College of the Mainland
Find Your Voice at COM:
Oral Communication Across
the Curriculum
On Site Visit: October 15 – 17, 2012
www.com.edu/qep/
1
College of the Mainland
A Quality Enhancement Plan for the
College of the Mainland
1200 Amburn Road
Texas City, Texas
77591
www.com.edu/qep/
Prepared for the Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools Commission on Colleges
October 2012
2
College of the Mainland
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………….…….….....4
SECTION II:
PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP THE QEP……….….....5
SECTION III:
THE TOPIC: ORAL COMMUNICATION
ACROSS THE CURRICULUM………………….……....13
SECTION IV:
DESIRED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES.……...23
SECTION V:
ACTIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED………….………..….24
SECTION VI:
TIMELINE…………………………………….……….…….38
SECTION VII:
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE…………………...….42
SECTION VIII:
RESOURCES………………………………………..…..…48
SECTION IX:
ASSESSMENT…………………………………….…...…..53
SECTION X:
CONCLUDING COMMENTS…………………….…...…..61
SECTION XI:
REFERENCES…………………………………….…...…..62
SECTION XII:
APPENDICES…………………………………...………....65
3
College of the Mainland
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on a two-year topic selection process, College of the Mainland chose as its QEP topic,
“Find Your Voice at COM: Oral Communication across the Curriculum.” This topic was
chosen based not only on data indicating that employers cite the ability to speak articulately as
one of the top skills they seek from graduates, but also because this skill was being addressed
at COM in only a very limited fashion. Input from multiple constituent groups revealed that there
was a discrepancy between the perceived importance of this skill set and the degree to which it
was being effectively addressed by the College. Thus, based on this data-driven process with
broad input from multiple groups, oral communication was identified as the QEP topic.
The College of the Mainland will begin implementing the QEP in 2013 by incorporating oral
communication in high enrollment courses across the curriculum, expanding the QEP to a total
of 24 different courses by the end of the 2014/2015 academic year. Professional development
for faculty will be an important element of this QEP, as faculty will need to be educated not only
about how to evaluate different kinds of oral communication but also about how they might
themselves improve their skills so that they may model effective speech in the classroom.
Aside from the incorporation of oral communication in a more broad-based fashion into courses
across the curriculum, students will experience enhanced instruction and academic support
focused on speaking skills. An electronic student instructional module will be developed by
speech faculty and made available to students in QEP-enhanced courses so that direct
instruction from speech experts will be accessible. In addition, a Speaking, Reading, and
Writing Center has been constructed to include soundproof booths in which students can
practice and record oral communication assignments and receive tutoring in all aspects of
speech. Aside from the emphasis on the development of effective oral communication, speech
anxiety will also be addressed by appropriate personnel (speech faculty, tutors, or counselors).
Thus, not only will students experience significantly expanded opportunities to practice their
speaking skills, but they will also receive augmented instruction and support in this area.
It is also the goal of this QEP to impact the culture on COM’s campus by raising awareness of
the importance of integrating this skill into the curriculum. Events showcasing students who
have demonstrated exceptional speaking skills will be held twice a year, and the QEP will
become a regular agenda item for key administrative and instructional bodies.
Student learner outcomes for this QEP target key elements of effective oral communication
and will be evaluated via a rubric on which faculty will be trained. Communication apprehension
(speech anxiety) will also be evaluated and tracked. Impact on the culture of the College will
also be evaluated on a number of indices.
COM is prepared to commit its resources to this QEP as demonstrated by the allocation of
necessary space, the purchase of software, expansion of tutoring, and the appointment of a
QEP Director. The budget designated for the QEP takes into consideration the current financial
constraints facing institutions of higher education while still placing priority on this initiative.
Thus, by 2018, oral communication will have become an integral part of COM’s educational
experience. As a result of the QEP’s implementation, not only will our students gain confidence
in their ability to communicate their ideas in a clear, effective manner, but they will be equipped
to compete successfully in the workplace and beyond.
4
College of the Mainland
SECTION II
PROCESS USED TO DEVELOP THE QEP
This section demonstrates:
Broad-based
involvement of
institutional
constituencies
Process identifying
key issues emerging
from institutional
assessment
Focus on learning
outcomes in
support of the
College’s mission
The Beginning of the Story: How COM’s QEP Topic Was Selected
The College of the Mainland (COM) is a learning-centered institution, founded in 1967 upon the
belief that everyone deserves an education and that we must strive to boost the economic and
intellectual prosperity of the diverse communities we serve. A two-year community college
located in Texas City, Texas, COM is located approximately ten miles north of Galveston and
twenty miles south of Houston. Serving approximately 4,000 students per semester, COM
seeks to prepare its students to live and work in a changing global society.
COM initiated its efforts to select a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) topic in 2006. According
to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), the QEP adopted and
implemented at any institution of higher learning should be based on an “institutional process for
identifying key issues emerging from institutional assessment” and should focus on “learning
outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of
the institution” (SACSCOC, 2012, p. 21). Accordingly, COM sought to proceed deliberately and
thoughtfully in the selection of its QEP topic. Specifically, the goal was to ensure that the
process itself was:
1) data-driven,
2) focused on student learning,
3) characterized by broad campus involvement (with special support for a strong faculty
role, as faculty shoulder the largest responsibility for student learning).
From the beginning the goal was to choose a topic that not only emerged from a process that
was broad-based and inclusive but also was grounded in data and focused on student learning.
To accomplish that goal, the topic selection process was conceptualized as a multi-step, facultydriven process, as outlined below.
Steps in the Topic Selection Process
Step 1: Appointment of Faculty QEP Co-Chairs
The initial step in the QEP topic selection process was to appoint faculty QEP Co-Chairs in the
fall of 2006. Then-President Homer Hayes chose Dr. Steve Sewell, Professor of History and
Director of General Education Assessment, and Mr. Bruce Glover, Associate Professor of
Business, to oversee the selection and development of a QEP topic. The appointment of faculty
co-directors was an important step as it ensured accountability for the process as well as strong
faculty input. By placing responsibility for the topic selection process in the hands of faculty
5
College of the Mainland
members, the administration sought to ensure that there would be broad-based involvement of
institutional constituencies in the identification of the QEP topic, thereby enhancing campus
“buy-in,” as opposed to a process in which the administration directed the campus with regard to
what the topic would be. The responsibilities of the co-chairs included becoming educated
about the QEP process through attendance at appropriate SACS conferences and/or other
professional development experiences and oversight of the entire topic selection and
development process.
Step 2: Formation of the QEP Topic Selection Committee
One of the first tasks undertaken by the QEP Co-Chairs was the establishment of a QEP Topic
Selection Committee in the spring of 2007. Membership of this committee reflected broad
campus representation, including individuals from general education departments, workforce
programs, student support services, the administration, and the student body. The committee,
including additional members added to participate in the review of the top proposals submitted
(see Step 8), was composed of 14 faculty members (eight from the General Education
departments and six from the workforce departments), three students, three administrators, and
one administrative support person. See Appendix F for a list of QEP Topic Selection Committee
members.
The first task of the QEP Topic Selection Committee was to develop a process for selecting the
QEP topic. The committee met periodically during the spring and summer 2007 semesters and
focused initially on designing a process that would lead to the selection of a QEP topic that
would measurably enhance student success. The committee determined that the topic
selection process:
1) should provide opportunities for all campus constituencies to have input
2) should be data-based
3) should ultimately identify a topic that is focused clearly on student learning.
