2010-2011 Academic Assessment Report
Communication Arts
I. Brief Summary of Assessment Plan
In Spring 2011, the Communication Arts faculty collected data in the form of videotaped
speeches given in one required course in the Communication Arts major: SPCH-S228
Argumentation and Debate. These speeches were used to determine student presentational
skills, outcome #1. See the chart below, which articulates both what was examined and the
performance criteria for this outcome.
Given that S228 comes early in the communication arts program, the faculty has set a
benchmark success rate of 50-65% of the students demonstrating effective presentational
skills including sustained and controlled eye contact, effective vocal animation without
distraction, body movement that enhances content, and consistent and appropriate
management of visual aids (see chart below). (Visual aids were not required for the
assignment, so they were not assessed for this report.)
Goal #1
Outcome
Components
Performance Criteria
To employ
strategic
communication
in varied
channels and
contexts of
contemporary
human
communication
Students will demonstrate
effective presentational skills
Eye contact
*Insufficient and uncontrolled,
*Variable, *Sustained and
controlled
*Unanimated & distracting,
*Little animation but no
distractions, *Effectively
animated without distraction
Vocal qualities
Body movement
Management of visual aids
*Distracts from content, *does
not distract from content or
enhance content *Enhances
content
*inappropriate selection
and/or use of visual aids,
selection & use of visual aids
are inconsistently appropriate;
visual aid selection and use
consistently appropriate
II. Assessment Methods
The communication arts faculty videotaped a set of debates that occurred in S228. The
course was taught by a resident Communication Arts faculty member, who also recorded
the speeches. A total of seven students were evaluated.
The assignment description for the speeches is attached to this report as an appendix. The
debates were assessed by three Communication Arts resident faculty members according
to the performance criteria. For example, the eye contact component was assessed based
on whether the eye contact in a given speech was “insufficient and uncontrolled,”
“variable,” or “sustained and controlled.” While no quantitative measurements were
recorded, such as the percentage of eye contact per speech, this performance criterion was
assessed based on the evaluators’ skills and experiences as instructors of communication
arts courses. Speeches were rated on each component by assigning a number value to each
descriptive performance criterion (with 1 being the lowest, 3 the highest). Student
component scores were evaluated individually and also averaged for each speech to award
an overall score for each speech based on the 3-point scale. The three reviewers’ scores
were then averaged (please see Table 1 below). The report provides information for each
student speech by component and overall score.
III. Description of Assessment Results
While several students scored 1 on specific items, every student but one (Student 6) scored
at least a 2.0 overall average. Therefore, we can conclude that 6 of the 7 students assessed
(or 86%) satisfy the outcome of “demonstrating effective presentational skills.” This
exceeds our benchmark of 50-65%. In terms of the individual components, 86% of students
met the standard for component 1, 86% for component 2, and 100% for component 3.
Table 1. Results by individual student.
Student
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5
Student 6
Student 7
Component
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
Eye contact
Vocal qualities
Body movement
Eye contact
Vocal qualities
Body movement
Eye contact
Vocal qualities
Body movement
Eye contact
Vocal qualities
Body movement
Eye contact
Vocal qualities
Body movement
Eye contact
Vocal qualities
Body movement
Eye contact
Vocal qualities
Body movement
Review
1
Review
2
Review 3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
1
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
3
Average of all
Components by
reviewer
Reviewer 1: 2.66
Reviewer 2: 2.33
Reviewer 3: 2.33
Reviewer 1: 2.66
Reviewer 2: 1.66
Reviewer 3: 2.0
Reviewer 1: 3.0
Reviewer 2: 2.0
Reviewer 3: 1.66
Reviewer 1: 2.66
Reviewer 2: 3.0
Reviewer 3: 2.0
Reviewer 1: 3.0
Reviewer 2: 2.66
Reviewer 3: 2.33
Reviewer 1: 1.66
Reviewer 2: 1.33
Reviewer 3: 2.0
Reviewer 1: 3.0
Reviewer 2: 2.33
Reviewer 3: 2.33
Overall
Average (all
reviewers)
2.44
2.11
2.22
2.55
2.66
1.66
2.55
IV. Using Assessment for Program Improvement
The analysis of these speeches indicates that Communication Arts majors are doing well in
terms of presentational skills. The benchmarks set by the Communication Arts faculty have
been far exceeded. However, interpretation of these results must take into account the
small sample size of 20.5%—seven students were assessed, while at the time
Communication Arts had 34 majors. The faculty will work to gather a larger sample of
student work for next year’s assessment. However, given the success of the students
sampled, no recommendations for curricular change are given at this time.
V. Dissemination of Results
These results were distributed to the communication arts faculty, the Chair of Humanities,
the Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences, and the Office of Academic Affairs via e-mail, and
have been posted on the Humanities Assessment webpage. Communication arts faculty will
discuss these results further in an upcoming meeting.
Appendix A. Parliamentary Debate Assignment for S228 Argumentation and Debate
S 228
Parliamentary Debate
General Description:
Parliamentary debate differs from Lincoln-Douglas debate in several ways. It is improvisational in nature
and therefore requires participants to be a) well-educated and b) good at thinking and arguing “on their feet.”
