1998-99 Planning and Review Committee
Consultant Recommendation
I.
General Education Category: Communication Skills
Date of Review: Spring 1999
General Education’s Component Coordinator: Ray Hayes
PRC Consultants: Karen Zimmerman and Bill Bailey
Purpose of the Review: To assess the quality of the communication skills category of the general
education component of UW-Stout’s curriculum as part of the seven-year review cycle required of
all general education components and degree programs.
Committee Findings: The Planning and Review Committee recommends (1) that the “program”
of courses designed to satisfy the communication skills requirement continue through the next
seven-year cycle, (2) that the committee’s recommendations be implemented, and (3) that a threeyear progress report be made with regards to recommendation #5, a recommendation for a class size
reduction in ENGL-101 and ENGL-102.
II.
Abstract:
The educational “program” (ENGL-101, ENGL-102, and SPCOM-100) designed to meet the
requirements implied by the communication skills category of Stout’s general education component
is basic to the students entire university experience. Academic requirements typically divide into
professional and general educational curricula and both require the reading, writing and speaking
skills that constitute this general education component. With the greater utilization of
active/cooperative educational strategies, writing and speaking skills are increasingly important in
the classroom. Beyond the classroom, in student organizations and in the informal encounters with
fellow students, instructors and other university personnel, there are varied opportunities to
continue to build and express communication skills originally developed in these basic courses. In
fact a central goal of a university education is to educate students to become broadly articulate
individuals.
The communication skills category is the only general education component that identifies specific
courses for all students, and the rationale for this is clear: if students are to become successful
citizens and professionals, they must be able to communicate effectively. This, of course, has
always been true, but the demands of our service economy1 and a daily life mediated by
communications technology highlights the relevance of these skills.
III.
Process Followed for Current Review:
The Planning and Review Committee Chair and the Assistant Vice Chancellor met with the general
education coordinator and the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences to explain the review
process that would be used. The two consultants from the PRC met with the general education
See Carnevale, Anthony P. and Stephen J. Rose, “Education for What? The New Office Economy.” (Educational
Testing Service, 1998), for a fuller explication of the expanding demand for organizational jobs requiring more
social and communication skills than technical skills.
1
coordinator to provide assistance in the preparation of his report. The PRC examined his report as
well as information from other relevant sources that included: questionnaires that surveyed
principle instructors of the speech and English courses and students currently enrolled in the
courses. Information from the university’s one and three-year follow-up of graduates was also
reviewed. On March 5th, the general education coordinator, accompanied by the dean of the
College of Arts and Sciences, met with the PRC.
IV.
Previous Review:
Inasmuch as this is the first occasion for reviewing the communication skills category, there is no
previous review.
V.
Current Review:
Strengths:
1. The assessment tools for the reading, writing and speaking skills have been developed, revised
and used over a number of years and, as such give evidence of good validity – truly assessing
those skills they were designed to measure. High reliability of assessment results have been
achieved by: (1) on occasion, training assessors, (2) using, on occasion, multiple assessments
for the same student work, and (3) using the tools, broadly, over a number of class sections.
2. The results of the assessments have been used by the two departments to (1) prompt
departmental discussion of teaching strategies and expectations of student work; (2) implement
faculty development sessions on improving both student assessment, general evaluation
strategies and instruction; (3) change the organization of these basic courses.
3. Survey data from students and university follow-up studies have been generally positive about
the effectiveness of education in these communication skills. The key instructor survey was
rich with suggestions about how student performance in communication skills courses could be
improved. While these surveys could point to “issues of concern” (see below), the concern and
commitment to students expressed by these instructors is evident and can be regarded as a real
strength of this “program.”
4. The English Department, through recently acquired lab modernization funds has updated and
renovated the Technical Communications Resource Center, and the technically sophisticated
equipment in this lab is a great resource for research, composition and editing.
Issues of Concern:
1. Comfortable classrooms of appropriate size and with appropriate furniture and technology are
badly needed to optimize student performance in both the areas of speech and writing.
2. Dedicated space and facilities for a Writing Lab would greatly improve individualized
instruction and tutoring for students experiencing special difficulties.
3. Teaching/learning opportunities: There is a consensus among writing and speech instructors
that students should have greater opportunity to improve their skills. The members of the
Speech Department argue for an increase in the credits of their basic course (SPCOM-100)
from two to three, while the members of the English Department contend that reduction in class
size in the basic courses (ENGL 101 and 102) would permit more writing assignments,
improved evaluation of student work, and more individualized instruction. The limitations
imposed by too many students in writing classes and too few credits in the speech class reduce
the quality of the educational experience in these communication skills.
4. A requirement of only eight credits, usually taken during a student’s freshman year, is
insufficient for producing articulate graduates, workers and citizens. Yet, given the limitations
in available credits, it’s unrealistic to expect additional courses to be required to meet the
competencies implied by the communication skills component. The alternative is to demand
continued education in and practice of these skills throughout a student’s university career (see
recommendation #1 below).
Recommendations:
1. The Provost and Assistant Vice Chancellor should work with the dean of the College of Arts
and Sciences to use available Professional Development opportunities to integrate the writing
and speaking skills into the general university curriculum. This, of course, has been done
before in the Writing Across the Curriculum project, a project currently in abeyance, but a
renewed effort remains an appropriate goal. Professional Development days almost always
have technology training opportunities; why not sessions on teaching and evaluating
communication skills, as well?
2. The dean of the College of Arts and Sciences should explore the feasibility of and seek funds
for upgrading and equipping classrooms.
3. The dean of the College of Arts and Sciences should explore the feasibility of and seek
resources (funds, space, and equipment) for creating a Writing Lab.
4. The General Education Committee in consultation with the dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences and the Provost’s Council should consider the possibility of increasing the credits of
SPCOM-100 from two to three credits, thereby bringing Stout’s requirement in line with that of
other institutions in the University of Wisconsin System and improving the quality of the
students speaking skills.
5. The dean of the College of Arts and Sciences should consider the feasibility of reducing class
size in ENGL-101 and 102, in attempting to meet the guidelines established by the Council of
Teachers of English and, thereby, improving the quality of the students writing skills.