Step 3: Review of Data
The QEP Topic Selection Committee conducted exhaustive reviews of sixteen data sources,
including the following:
1) Institutional Research (IR) reports of awards conferred:
Data on certificates and degrees awarded by COM in each academic year
2) IR COMmon Fact Sheet:
Overview of the students enrolled at COM each semester and contact hours generated
3) IR reports of enrollment trends:
Data on unduplicated headcounts, contact hours, and semester credit hours by area
4) IR reports of retention:
Information on student retention overall, and by ethnicity and gender
5) IR reports of the University of Houston-Clear Lake (a local junior-senior institution to
which many COM students transfer) Community College GPA data:
Data on the average GPA for UHCL undergraduates who transferred from Gulf Coast
area community colleges, as well as comparison data for all other UHCL
undergraduates, by student major
6) IR reports of course completions:
Completion and successful completion rates by course and by department
6
College of the Mainland
7) Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE):
Results from the CCSSE, which asks questions about institutional practices and student
behaviors that are directly related to student learning and retention
8) Graduate follow-up survey:
Data from COM graduates pertaining to how they perceive the education they received
at COM and whether it gave them the skills needed upon entering the workforce
9) Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction survey:
Results from this survey, which measures student satisfaction and priorities
10) COM General Education Assessment Map report and analyses:
Faculty ratings of the degree to which the eight core competencies are taught and
assessed in courses within the core curriculum
11) Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) annual data profile:
Data pertaining to first-time-in-college students including graduation and persistence
rates
12) THECB program files:
Data pertaining to graduates by program, gender, ethnicity, and special populations
13) THECB student retention reports:
Retention data by area, gender, and ethnicity
14) THECB accountability report:
Data pertaining to graduation and persistence rates, degrees conferred, transfers, and
licensure rates
15) Achieving the Dream (ATD) data analyses from fall of 2006:
Student outcome data, including successful course completion rates, retention rates,
and graduation rates disaggregated by gender and ethnicity
16) ATD focus group data from January of 2007:
Focus group results from discussion of ATD data
Members of the QEP Topic Selection Committee reviewed each of the data sources listed
above and prepared executive summaries of each to be considered in the determination of the
QEP topic. The executive summaries of each of these data sources are located on the
College’s internal informational network, and they were accessible to faculty and staff during the
topic selection process.
Step 4: Development, Administration, and Analysis of a QEP Survey
While the data sources identified previously were informative with regard to student success
and perceptions of various College services, the QEP Topic Selection Committee wanted to
gather some additional information with regard to specific areas of student learning. To that
end, a survey was developed (see Appendix A) that evaluated the importance of each of nine
identified skill areas or competencies and the effectiveness with which each is addressed
through the COM curriculum (according to the perceptions of the survey respondents). The
nine competencies identified were as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
reading comprehension,
written communication,
oral communication,
critical thinking,
math skills,
computer literacy,
interpersonal skills
7
College of the Mainland
8) global awareness,
9) multicultural sensitivity.
These competencies were identified because most of them (all but interpersonal skills and
global awareness) had already been identified by the College as the core competencies
addressed through the general education curriculum. Therefore, those skill sets had previously
been identified as essential for student success. Interpersonal skills and global awareness were
added based on input from workforce faculty on the QEP Topic Selection Committee, who
identified these skills as being among those that are valued by employers, based on their
interactions with community employers with whom their programs interacted.
The survey also gave respondents the opportunity to identify other competencies which they felt
the COM curriculum needed to address.
The survey was administered in the fall of 2007 to respondents who represented multiple
constituencies, including students (N = 1246), faculty (N = 95), professional staff (N = 70),
classified staff (N = 71), alumni (N = 56), local employers serving on workforce advisory councils
to the College (N = 5), community members (N = 30), and members of the Board of Trustees (N
= 3). A total of 1576 QEP surveys were received and analyzed, and an executive summary of
the survey data was prepared (see Appendix B).
With regard to the importance of the nine competencies, mean rankings were ordered as
follows:
Competency Area
Ranking of
Importance
Reading Comprehension
Critical Thinking
Oral Communication
Written Communication
Interpersonal Skills
Math Skills
Computer Literacy
Multicultural Sensitivity
Global Awareness
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Table 1: Ranking by COM QEP Survey Respondents of Perceived Importance of Core Competencies
Interestingly, all of the different respondent groups, except the Board of Trustees, ranked the
same competencies in the top four (reading comprehension, critical thinking, oral
communication, and written communication), though not always in exactly the same order. Only
the board members deviated from this trend, ranking interpersonal skills as most important and
multicultural sensitivity as being tied for the second spot with reading comprehension and
computer literacy.
With regard to the effectiveness with which COM prepares students with regard to the nine
competencies, mean effectiveness ratings placed the competencies in the following order (from
most effectively addressed to least effectively addressed):
8
College of the Mainland
Competency Area
Ranking of How Effectively
Each Competency is
Addressed
Written Communication
Reading Comprehension
Computer Literacy
Critical Thinking
Math Skills
Oral Communication
Interpersonal Skills
Multicultural Sensitivity
Global Awareness
1
2
3
4.5 (tie)
4.5 (tie)
6
7
8
9
Table 2: Ranking by COM QEP Survey Respondents of Effectiveness with which COM Addresses
Core Competencies
Of the eight respondent groups surveyed, five rated global awareness (on average) as the skill
area addressed least effectively through the College’s curriculum. Two of the groups
(community members and employers) rated multicultural skills as those that the College least
effectively addresses, and one group (professional staff) rated critical thinking as the skill area in
which students are least effectively prepared. It should be noted, however, that the skill areas
were rated on a seven-point Likert scale, with four being the middle point, and all of the means
were above 4.00 (with a range from 4.53 to 5.40).
Thus, while there was a general correspondence between the perceived importance of a skill
area and the effectiveness with which it was perceived to be addressed via COM’s curriculum,
oral communication was somewhat of an exception to this finding. It was ranked as third most
important but not characterized as one of the skills most effectively addressed (its mean
effectiveness rating placed it sixth).
Competency Area
Reading Comprehension
Critical Thinking
Oral Communication
Written Communication
Interpersonal Skills
Math Skills
Computer Literacy
Multicultural Sensitivity
Global Awareness
Ranking of
Importance
Ranking of How Effectively
Each Competency is
Addressed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
4.5
6
1
7
4.5
3
8
9
Table 3: Comparison of Importance vs. Effectiveness of Instruction of Core Competencies at COM
Since the QEP Topic Selection Committee was most concerned with discrepancies that
indicated that an important competency was not being effectively addressed, the placement of
oral communication in the top three most important competencies, coupled with its sixth place
9
College of the Mainland
ranking with regard to how effectively it was being addressed, suggested that this topic would
be worthy of consideration for the QEP.
It should also be noted that “life skills,” an additional competency area identified in the openended portion of the survey, might encompass some of the other skill areas identified by
respondents to the survey (such as study skills, time management, career services), and this
set of skills might be considered consistent with some of the competencies targeted in a firstyear experience course.
Step 5: Creation of a “Long List” of QEP Topics
The QEP Topic Selection Committee reconvened in the summer of 2008 to review again the
original sixteen data sources in addition to the results of the QEP survey. Based on the data,
the committee brainstormed ideas for QEP topics, resulting in an original “long list” of 23
potential topics for consideration:























Enhance critical thinking skills across the curriculum
Early alert system
Enhance writing skills across the curriculum
Enhance reading skills across the curriculum
Enhance multi-culturalism
Using technology to enhance student learning
Improve advising process
Engaging the entering student/Engage current students/Empower students/First Year
Experience
Supplemental instruction
Active and collaborative learning
Learning to think globally in the 21st century
Service learning
Course scheduling and availability
Improve oral communication across the curriculum
Life skills – managing time and resources to achieve success
Employability skills
Information literacy
Improve lifelong learning
Learning communities
Transition from developmental to core courses
Self-assessment
Quantitative skills
Translating faculty development into student learning
After topics were merged, consolidated, and/or eliminated (based on additional discussion), a
list of eleven viable topics remained. These eleven topics were identified as follows (in no
particular order):






Enhance writing skills across the curriculum
Enhance reading skills across the curriculum
Improve cultural competency skills
Increase student engagement
Improve oral communication across the curriculum
Enhance active and collaborative learning across the curriculum
10
College of the Mainland





Enhance critical thinking across the curriculum
Enhance ability to think globally in the 21st century
Increase employability through enhancement of life skills
Increase information literacy
Improve mathematical literacy
Step 6: Dissemination of the List of Eleven QEP Topics
The QEP Topic Selection Committee developed a brief definition of each topic and an
explanation of the data supporting each one. This information was posted on the College’s
internal information drive (the I-Drive) for dissemination to the campus in preparation for the
solicitation of two-page QEP proposals from the campus community. The eleven topics were
presented formally to the campus at the fall 2008 semester kick-off convocation event.