Parliamentary debate is modeled after British Parliament and is intended to be educational, to enhance the
argumentative skills of participants, and to be fun (yes, fun!). It is more “freewheeling” than other styles of debate,
and humor and even insults are encouraged (these insults would of course be light-hearted and funny, rather than
personal and deeply insulting). Participants “role play” (see rules on teams below): so pretend you are a sarcastic,
bitter legislator and you should do well in this assignment!
In competitive tournaments, resolutions and topics are not known in advance. Teams are given a resolution
at the start of each round and have 10 to 15 minutes to prepare for the debate. Sources and prepared notes are
allowed in the prep period, but not in the actual debate. Sometimes teams use “canned” cases that are prepared ahead
of time and can be applied to a number of resolutions.
For S 228, we have tried to preserve these qualities while adapting the format to make the assignment more
friendly for “beginners.” Most importantly, you will know what topic you are debating in a broad sense, but the
specific resolution will be unknown until the debate begins (see schedule below). You would be wise to prepare for
a variety of relevant resolutions and adapt accordingly.
Rules:
Teams: In Parliamentary Debate there are two teams. The Affirmative team is called the Government
(GOV) and the Negative team is called the Opposition (OPP). The GOV has two members, the Prime Minister and
the Member of the Government, while the OPP has a Leader of the Opposition and a Member of the Opposition.
The two leadership roles have greater responsibilities than the supporting roles: leaders give two speeches each
while members give only one speech each. Given this disparity, there are two requirements regarding teams. 1)
Each team will debate once as GOV, once as OPP. 2) The person who plays the leadership role in the first debate
must play the member role in the second debate. Choose your roles wisely!
Format: Debate format will be as follows:
Prep time: 10 minutes
Prime Minister (GOV): 4 minute constructive
Leader of Opposition (OPP): 4 minute constructive/rebuttal
Member of Government (GOV): 4 minute rebuttal
Member of Opposition (OPP): 4 minute rebuttal
Leader of Opposition (OPP): 4 minute rebuttal
Prime Minister (GOV): 4 minute rebuttal
Questions: Cross examination takes a different form in Parliamentary debate. Participants can ask questions
at any time. They must simply stand up and ask the current speaker if she will yield for a question. It is up to the
speaker to decide if and when she will take questions. Remember that the person who has the floor is in control until
her time expires. It is generally considered bad form to refuse to take questions, but at the same time, do not be
afraid to dismiss a questioner with a polite “not at this time” or similar statement, especially if you have already
yielded to him several times.
Notes and sources: In competitive Parliamentary debate, debaters are not allowed to bring evidence or
preexisting notes into the round. For this debate, we will allow you to use an outline on condition that it is written
during the prep period. Obviously, you can only do so much in 10 minutes. DO NOT try to feverishly copy every
relevant piece of info. DO try to jot down a brief outline of the main points for your constructive speech.
Parliamentary debate is about creating solid arguments, not citing sources!!! Additionally, do not abuse this
privilege by “sneaking in” notes that are prepared ahead of time. Cheaters will be penalized (we will censure, fine,
and possibly impeach rule-breakers!). You MAY bring in any relevant research material that you have gathered on
your topic.
General Advice:
Topicality: Topicality is often a problem in Parliamentary debate, especially when teams try to force a
canned case to fit a resolution that is really unrelated. Make sure you are arguing for the resolution (GOV) or that
you use topicality as a voting issue if the other team violates this standard (OPP).
Value Debates: These debates will be value debates. Value debates differ from policy debates in several
ways. First, debaters must determine a criterion for judging the debate. For instance, if the resolution says “The war
in Iraq is just,” we would expect you to define what a “just” war is – it protects American lives, etc. – then show that
the war does (or does not) measure up. Of course, the OPP may decide to clash with the GOV on its stated criteria
and interpretation of the value(s) implied in the resolution… (for instance, by arguing that no war can be just, or that
a just war must meet other criteria). For now, it is important to consider your topics in terms of values. What might
be a value resolution relating to IUK’s withdrawal policy? Etc.
Having said this, plans and counterplans are optional. For instance, if a resolution states “Security is more
important than personal freedom” (a value resolution) the GOV team might simply provide 3 or 4 reasons why
security is more important and elaborate in detail. OR, the GOV could present a detailed plan to enhance security
(perhaps advocating racial profiling in the “war on terror”). If the plan supports the value resolution in a topical
fashion, it would be allowed. The OPP team may wish to introduce a counterplan along the same lines. We will
discuss this more in class.
Prep Time: Prep time is limited to 10 minutes and the resolution will be unknown until the actual debate
starts. It is therefore imperative that you research the topic thoroughly. Since you know this will be a value debate,
look for issues concerning the “worth” of your topic and ask yourself what is good, bad and ugly about it. For
instance, is the plus-minus grading system fair? Is it good or bad? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Don’t let
the unknown scare you! The resolutions will be somewhat specific, but if you have a thorough knowledge of the
topic and try to plan ahead for possible value resolutions, you should do well. We will not frame resolutions in a
way that is unfair: if you do your homework you should be able to argue the resolution!
Teams and Schedule:
You may pick a partner. Your deadline is noon, March 22, 2011. At that time a schedule of dates, teams
and topics will be created and distributed.