own loop-closing guidelines; you can view them here.) Your reflection should be guided by the following three questions (though the questions need not be answered separately): What did this assessment show you about the basic research skills of the students in the assessed courses? In light of your results, are there any actions that your department might take or should contemplate taking? Did you learn anything from this assessment that might benefit other general education areas?

Results of 2010-2011 assessment of students' oral discourse skills

Anthropology

Anth Comments

Oral discourse was assessed in Anth 110 (Introduction to Archaeology) and Anth 204 (Human Ecology). Students conducted peer review of oral presentations in both classes and these data reflect both the peer reviews and the professors assessments.   In Anth 110 students participated in a group research project and then presented their results orally.  All students presented their part of the project during a full class session devoted to each project.  In Anth 204 students conducted literature reviews and then presented their review to the class in an oral format.  One student who started Anth 110 did not complete the course, otherwise, all remaining students in the two courses were evaluated.  The results show that the vast majority of students meet or exceed the standards for oral proficiency as laid out in the assessment rubric.  Of the assessment categories, expression is consistently the lowest scoring category.  These data suggest that our students are relatively competent at organizing and creating presentations, but that they need continuing practice expressing their results to a group.  Consequently, the Department of Anthropology has decided to maintain its commitment to providing students with opportunities to orally present their research results in our courses.  This will continue to occur at each level of the program.  One of the problems we see with the current standards is that the bar they set is fairly low for exceeding the standards.  While this does not deter students from becoming orally proficient, it does limit our ability to assess the level of competency they are achieving.  In light of her findings in Anth 204, Barb Welker noted that she will continue to require all of her 200- and 300-level students to conduct a formal presentation of their literature reviews.  This year she included a library literacy component with conducting the literature review.  Kim Davies-Hoffman held a session in the library and instructed students on how to conduct advanced searches in areas of Human Ecology.  While that session and information may not have helped students in the delivery of their presentations,  fewer students floundered in their choice of topic and where to look for relevant research.  This certainly helped them conduct better research and got them motivated to begin their research earlier.  Very few students came at the last minute unsure of what to do.  Many had chosen their topics during or shortly after the library session as a result of seeing and hearing what areas are within and related to Human Ecology.  Likewise there were fewer problems with unacceptable (i.e. popular versus primary literature) references in the presentations and resulting papers.  She noted that, "in addition to the fact that students chose more varied and less traditional projects, I also believe that they uncovered more interesting research, making the presentations more interesting and expanding the classroom experience and assigned readings.  I will thus continue to include the library literacy component as part of oral competency and will post the rubric on the course page."

Art History

ArtH Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.

Art Studio

ArtS Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.

Biology

Biol Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.

Business

Business Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.

Chemistry

Chem Comments

Oral Discourse was evaluated in CHEM 352 (Chemistry Senior Seminar) or as apart of CHEM 398 (Chemistry Honor Thesis) both senior level courses offered only in the spring semester.  27 students were evaluated.  One student had to do a make-up and only had one evaluator.  For the purposes of reporting this one data point was removed.  The remaining 26 students were evaluated by 3-4 faculty members of the department using a standard rubric for Oral Discourse.  The evaluators 4-1 ratings in three different criteria were tallied and averaged.  If the average was above 3.7 the student was said to exceed expectations, if the average was between 3.0 - 3.7 the student was said to be meeting expectations, in the average was between 2.0 - 3.0 the student was said to be approaching expectations and an average score of less than 2.0 the student was said to be not meeting expectations.  Inter-rater reliability amongst the evaluators is a serious problem despite the use of a standard rubric.  The department rejected the suggestion of meeting after the first talk and agreeing upon the application of the rubric due to time commitments.

Communication

Comn Comments

Results for individual student oral discourse skills in Comn 362 and Comn 391 were encouraging, since 83% of those evaluated by the instructor either met or exceeded proficiency criteria on the Oral Discourse rubric. Furthermore, level of competency across the three criteria of organization, expression, and presentation were similar. Still, there is room for improvement. It is reasonable for the department to set a standard of success for oral discourse competency for students enrolled in upper-level courses in the following terms: At least 90% of students enrolled in upper-level Communication courses will either meet or exceed the three criteria of organization, expression, and presentation in public speaking assignments. While this year's assessment results show students are approaching this standard, they've not yet achieved it. The reader is directed to review, Ongoing Communication Assessment, 2010 to 2011, for more information about the procedure used by the department for this assessment cycle. Note that data for "evaluate an oral presentation..." is not available for the courses where assessment was conducted (Comn 362 and Comn 391) because, while students evaluated group reports, they were not required to assess individual student presenters. However, data for student evaluations of group reports, using the criteria of the Oral Discourse rubric, have been tabulated on the "child page" noted above.  

Communicative Disorders and Sciences

CDSc Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.

Computer Science

CSci Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.

Education

Educ Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.

English

Engl Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.