For those interested in reading these topic summaries, they may be accessed on the College’s
QEP webpage, following this link: www.com.edu/qep/.
Step 7: Solicitation and Evaluation of Two-Page QEP Proposals
Members of the campus community as well as the community at large were invited at the
beginning of the fall (2008) semester to submit brief, two-page proposals to the QEP Topic
Selection Committee. Not only was the invitation to submit proposals placed on the College
website for public dissemination, but it was also announced at the fall 2008 Convocation event
at the beginning of the semester. Although the list of eleven potential QEP topics was made
available, along with guidelines for writing the proposals, there were no limitations placed on
topics which could be proposed. In the end, seventeen two-page proposals were submitted to
the QEP Topic Selection Committee, all from COM faculty and staff. A stipend of $100.00 was
paid to each of the proposal’s authors.
A rubric developed by the QEP Topic Selection Committee (see Appendix C) was used to
evaluate the seventeen proposals in a blind review (authors’ names were removed from the
proposals prior to their distribution to the committee). The committee members individually
reviewed and assigned rubric scores to the proposals, then used those scores to guide their
group discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the seventeen proposals. Based on the
committee’s evaluation, the top five proposals were identified, including:





“Enhancing Reading Instruction Across the Curriculum”
“QEP Proposal for Active and Collaborative Learning: Let’s Get Active!”
“Cultural Competence: Understanding and Respecting Differences”
“Let Every Voice Be Heard: Oral Communication Across the Curriculum,”
“Building World Skills.”
The authors of these proposals were then invited to submit expanded, more detailed proposals
to the QEP Topic Selection Committee.
Step 8: Expansion of QEP Proposals
The writers of the top five proposals were given approximately three months (November, 2008
through January, 2009) to develop their expanded proposals, and they were promised a stipend
of $1000.00 for each completed proposal. The authors of these proposals were instructed to
11
College of the Mainland
submit proposals of 3500 to 4000 words, and they were given the rubric (developed by the QEP
Topic Selection Committee) to be used in the evaluation of the proposals (see Appendix D).
In addition, each author was given information from the SACS website regarding key elements
of the QEP. Thus, the authors were informed with regard to what issues needed to be
addressed within their expanded proposals, including:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Definition of the topic
Review of best practices
Identification of student learner outcomes
Identification of actions to be implemented
Establishment of a timeline for implementation
Identification of necessary resources (financial and human)
Description of the administrative infrastructure for the implementation and continuation of
the QEP
8) Description of how the success of the QEP will be assessed
In the end, four expanded proposals were submitted to the QEP Topic Selection Committee in
early February of 2009. In order to broaden representation of campus constituencies on the
committee prior to the evaluation of the final proposals, several additional readers (including
students and faculty members from work force programs, developmental education, and general
education departments) were invited to join the committee in reviewing the expanded proposals.
An “orientation” meeting was held to review with all readers the most important elements of a
successful QEP, so that their evaluation would focus on key components as identified by the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).
The expanded proposals, when completed, were made available for comment by the campus
community via the College’s internal information site (i.e., the I-Drive). After the committee
members had been given time to consider campus feedback and to review and assign rubric
scores to each of the expanded proposals, the author of each proposal met with the committee
(including the additional readers) as a group to answer questions about the proposal and to
clarify or expand on proposal elements, as requested by the committee.
After reviewing rubric scores and discussing each proposal’s strengths and weaknesses, the
committee identified the proposal which they felt would not only have a significant impact on
student learning but would also provide an effective “road map” to the more detailed
development of the QEP. That proposal’s topic, chosen as the finalist by the QEP Topic
Selection Committee (along with the additional readers), was Oral Communication across the
Curriculum.
Not only did the available data demonstrate that oral communication was being minimally
addressed across the curriculum, but the proposal itself cited literature (along with the QEP
survey data) which indicated that these skills are highly valued in the workplace and that
students need to be equipped with the ability to articulate their ideas, regardless of their chosen
career path. The proposal suggested specific interventions that could enhance the College’s
focus on oral communication, and it was determined that our students could not effectively
master these skills without practicing them more broadly across the curriculum.
12
College of the Mainland
SECTION III
THE TOPIC:
ORAL COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
This section demonstrates:
Focus on learning
outcomes in
support of the
College’s mission
Process identifying
key issues emerging
from institutional
assessment
Why Oral Communication?
Supporting the College’s Mission
Supporting the Outcomes Identified by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Importance of Soft Skills
COM Data Supporting Oral Communication as QEP Topic
Consideration of Best Practices at Other Academic Institutions
Conclusion
Why Oral Communication?
The importance of effective speaking skills is easily
understood when one imagines some of the most famous
orations in history being delivered in a less effective fashion.
Suppose Martin Luther King, Jr. had boiled his “I Have a
Dream” speech down into a simple admonition that we should
coexist harmoniously. Would his words still reverberate
today? Suppose, instead of encouraging Mikhail Gorbachev
to “Tear down this wall!,” Ronald Reagan had asked him to
build relationships between the East and the West. Obviously,
the words we choose DO make a difference, and when our
message is tailored to our audience and the context, it is more
readily received and remembered.
Supporting the College’s Mission and Vision
The College of the Mainland has selected oral communication
across the curriculum as its Quality Enhancement Plan topic
based on data that this skill set is perceived as important but is
currently addressed minimally through instruction at the
College. The ability to communicate effectively and to
articulate ideas is crucial to success in any industry, so the
College’s focus on the development of these skills is
consistent with the College’s mission and vision. Equipping
students with these skills will prepare them to be successful
not only in our local community but also in the world beyond.
13
College of the Mainland
Mission
College of the Mainland is
a learning-centered,
comprehensive community
college dedicated to
student success and the
intellectual and economic
prosperity of the diverse
communities we serve.
College of the Mainland
Vision
College of the Mainland
will be a valued and vital
community partner by
striving to enrich our
expanding community and
preparing our students to
learn, work, and live in a
diverse, dynamic, and
global environment.
College of the Mainland
Supporting the Outcomes Identified by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
According to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), one of the basic
intellectual competencies that should be achieved by students within the core college curriculum
is speaking. The Coordinating Board defines competence in speaking as “the ability to
communicate orally in clear, coherent, and persuasive language appropriate to purpose,
occasion, and audience” (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 1999, para. 13). It is the
view of the Coordinating Board that oral communication is a basic intellectual competency that
is essential to the learning process in any discipline. While the THECB has recently approved
revisions to core curriculum requirements, communicating orally is still emphasized and
classified under the newly developed “core objective” of Communication Skills, which is
intended “to include effective development, interpretation, and expression of ideas through
written, oral and visual communication.” (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2012,
para. 4). In fact, the THECB now requires that the core objective of communication be
addressed in all foundational component areas. Thus, it is the clear expectation that students
who graduate from institutions of higher learning in Texas should have developed sound skills in
the area of oral expression.
Importance of Soft Skills
As noted by one author, “We listen to a book a day, speak a book a week, read the equivalent
of a book a month, and write the equivalent of a book a year” (Buckley, 1992, p. 1). Clearly,
speaking skills are an essential element of the human experience, and deficits in the ability to
articulate ideas compromise not only our advancement prospects in the workplace but our
personal relationships as well.
Whether language is unique to the human species continues to be debated, but there is no
question that “communication is the vehicle that allows the human race to recall the past, think
in the present, and plan for the future” (Emanuel, 2011, p. 2). In fact, the ability to speak
eloquently and effectively has long been considered the hallmark of an educated person, as
evidenced by the emphasis on the art of oration in ancient Greek times.
