Page History

...

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. 

...

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.

...

Submitted by Amy Stanley

Philosophy

Phil Comments