Foreign Languages

ForL Comments

Proficiency in oral discourse was measured using the rubric that evaluated content, organization and expression of ideas via oral presentations given in class on an assigned topic.  The results were promising in that 76% of our majors and minors (French, German, and Spanish) were able to exceed or meet expectations. This past year, we have moved to make oral proficiency a priority in our classrooms and have worked to encourage the students to speak in the target language more.  Our future goals are to include the ACTFL proficiency standards as part of the learning outcomes of our courses.  In addition, all Adolescent Education majors are required to take and pass the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Exam as a requirement for graduation.

Geography

Geog Comments

The Geography Department assesses oral discourse based on oral presentations delivered by seniors in Geog 374: Geographic Thought.  This course is a required capstone course for Geography majors, so the data represent students who have nearly completed their degree requirements.  

Geological Sciences

GSci Comments

Students registered in GSCI 391, a required course, must give two oral presentations (one in the fall, one in the spring) and evaluate their peers.  Talks are evaluated on three criteria (quality of content, quality of visuals, quality of delivery) and scored on a five point scale.  We consider an average of >4.5 to exceed expectations, >4.0 to meet expectations, and >3.5 to be approaching expectations.  After each talk the presenters are leave the room and are orally evaluated by the remaining students with the faculty recording their comments.  The faculty pass those comments on to the presenters anonymously in person and in writing.  Students use the feedback from their talk in the fall semester to improve their talk in the spring semester.  Of the 30 students evaluated, 28 improved from fall to spring.  The remaining two both gave good presentations in the fall and received negligibly lower scores in the spring. 

History

Hist Comments

The History Department conducts assessment of oral discourse in Hist221: Research in History, a required course for majors and concentrators, with a focus on the issues and skills related to doing primary research. Students are required to complete a research paper based on primary research. The students were evaluated based on required presentations (conducted in class over two to three class sessions toward the end of the semester) based on their final papers. The department offered a total of 8 sections of Hist221, with 132 students. The assessment was based on 34 students in two sections, one each semester.

 One instructor noted that the quality of the presentations seemed to be more closely linked to the quality of the overall research (including organization, argument, and use of appropriate sources), than it did to speaking skills and comfort. The instructor also found that requiring presentations before the final paper was due helped students clarify and improve their arguments. Another instructor observed that most students did well with the presentations and that some students who struggled with their written work showed a good grasp of content in their oral presentations, even when they still had trouble articulating a compelling argument. Both instructors emphasized the benefit of the question and answer sessions following the presentations and the extent to which students were thoughtful, respectful, and able to make useful suggestions.

Mathematics

Math Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.

Music

Musc Comments

The department’s goal is always to have at least 70% either exceed or meet expectations.  Because students are given multiple chances in one on one meetings to refine their presentations, the numbers have continued to be acceptable.

Philosophy

Phil Comments

Courses assessed were seminars, one in Fall 2010 and one in Spring 2011, in which oral presentations are required. The presentations were 30 minutes on a weekly topic and consisted of lecture and responding to questions from the instructor and students.

Physics and Astronomy

Phys Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.

Political Science and International Relations

PlSc/IntR Comments

In conversations with alumni and in a survey of current majors conducted several years ago a consistent theme was the lack of emphasis on public speaking within the Political Science and International Relations degree programs. To address this concern, the faculty in the department have made a concerted effort to incorporate public speaking opportunities within all the courses, but particularly in 200 and 300-level classes.  The results presented above summarize the assessment of group presentations made in two 200-level courses and one 300-level course in the spring semester.  Because these numbers are aggregate across three different courses, several students were included more than one time because they were enrolled in two of the courses assessed.  However, each course had different members of the presenting group and different rubrics for assessing proficiency.  For the development of proficiency in oral discourse, more than 10% of students assessed did not meet expectations.  This may in part reflect the relatively new emphasis on public speaking within the majors with both students and faculty trying to determine reasonable expectations for performance.  The department is considering several ways to address this relatively large minority of students who do not meet oral discourse expectations.  One option is to provide even more public speaking opportunities for students and to make at least some of these opportunities mandatory.  Another option is to spend more time in class discussing expectations for oral presentations and critiquing performances.   For the second component, evaluating an oral presentation according to established criteria, each class created their own rubric for evaluating the group presentations.  The criteria were different for each class.  The class discussed their own expectations for an oral presentation and gave specific examples of what they considered meeting and not meeting the criteria they created.  This rubric was then used by the professor and the students to evaluate each presentation.  In this case, students were quite critical of their peers and in many cases considered the presentations below expectations. In the future, it might be useful for the class to talk more about their expectations, providing specific examples.  For these classes, the presentations were at the end of the semester with no opportunity for feedback.  In the future, it might be useful to have the presentations earlier in the semester so that presenters might receive feedback and perhaps improve their final presentations. 

Psychology

Psyc Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.

Sociology

Socl Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.

Theatre

Thea Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.