So what is the evidence that communication skills matter in the modern world?
A study by the United States government was conducted in the early 1990’s to determine what
skills are necessary to achieve success in the modern workplace, resulting in the Secretary’s
Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, or SCANS (U.S. Department of Labor, 1990). The
SCANS report identified a number of “soft skills” considered essential for career success,
including working well in teams, having empathy, and communicating effectively. Skip Downing
(2011), whose On Course curriculum serves as the foundation for College of the Mainland’s
student success course, argues that the more technical, “hard skills” are necessary to acquire a
job but may be insufficient to keep that job or to advance to a higher position. In fact, “It’s often
said that hard skills will get you an interview but you need soft skills to get and keep the job. It’s
no longer enough to be an expert in a field of knowledge. Competition is fierce; it’s your soft
skills that make you stand out” (Smith, 2011, para. 10).
That’s because, according to Downing (2011), while most people hired for jobs have the basic
skills necessary to perform the functions of that position (some may perform them better than
others), soft skills will increase an employee’s value in the workplace and position him or her to
advance to a supervisory position. And these soft skills include the ability to tailor one’s
communications to one’s audience and to articulate ideas effectively.
14
College of the Mainland
Furthermore, as Downing points out, soft skills are portable and prepare an employee to move
across specific types of jobs effectively. While skills that are specific to a particular industry may
not transfer to another job category, oral communication and other soft skills will enhance an
employee’s value in any work setting. In other words, soft skills have broader application.
Soft skills have been defined in various ways in workforce literature, but certain elements,
including the ability to communicate effectively, are common to all. Unfortunately, these skills
may be inadvertently minimized by the term “soft skills,” which might suggest that they are “kind
of fluffy, and they’re not really as important, and they’re kind of just a nice little add-on” (Schick,
2000, p. 25). In reality, when institutions of higher learning focus solely on the more technical,
hard skills, pedagogy is not really addressing the student as a whole person, whose life and
work will be enhanced by the development of such behaviors as effective communication,
teamwork, and interpersonal sensitivity.
There is ample evidence that employers value good communication skills. Leaders in the field
of engineering rated communication skills to be more important in the workplace than technical
skills (Felder, Woods, Stice, and Rugarcia, 2000). A study conducted by Harvard Medical
School surveyed more than 2,000 patients about their office visits and found that the most likely
reason given for dissatisfaction and switching doctors was poor communication (Keating,
Green, Kao, Gazmararian, Wu, and Cleary, 2002). In fact, the study highlights the fact that
improved communication with patients results in more accurate diagnoses, better patient
compliance, higher retention rates, more referrals, and fewer lawsuits.
The legal profession also recognizes the importance of communication skills as pertains to
attorney-client relationships, yet law schools typically emphasize trial preparation, trial practice,
settlement and negotiation, while neglecting instruction in how to interview clients effectively
(Willett, 1984). In COM’s QEP survey, local employers serving on advisory councils to the
College (N = 5) were included in the sample of respondents, and oral communication was
ranked second in importance of the nine competencies listed, right behind reading skills.
Similarly, community members were included in the survey sample (N = 30), and they ranked
oral communication as tied with written communication for second place in importance, right
behind reading skills.
According to a 2011 survey conducted by the National Association of Colleges and Employers
(NACE), verbal skills top the list of skills sought by employers in college graduates seeking to
join their organizations. Thus, the ability to communicate effectively is a skill vital to success for
all students, regardless of their eventual occupational choice.
Similarly, in the 2007 report, “College Learning for the New Global Century,” by the Association
of American Colleges and Universities (2007), oral communication was among the top three skill
sets valued by executives in prospective employees. Employers across different occupational
areas view communication skills as essential, and these skills are predicted to assume an even
more important role, as the economy continues to move toward service-oriented businesses
(Buckley, Peach, and Weitzel, 1989). But how do these communication skills play a role in
achieving success in the workplace?
Communication skills are at work in various areas of an individual’s career, including the
following: the first telephone interview, face-to-face interview, negotiating salary after the job
offer, interacting with your boss, interacting with your colleagues, presenting before clients or
customers, and requesting promotion, among other areas (Shweta, n.d.). In fact, it is estimated
15
College of the Mainland
that people in the workplace spend an average of about 75 per cent of their communication time
either speaking or listening versus engaging in written communication (Chapter 10, n.d.). Oral
communication is important in the workplace because:
1) It establishes what needs to be done and the methods for accomplishing workplace
tasks, as “people usually discuss problems and solutions before deciding on a course of
action” (Chapter 10, p. 1).
2) Oral communication helps develop interpersonal relationships, and office conversations
help people learn about each other “and make working together enjoyable” (Chapter 10,
p. 1).
Nor is the demand on an employee’s communication skills limited to those with seniority.
Martin-Young (1996) reports that even entry-level employees are likely to have to prepare
presentations at some level of formality, including leading groups of visitors (such as Cub
Scouts, school teachers, or others) on a tour of the workplace. Sometimes the presentations
assigned to entry-level workers are on a relatively large scale, such as when a rookie police
officer is directed to make safety presentations at public school assemblies. Thus, if employees
wait until they are hired into the workplace to develop their communication skills, they are
already at a disadvantage, and it is incumbent upon institutions of higher learning to prepare
students for success in the workplace and in life.
However, the results of the survey by the Association of American Colleges and Universities
(2007), which indicated that oral communication is valued by prospective employers, indicated
that employers are not always confident that institutions of higher learning are preparing their
students adequately to deliver on these skills. This same finding was documented by Mark
(2008) who reported that the ability to communicate coherently is highly valued by employers
but is also identified as a skill often lacking in college graduates. In fact, some have reported a
“skills gap” in the workplace (Smith, 2000) when it comes to the oral communication abilities
demonstrated by employees and the value of these skills as perceived by employers.
While such a skills gap may exist, it may not be due to a lack of value placed on oral
communication by academicians. When 1,000 faculty members from a variety of disciplines
were asked to identify basic competencies important for every college graduate to develop,
communication skills topped the list (Diamond, 1997). However, Cronin and Glenn (1991)
reviewed the status of oral communication as a key component in general education curricula
and found that “most undergraduates take at most one course emphasizing oral communication
skills…and have little or no opportunity for structured practice with competent evaluation to
refine and reinforce their oral communication skills” (p. 356).
Reinforcing the need to emphasize oral communication in the curriculum, the National
Communication Association (1996) has proposed that communication literacy is paramount to
college students today, and it is the policy of that organization to promote the inclusion of oral
communication as a central component of the general education curriculum. Specifically, it is
argued that “if we expect students to become competent communicators, both as senders and
receivers, then we must provide them with the means to develop their knowledge and abilities
by including oral communication in the GE curriculum. It is unfair to expect that students will be
able to perform satisfactorily without specific educational support“ (National Communication
Association, 1996, para. 7).
It is self-evident, then, that institutions of higher learning have a responsibility to help students
develop competency in this area.
16
College of the Mainland
And along with competency in oral communication, the issue of anxiety over public speaking
must also be addressed. Students often lack confidence in their communication skills, and they
may be reluctant to speak up during class discussions (Friedland, 2004). It is essential to
intervene so that students gain confidence in their ability to orally communicate. After all, the
development of their skills in this area is widely recognized as essential to student success in
both the academic and professional arenas.
Andrews and Higson (2008) surveyed graduates and found that many do not feel that their
educational experience had equipped them effectively with oral presentation skills:
“I feel I could have done with some sort of formal training in how to do presentations.” (p. 415)
“I think there should have been more practice at…presenting things in front of other people as
part of my degree course…” (p. 415)
Thus, a review of literature indicates that while not all professional employment positions require
employees to make formal oral presentations, it is difficult to think of any job that does not
require effective articulation of ideas and information, and students must develop confidence in
their ability to meet this workplace expectation.
