Oral Discourse Results 2013-2014

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 2013-2014 assessment of students' oral discourse skills

Anthropology

Anth Comments

Anthropology conducted assessment of oral competency in Anth 204 - Human Ecology.   This year the course was composed of less than half majors, which is a lower proportion than usual.   Both majors and non-majors performed similarly in the assessment.   In this course the students and instructor used the same assessment instrument; the general rubric on oral discourse.  While the students rated one another less stringently than the instructor, there was a notable pattern in the ratios of scores within each of the rubric categories.  The students gave better scores for the quality of the Powerpoints, i.e. “Presentation”, considering that they are very techno-savvy and tend to expect a lot of graphics.  As is usually the case, almost all of the presentations were very good to excellent, as can be seen by the scores.  Most students that earned a score of “3” (i.e. “good”), in one category, had at least one “4”; thus at least one aspect of their presentation was excellent.  Students rated the quality of the delivery of the presentation i.e. "Expression" similar to the instructor, suggesting that their expectations are high, and supporting the overall results.  In the future Anthropology will continue to provide students with the opportunity for oral presentations across all levels.  We feel there is room to continue to raise the bar on the expectations of students in these presentations.  They are doing well now, perhaps they can do even better.

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

Communication

Comn Comments

Education

Educ Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.

English

Engl Comments

Delete this text and insert comment here.

Foreign Languages

ForL Comments

Geography

Geog Comments

Geological Sciences

GSci Comments

History

Hist Comments

History assessed student proficiency in oral discourse in presentations made in connection with the senior capstones.  In the fall and spring semesters, students enrolled in senior seminars (HIST 391) made in class presentations based on their research projects; students working on honors projects (HIST 393) or directed study senior papers (HIST 396) were required to present their work at Great Day, the Phi Alpha Theta (History Honors Society) regional conference, or in another public context.  Faculty submitted assessment data on 44 (of 60) senior projects. 

Assessment results reveal that our students are generally doing very well with oral presentations.  83.4% of assessed presentations either met or exceeded the proficiencies indicated on the College rubric, and only one presentation (out of 41 total assessed) fell into the “does not meet” category in each of the three skills.  Faculty comments noted that most students were articulate and well organized and that careful attention to oral presentations often had a positive effect on students’ ability to express and clarify their arguments in written work.  Unsurprisingly, students who had multiple opportunities to practice their work and who received critical feedback on early versions of the oral presentation tended to score highest (this was especially evident for the students who presented both at Great Day and Phi Alpha Theta).

During the 2013-4 academic year, the department discussed ways to foster greater student mastery of oral discourse skills.  This included working oral discourse into the department’s learning outcomes and drafting a supplemental rubric, which focuses on the persuasiveness of the student’s thesis and the use of evidence in the presentation.  In an effort to encourage reinforcement of oral discourse skills throughout the major, the department also agreed that oral presentations of some type based on research projects (not necessarily a formal paper presentation, but some kind of account of the conclusions, evidence, and significance of the project) should be a formal requirement in the skills seminars (HIST 220 and 221).  In future years, the department also will work to raise response rates, as our aim is to assess 100% of senior projects (this year we have results from 44 out of 60, or 73%, of the senior projects).

Several broader issues with the assessment of oral discourse are worth mentioning.  First, the College rubrics are perhaps due for revision.  The rubric for assessing student work focuses on three main areas (organization, expression, and presentation) whereas departments report out on a single learning outcome (“develop proficiency in oral discourse”).  Clarification on the relationship between the rubric and what data should be reported would help eliminate confusion.  Likewise, there is not a clear rubric for assessing the second oral discourse learning outcome (“Evaluate an oral presentation according to established criteria”).  This outcome proved confusing for several faculty and History consequently did not submit a score this year.  Second, in discussions of oral discourse assessment in the department, some faculty noted that the existing rubric seems to focus on stylistic rather than substantive issues – a student could, it was argued, present work that was inaccurate or badly flawed in argument or use of evidence but still score very highly on organization ("I followed the ideas easily; the main point was very clear; individual points were well developed”), expression (“the speaker used language that was vivid, clear and appropriate; the presentation was highly articulate”), and presentation (“I found the speaker very engaging; the speaker’s delivery was fluent; the speaker frequently looked up from notes”).  To address this, the department developed a supplemental rubric based on an AAC&U model that includes quality of argument and use of supporting evidence (this will be detailed in the department’s assessment report later this year).  Finally, one faculty member noted that the oral discourse learning outcome and rubrics are narrowly conceived and tend to focus on formal presentations.  Other types of oral discourse skills - for example seminar discussions of course content, roundtable discussions of research projects, questions and answer sessions, and other more interactive types of oral discourse - are also important, may be more useful to students after graduation, and might be more explicitly written into the learning outcome.

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 of those meeting expectations have risen, and fortunately, the numbers of those who did not meet expectations declined.

Students were fairly successful in courses like Musc 227 and Musc 311 where numerous presentations were required, thus giving students more opportunities to develop their skills.  All of the courses used for this round of assessment (e.g. Musc 227, 310, 311, 315, and 388) required written papers or musical project to be provided along with the oral presentation, as well as an outline to use while speaking.  It is the view of the faculty that the majority of our students in these classes demonstrated the ability to develop strong arguments and express their ideas in an articulate and engaging manner.  We feel that the results also reflect our ongoing commitment to pedagogical strategies that impact overall student motivation and learning.  For those students whom we were not able to reach as successfully as we would like, we have discussed alternate teaching tools that can be used for those with more varying learning challenges.

Submitted by Amy Stanley

Philosophy

Phil Comments