COM Data Supporting Oral Communication as QEP Topic
 Curriculum Map:
A QEP topic may be selected on the basis of an institution’s need to improve student learner
outcomes in a given area, on the basis of a need to enhance some aspect of the campus
environment to better support student learning, or on the basis that an important area of student
learning is inadequately addressed.
At the College of the Mainland, one of the data sources available to determine the degree to
which instruction is focused on various skill areas is the curriculum map. The curriculum map is
periodically developed to determine which of the College’s general education competencies is
taught and assessed in which general education courses. Faculty members are surveyed and
asked to reach consensus by academic discipline about the degree to which each competency
is addressed in each high-volume general education course. When the results are aggregated,
it is easy to detect which of the identified competencies are emphasized across the curriculum.
The curriculum map which was developed in 2006, available during the topic selection process,
indicated that the general education competencies were taught and assessed as follows:
17
College of the Mainland
Figure 1: Percentage of Core Curriculum Courses Which Assess or Teach COM’s Eight
Core Competencies (2006)
Thus, this data indicated that students were not being challenged to exercise oral
communication skills across the curriculum. Furthermore, the assessment of oral
communication as a general education competency (i.e., speaking) was limited to the
assessment of student learner outcomes embedded in speech courses in the core curriculum.
(Note: Students completing an Associate of Arts or Associate of Applied Science degree are
required to take one speech course as part of the core curriculum.)
When faculty members were surveyed again in 2010, an updated curriculum map was
produced. According to what faculty members reported in 2010, the general education
competencies were taught and assessed in courses across the core curriculum as follows:
18
College of the Mainland
Figure 2: Percentage of Core Curriculum Courses Which Assess or Teach COM’s Eight
Core Competencies (2010)
The updated 2010 survey responses indicated that oral communication continues to be underemphasized at College of the Mainland. In fact, based on this data, oral communication was
being taught and assessed in even fewer courses in 2010 than in 2006.
 COM QEP Survey:
As discussed in SECTION II, various constituent groups were surveyed to determine which of
nine general education competencies was perceived to be most important as well as which
were perceived to be effectively addressed. Oral communication was ranked third in
importance but sixth with regard to how effectively it is addressed. Thus, not only did the
curriculum map, based on faculty reports, indicate that oral communication skills were
addressed in a limited fashion across the curriculum, but constituent groups as a whole
perceived this skill set to be less effectively addressed than most of the other competency
areas.
 Limited Data for Assessment of Oral Communication Student Learner Outcomes:
Unlike the situation in which student learner outcome data indicates that students are
performing poorly in a particular area of learning, COM’s focus on oral communication prior to
19
College of the Mainland
this QEP was limited, and very little assessment data, outside of student learner outcome data
collected in speech courses, was even available to determine the level of competence achieved
by students in this area. Thus, this QEP is based on the assumption that a skill set minimally
emphasized is not likely to be highly developed among the student body. Given the nature of
oral communication, and the anxiety experienced by some students about speaking publicly, it
stands to reason that a curriculum that fails to address this skill set does not effectively produce
competent speakers.
While COM assesses some of its general education competencies through the administration of
standardized tests, oral communication has been assessed in a very limited fashion through
rubric scores earned by students in speech courses. No data has been available with regard to
student competence in speaking after they complete their course(s) in speech.
Thus, the selection of oral communication as COM’s QEP rests on the assumption that if a skill
set is deemed to be important, as oral communication has been deemed to be (by COM
constituency groups, best practices at other institutions, the THECB, and employers), then that
skill set needs to be taught and assessed broadly across the curriculum. The limited data on
student learner outcomes in this area reveal the truncated way in which oral communication has
been addressed at COM. Thus, the lack of data in this area was a relevant factor in the
selection of oral communication as our QEP topic.
 Data Pertinent to Student Achievement in Other Areas:
The QEP survey administered to various constituent groups revealed that two of COM’s general
education competencies (reading and critical thinking) were perceived to be more important
than oral communication, which was ranked third in importance. However, both of these
competencies were perceived by respondents to be more effectively addressed through COM’s
curriculum than oral communication (reading ranked second, and critical thinking tied for fourth
place with math). In addition, standardized testing of students, using the Collegiate Assessment
of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) tests (American College Testing, 2012), indicated that students
were achieving at or above the national average in writing and critical thinking. Thus, while two
other areas were perceived to be more important than oral communication, oral communication
was the competency perceived to be important but insufficiently addressed.
Consideration of Best Practices at Other Academic Institutions
It is clear that COM had not been emphasizing oral communication across the curriculum, yet
this skill is seen as important by our constituent groups, the THECB, and employers nationwide.
Thus, the importance of oral communication cannot be overstated. But how have other
institutions of higher learning educated students in this area?
Other academic institutions have identified oral communication as a focus of their QEP, as it is
widely recognized that the ability to communicate effectively is a key component to academic
and professional success. The topic has been approached in various ways, but it is commonly
recognized that oral communication must be addressed throughout the curriculum if students
are to emerge with well-developed speaking skills. The University of Southern Mississippi
(2009) has identified oral communication as a key element in its QEP and has established a
Speaking Center to facilitate the development of communication literacy, a strategy which is
discussed further under “Actions to be Implemented.”
20
College of the Mainland
Another institution of higher learning which focuses heavily on oral communication is Alverno
College, a four-year college celebrated for its pedagogical efforts and the establishment of a
learning-centered environment. Alverno electronically catalogues student learning artifacts,
including oral presentations (Alverno College, 2007). Thus, they are able to track the
development of speaking skills from a student’s first semester until graduation. This strategy
will also be discussed further under “Actions to be Implemented.”
Durham Technical Community College’s (2006) QEP focused on the ability to send and receive
audience-specific communications and included both written and oral communication elements.
Durham identified the following among the various types of oral communications in which
students might participate in the classroom: voluntary oral exchange with instructor, voluntary
oral exchange with peers, required oral participation in pairs or small groups during class,
required oral response to whole group, formal presentations in class, responses to instructor
prompts or questions, role play, debates, and games (Cheng, 2007). It is hypothesized that
even if formal presentations become the primary focus of COM’s QEP, students who develop
their speaking skills would be increasingly comfortable participating in multiple types of oral
exchanges.
Also of note, per Durham Technical Community College’s QEP, it must be recognized that the
development of students’ communication skills cannot be the sole responsibility of
communications faculty. It is self-evident that students might develop the basic speaking skills
they will need within the speech courses in the core curriculum, but if they do not exercise these
skills across the curriculum, those skills are likely to deteriorate. As noted in Durham’s QEP, “all
program faculty bear a responsibility to reinforce these skills by giving students opportunities to
practice and master….oral communication skills. Likewise, faculty and staff have the
responsibility of modeling the same communication behaviors expected of students in the
course of their daily interactions with them” (Durham Technical Community College, pp. 14 –
15).
Oral communication is also one of the central components of the University of Miami’s (2008)
QEP: Communication Across the Curriculum. This QEP focuses on communication literacy
and stresses not only speaking skills but competence in listening as well (a skill that is integral
to effective communication). Like the College of the Mainland, the University of Miami surveyed
relevant constituent groups (students and alumni, administrators, and faculty) from which to
derive their QEP topic.
In summary, best practices are founded on the assumption that while courses in speech are an
important part of the general education curriculum, oral communication skills are not likely to be
fully developed and maintained if their usage is not required across the curriculum.
As institutions of higher learning prepare their students to compete successfully in the
workplace, there is increasing acknowledgment that a narrow focus on technical or disciplinespecific skills is insufficient to facilitate career success. Increasingly, employers have expressed
a desire for graduates who apply for positions in their organizations to possess the so-called
“soft skills” that may more strongly predict workplace advancement. These skills have been
defined in various ways, but they are generally considered to include “a range of interpersonal
skills such as courtesy, respect for others, work ethic, teamwork, self-discipline, self-confidence,
conformity to norms, language proficiency, and behavior and communication skills (Waggoner,
2003).
21
College of the Mainland
Best Practices Summary
From these institutions which have focused on the enhancement of oral communication, COM
has identified best practices that will be emphasized and integrated into our QEP:
 If students are to demonstrate achievement in the area of oral communication, which
has been deemed important by our constituency groups, the THECB, and employers,
then oral communication elements must be integrated into course requirements across
the curriculum.
 Instructional support systems, such as focused tutoring in the area of oral
communication, must be developed to support student achievement in this area.
 Tracking achievement in oral communication should occur on both a longitudinal and
cross-sectional basis.
 Inasmuch as faculty will not only be teaching and assessing oral communication skills
but also modeling them, professional development for faculty is a key area of
intervention.
Conclusion: SECTION III
So Why Oral Communication?





Supports the College’s Mission!
Supports the Outcomes Identified by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board!
Soft Skills are Important!
Supported by COM Data!
Supported by Best Practices at Other Academic Institutions!
Thus, having employed a QEP topic selection process that was data-driven and inclusive of
multiple campus constituencies, the College of the Mainland chose oral communication as its
QEP topic. COM considered the degree to which it offered students the opportunity to develop
oral communication skills and found that there was limited emphasis on this skill set, despite its
importance according to employers nationwide, the THECB, and our own constituent groups.
Therefore, this QEP seeks to enhance student achievement in this important area so that they
can compete successfully for jobs and advance more rapidly in the workplace.
22
College of the Mainland
SECTION IV
DESIRED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
This section demonstrates:
Focus on learning
outcomes in
support of the
College’s mission
It is hypothesized that students will demonstrate enhanced oral communication skills and
diminished anxiety attached to public speaking as a result of the following key interventions:
1. the integration of oral communication assignments across the curriculum
2. professional development for faculty focused on how to teach, assess, and model oral
communication
3. enhancement of instruction in effective oral communication across the curriculum
4. provision of individualized tutoring in oral communication via the newly developed
Speaking, Reading, and Writing Center
5. increased institutional emphasis on the importance of oral communication via events like
the Student Speakers Showcase and the “Words that Changed History” day
In specific, the identified student learner outcomes are as follows:
QEP Student Learner Outcomes*
1. Students will demonstrate the ability to express their ideas verbally using expressive,
accurate and appropriate language.
2. Students will use appropriate presentation techniques (i.e., maintain eye contact,
modulate voice, demonstrate appropriate pacing, use appropriate gestures, etc.)
3. Students will demonstrate understanding of the topic by utilizing properly cited facts,
examples, and other forms of support.
4. Students will plan, prepare, and deliver a well-organized, logical oral presentation.
5. Students will demonstrate a decrease in their communication apprehension with
repeated practice of oral communication skills in QEP-enhanced courses.
The measurement of these outcomes (how they will be measured and the criteria for
determining whether the outcomes have been met) will be discussed in SECTION IX
(Assessment).
*These outcomes were developed by COM’s speech faculty based on best practices within their
field of expertise.
23
College of the Mainland
SECTION V
ACTIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED
This section demonstrates:
Broad-based
involvement of
institutional
constituencies
Focus on learning
outcomes in
support of the
College’s mission
COM’s Quality Enhancement Plan seeks to impact student learning both directly and indirectly
with regard to oral communication. The infusion of oral communication elements across the
curriculum will be an evolving process, and ultimately the QEP seeks to inspire a cultural
change in which students are challenged to develop and exercise these skills on a regular
basis, not only via formal presentations, but through less formal means as well.
The actions to be implemented in order to accomplish the goals of COM’s QEP will include
some initiatives that enhance the learning environment, thus indirectly impacting student
learning, while others will more directly facilitate the learning and development of oral
communication skills. Thus, the QEP initiatives may be conceptualized as falling into two
groups. First, “enhancement interventions” will include those activities and initiatives which
directly facilitate the learning of oral communication skills, including direct instruction and
instructional supports. Second, “environmental interventions” will include all of the actions
that elevate the importance of oral communication and heighten awareness of why effective oral
communication skills matter. Thus, environmental interventions will seek to impact student
learning indirectly by enhancing the emphasis on the ability to speak effectively among
students, faculty, and staff.
Figure 3, below, depicts COM’s QEP interventions differentiated according to whether they
directly impact student learning (i.e., enhancement activities) or indirectly impact student
learning via changes in the campus learning environment (i.e., environmental interventions).
24
College of the Mainland
Environment Interventions
Action #1: Integration Across the Curriculum
Data from the QEP Survey and COM’s curriculum map revealed that oral communication has
not been emphasized much at COM except within speech courses themselves. Thus, a key
element in producing graduates with excellent communication skills is the provision of
opportunities to practice these skills. To that end, the integration of oral communication
components across the curriculum is the primary focus of this QEP.
In contrast to situations where a skill set has been emphasized but with limited success in
achieving student learning outcomes, COM’s QEP topic selection process made it clear that oral
communication had been largely unaddressed across the curriculum. Thus, the first step in
helping students achieve excellence in oral communication must focus primarily on increasing
opportunities for students to practice these skills outside of speech and communication courses.
While instructional methodology also will be addressed, the key intervention must seek to
25
College of the Mainland
broaden the focus on oral communication across the curriculum such that students are required
to practice these skills.
In order to facilitate the integration of oral communication across the curriculum and to elevate
its importance, the culture at COM will have to evolve into one which values and emphasizes
the importance of the oral articulation of ideas. A number of interventions are planned to
enhance the learning environment at COM such that awareness of the value of these skills will
be increased. (These interventions are discussed under Environment Interventions.) But the
inclusion of oral communication elements in more courses represents perhaps the most
fundamental cultural change that must occur in order for students to become effective speakers.
Coincidental with the development of this QEP at COM has been the development of modified
state requirements with respect to the core curriculum by the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board (THECB). The state of Texas will require that public institutions of higher
education implement new core objectives as of fall 2014, and one of these core objectives is
Communication, including written, oral, and visual components. What is notable about this
requirement is that it specifies that all foundational component areas must address this core
objective, meaning that all core curriculum courses in the identified foundational component
areas will have to include instructional elements that address communication. Thus, as COM
responds to the state’s mandated changes, we will be identifying which core curriculum courses
must address which type of communication (written, oral, or visual), and those courses
addressing oral communication may be included in the QEP. The proposed changes in COM’s
core curriculum must be submitted to the THECB in fall 2013, so as we scale up the QEP to
include more courses across the curriculum, the list of courses that will be QEP-enhanced may
expand beyond the list presented in this document.
However, the minimum list of courses selected to be QEP-enhanced are those that are
relatively high-volume (with regard to student enrollment) and/or required in the core curriculum.
These courses were also chosen to maximize the chances that students will complete multiple
courses which include oral communication requirements. For example, a student completing
COM’s general education core curriculum will take English 1301 and 1302, either Speech 1315
or 1318, two History courses (typically History 1301 and 1302), a Computer Literacy course
(typically Computer Information Systems 1301), one Humanities course (typically Humanities
1301 or 1302), two Natural Sciences courses (often Biology 2401 or 2402), one Fine Arts
course (often Music 1306), and one Social and Behavioral Sciences course (often Psychology
2301). Therefore, these courses have been identified to be QEP-enhanced. Additional courses
that are high volume courses in workforce programs have also been included, though it should
be noted that several of the general education courses included are also required by workforce
students. Thus, the courses selected for the QEP have been selected to achieve maximum
impact on our student body.
26
College of the Mainland
Courses to be QEP-enhanced will be integrated into the implementation schedule as follows:
Pilot (Spring 2013)
Year1 (2013-14)
Year 2 (2014-15)
Humanities
ENGL 1301
ENGL 1302
Computer Information
Systems
COSC 1301
Cosmetology
CSME 1451
CSME 1491
Social and Behavioral
Sciences
HIST 1301
HIST 1302
PSYC 1300
Nursing
RNSG 1441
RNSG 1343
Process Technology
PTEC 1408
PTEC 1454
EMS
EMS 2143
EMS 1338
Graphic Arts
ARTC 1305
ARTC 2335
Humanities
ENGL 1301
ENGL 1302
Fine Arts
MUSI 1306
Emergency Medical
Services (EMS)
1338
Nursing
RNSG 1441
Note: One section of
each course.
Speech
SPCH 1315
SPCH 1318
Social and Behavioral
Sciences
HIST 1301
HIST 1302
PSYC 1300
Science & Math
BIOL 2401
BIOL 2402
Humanities
HUMA 1301
HUMA 1302
Social and Behavioral
Sciences
PSYC 2301
Table 4: Courses Identified to be QEP-Enhanced at COM
QEP-enhanced courses will include oral communication assignments to be evaluated via a
standard, common rubric, which faculty will be trained to use in a consistent, reliable manner. In
addition, (as described under Action #1: Professional Development for Faculty in Environment
Interventions) faculty will participate in professional development designed to help them improve
their own oral communication skills and to recognize the key elements in effective speech.
Finally, students in QEP-enhanced courses will receive instruction focused on oral
communication via an electronically formatted instructional module (discussed further under
“Action #3: Student Instructional Module, in this section, Enhancement Interventions”).
27
College of the Mainland
However, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the professional development intervention
and the electronic student instructional module, during the first year of intervention, a subset of
QEP-enhanced courses will involve only minimal faculty professional development (focused on
the use of the oral communication evaluation rubric) and will not include the electronic student
instructional module. During Year 1 of implementation, half of the History and English courses
designated to be QEP-enhanced will be considered QEP-basic (vs. intensive), meaning that
these QEP-basic courses will receive the minimal level of QEP enhancement (basically, the
simple integration of an oral communication assignment into the course requirements). In this
way, we will be able to compare the impact of the more intensive level of intervention (i.e., more
comprehensive faculty professional development and the inclusion of the electronic student
instructional module) to the more minimal level of intervention (i.e., the inclusion of an oral
communication assignment, evaluated via the standard, common rubric).
This design will allow us to evaluate the utility of particular interventions implemented in the
QEP-intensive sections against a comparison condition (i.e., QEP-basic sections in which these
interventions will not be included). The effectiveness of the QEP-intensive interventions will be
evaluated through a review of 1) data pertaining to student learner outcomes, 2) information
gathered through focus groups with faculty members, 3) data from end-of-semester course
evaluations completed by students, and 4) data from COM’s professional development
evaluation instrument, which requires faculty to report how they have integrated the professional
development into their teaching practices.
The review of this data will determine the need to scale up all sections of identified QEP courses
as QEP-intensive and may also suggest ways in which the interventions may need to be
modified.
While the professional development component and the student electronic instructional module
are discussed in more detail later, what follows here is a brief discussion of how oral
communication will be integrated across the curriculum into the QEP-intensive vs. QEP-basic
course sections.
QEP-intensive course sections:
Each instructor teaching a QEP-intensive course (i.e., all QEP-enhanced courses except for half
of the English and History QEP courses during Year 1) will undergo extensive professional
development relevant to oral communication skills, discussed later in Environment Interventions,
such that instructors serve as effective models of oral communication and are equipped to
evaluate their students with regard to these skills in a reliable and competent manner. The
professional development component for faculty teaching QEP-intensive courses is designed to:
1. improve faculty oral communication skills
2. prepare faculty to reinforce good oral communication during everyday interactions with
students (to include coaching students with regard to how to interact appropriately with
classmates and faculty)
3. equip faculty to evaluate the oral communication skills of their students.
28
College of the Mainland
In addition, QEP-intensive classes will include an electronically packaged student instructional
module developed by COM speech faculty and focused on preparing students to develop
effective oral communication skills, with reinforcement from the instructor.
Furthermore, instructors teaching QEP-intensive classes will participate in at least one group
meeting per fall and spring semester to discuss any problems with QEP implementation and to
share pedagogical experiences and ideas. These meetings, facilitated by the QEP Director, will
be offered at different times of the day and at different times of the semester, as needed, in
order to accommodate all faculty schedules.
Finally, faculty in QEP-intensive classes will offer students incentives (such as extra credit) for
seeking tutoring in speaking via the Speaking, Reading, and Writing Center, or they may require
that students visit the Center as part of the course requirements.
QEP-basic course sections:
As noted previously, half of the History and half of the English course sections identified as
QEP-enhanced during Year 1 of implementation will be identified as QEP-basic. The QEPbasic sections will incorporate oral communication elements into their courses but will receive
limited professional development focused primarily on the use of the oral communication
evaluation rubric. The QEP-basic sections will not integrate the student instructional module,
nor will instructors of these sections participate in semester meetings with other QEP instructors
to share ideas, problem-solve, or to ask for assistance.
Thus, both QEP-basic and QEP-intensive classes will integrate oral communication
requirements into their instruction, and both will use a standardized rubric to evaluate oral
communication assignments, but only the QEP-intensive classes will involve comprehensive
professional development for faculty, ongoing support for those instructors, and the electronic
instructional module for students.
29
College of the Mainland
Table 5, below, presents the elements to be included in QEP-Basic vs. QEP-Intensive courses.
Table 5: Key Interventions to be Included in QEP-Basic (Comparison Condition) vs. QEP-Intensive Courses
Types of oral communication:
Faculty will choose what kind of oral communication assignment to incorporate into their
courses from a menu of options to include:
1-Individual Class Presentation
2-Small Group Class Presentation
3-One-on-One Communication (i.e., interviews, etc.)
4-Other (i.e., debates, etc.)
Oral communication evaluation elements:
All oral communication assignments will be evaluated using a rubric (to be discussed further in
SECTION IX on Assessment) which targets the following key components of effective speech:
1. Verbal communication: Uses clear language skills including appropriate language
level, good grammar/syntax, defined concepts, and accurate words
30
College of the Mainland
2. Nonverbal communication: Displays excellent nonverbals such as vocal enthusiasm,
good eye contact, appropriate gestures, good posture, appropriate dress and overall
dynamism
3. Content: Shows an understanding of the topic by having solid and logical facts, citing
the source of facts (statistical or statement driven), having adequate examples and other
forms of support such as testimonials, comparisons, definitions, and visual aids
4. Organization: Excellent organization including clear thesis, clear intent, follows
subtopics as presented, clear topic sentences and transitions when appropriate and
covers all content
The role of adjunct faculty members:
It should be noted that faculty teaching QEP-enhanced courses will be involved in the QEP
regardless of whether they teach on a full-time or part-time basis. COM has made strides over
the last few years to integrate adjunct faculty more fully into the life of the institution, recognizing
that they comprise an important segment of COM’s instructional personnel. To that end, adjunct
faculty are required to participate in a College-sponsored orientation every year, and several
departments hold annual department-specific orientation meetings for their adjunct faculty. In
addition, adjunct faculty must complete the same training with regard to nondiscriminatory
practices that full-time faculty are required to complete. They also submit course-level data on
student learner outcomes every semester. Finally, adjunct faculty are invited to participate in
campus-based professional development opportunities on a regular basis. Therefore, adjunct
faculty will not be exempted from the QEP but will be required to participate in the QEP at the
same level as full-time faculty, attending professional development sessions and implementing
the QEP as designed.
Integration of online courses into the QEP design:
The QEP Implementation Committee will examine methods for scaling up the QEP to include
designated online courses. Currently, some faculty are using various technologies to include an
oral communication assignment in their course requirements, but the College is considering
methods to make this process practical, student-friendly, and consistent across faculty and
disciplines. It is anticipated that online courses will be integrated into the QEP by academic
year 2015-2016.
Schedule of implementation:
In order to make this process manageable and to modify the procedures as necessary based on
feedback from faculty, courses will be phased into the QEP over a period of 2.5 years. Prior to
fall 2013, when the QEP’s implementation will formally begin, the professional development
component and the QEP course enhancements will be piloted in an effort to identify problems in
any of the processes associated with the QEP’s implementation. One section of each of seven
courses (see Table 4) has been identified to participate in this pilot process in spring 2013, with
the professional development component to be conducted with these faculty members starting
in fall 2012. Data from this pilot experience (student learner outcomes, faculty feedback, end-ofsemester course evaluations) will be reviewed, and modifications will be made as indicated.
Beginning in fall 2013, formal implementation of the QEP will begin, with QEP-enhanced
courses to be integrated during the 2013-2014 academic year and additional courses to be
integrated during the 2014-2015 academic year. (See Table 4.) As noted previously, during
31
College of the Mainland
Year 1 of implementation (i.e., the 2013-2014 academic year), half of the History and English
course sections identified as QEP-enhanced will be considered as QEP-basic so that a
comparison can be made between the QEP-basic and QEP-intensive courses, with
modifications to be made in Year 2 of implementation as informed by the data. Ongoing
evaluation of the QEP strategies will guide the implementation of interventions as the QEP
moves forward. For example, if the professional development component included in QEPintensive courses proves to be effective and/or positively received by faculty, all QEP-enhanced
courses will be implemented as QEP-intensive beginning in the second year of implementation.
The ultimate goal of the incorporation of oral communication elements into the curriculum is to
support and facilitate the use of speaking skills in the classroom and beyond.
A timeline for the implementation of the QEP is presented in SECTION VI.
Action #2: The Speaking, Reading, and Writing Center
In support of the integration of oral communication into the classroom across the curriculum, the
College of the Mainland has developed a tutoring center which includes, as one of its primary
focus areas, oral communication. The University of Southern Mississippi (USM) has
established a Speaking Center as part of its QEP and provides a blueprint for how such a center
might operate (University of Southern Mississippi, 2009). Services offered by USM’s Speaking
Center include assistance to students in every phase of the oral presentation composing
process, coaching in ways to improve oral delivery, and management of speaking anxiety.
USM’s Speaking Center also offers a rehearsal studio, in which students can record their
presentations for purposes of improving their presentation skills. The USM Speaking Center
was staffed initially by advanced undergraduate students, under the direction of a doctoral
student in Speech Communication, who, in turn, was supervised by the chair of the Speech
Communication Department. Since its initial inception, however, USM has hired a full-time
faculty director of the Speaking Center and has expanded its services and the number of
students served. The Speaking Center on USM’s campus is centrally located within the
University’s main library.
As one of the key strategies of COM’s QEP, COM has completed development of its Speaking,
Reading, and Writing Center which offers students assistance in all of these skills which support
effective communication. The center is centrally located within a classroom space in the
Technical and Vocational Building (a building which houses most of the classrooms on COM’s
campus). The Speaking, Reading, Writing Center has been modeled after that of USM but
modified to fit with available resources and student needs on COM’s campus. The menu of
services addressing speech will be very similar, to include opportunities for rehearsal and
coaching with the goal of improving oral communication skills. Computer stations are available
so that students may develop visual aids to presentations (such as PowerPoint slides) and
receive assistance in this process. In addition, two soundproof booths have been constructed in
which students may record oral presentations, which may then be reviewed, with tutors, as
needed, for feedback on ways to improve student performance.
The Speaking, Reading, and Writing Center has begun operating on a limited basis using a
part-time professional tutor and a part-time peer tutor. As of fall 2012, staffing will be
supplemented with 15 full-time faculty members from the Humanities Department, each of
whom will serve 1.5 office hours per week in the Center, to be available to any student seeking
help in these academic areas. In order to be optimally equipped to serve students, these faculty
32
College of the Mainland
members will go through training at the beginning of the fall 2012 semester to better understand
the tutoring process, as tutoring is not equivalent to classroom instruction. This training will be
provided by the professional tutor and will seek to assist faculty in understanding how best to
facilitate student learning via the tutoring modality. As the QEP moves forward, usage of the
Speaking, Reading, and Writing Center will be tracked, and additional tutors will be hired as
needed.
In addition to opportunities to rehearse oral presentations or other kinds of oral communication
assignments, the Speaking, Reading, and Writing Center will seek to assist students who suffer
from speaking anxiety by giving them tips and strategies to manage their apprehension
effectively. The Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24, n.d.) will be
administered to students (see discussion in SECTION IX, Assessment), providing a benchmark
against which the student’s comfort with oral presentations can be assessed over time.
Interventions in speaking apprehension may be provided not only by the Center’s staff but also
by COM’s counselors (job responsibilities to be re-organized if necessary, depending on need).
Action #3: Student Instructional Module
QEP-intensive classes will feature an electronically packaged student instructional module
developed by COM speech faculty. This student instructional video will be about twenty
minutes in length, and instructors will be asked to show this video in their classes prior to the
due date of oral communication assignments.
In recognition of the fact that instructors in other disciplines are not trained or credentialed in the
academic discipline of speech/communications, this instructional module will provide the
framework for basic instruction in oral communication. Since not all of the students in the QEPenhanced classes will have already taken courses in speech, this instructional module will orient
them to some of the key elements of effective oral communication. Instructors will then
reinforce those elements through their instruction.
Instructors will be expected to integrate this instructional module into their regular instruction,
but it may also be made available to students through Blackboard, which serves as the
College’s distance education platform, as well as ShareStream. Thus, students who are absent
from class when the module is presented will be able to access this instruction electronically.
Furthermore, by making the module available through ShareStream and the Blackboard
platform, students who wish to review the instructional materials for a second time will be able to
do so.
Key elements of this instructional module will include:
1) Overview of the QEP
2) Review of basic speech concepts
3) Review of five oral communication elements
a) Nonverbal
b) Verbal
c) Organization
d) Using presentation aids
e) Content
4) Review of the Oral Communication Rubric
5) Managing Communication Apprehension
33
College of the Mainland
Action #4: Student Success Workshops on Oral Communication Topics
College of the Mainland offers free Student Success Workshops on a monthly basis, focused on
topics that serve to enhance student learning in a wide range of areas, including financial
responsibility, study skills, and more. Typically, these workshops are held during College Hour,
which is an hour-long period of time (Tuesday/Thursday, 12:30pm – 1:30pm) during which very
few College classes are scheduled. Thus, the workshops are scheduled to enhance
accessibility to all students. They are conducted by COM faculty and staff with expertise in the
specific topical area of each particular workshop.
With the advent of the QEP, some of these workshops will focus on topics pertinent to oral
communication. Topics of relevance will include cross-cultural communication, nonverbal
communication, interviewing skills, etc. At least one workshop per fall and spring semester will
support the QEP by spotlighting an aspect of oral communication. The inclusion of topics
focused on aspects of effective speech will serve not only as an intervention that will directly
impact student learning but will also elevate the importance of oral communication as an
essential competency. These workshops will begin to be implemented in fall 2013.
Environment Interventions
Action #1: Professional Development for Faculty
Professional development for faculty will be an important element of this QEP, and it will be
offered initially as either basic or intensive. See Figure 4 for a comparison of professional
development elements for QEP-basic vs. QEP-intensive faculty members.
QEP-basic professional development:
Training for faculty teaching QEP-basic classes (i.e., half of the History and half of the English
course sections during Year 1 of implementation) will focus primarily on the use of the QEP
evaluation rubric (see SECTION IX) so that faculty can reliably assess student skills in oral
communication. While the student instructional module will not be integrated into these
courses, faculty teaching these courses must include an oral communication requirement in
their syllabi. The QEP-basic classes will serve as a comparison group for the QEP-intensive
classes (in which additional interventions will be implemented), so the primary focus in the basic
course sections will be to require an oral communication assignment and to evaluate it using the
standardized QEP oral communication rubric. In addition, faculty will be trained with regard to
technology used in the classroom to document student presentations.
QEP-intensive professional development:
Not only will faculty in QEP-intensive classes require training in how to effectively assess
student oral presentation skills, but they will also benefit from professional development
experiences which facilitate the improvement of their own speaking abilities, thus enabling them
to more effectively model oral communication skills in the classroom. Professional development
for faculty teaching these course sections will provide more detailed information on what
constitutes effective oral communication and will offer faculty members the opportunity to
improve their own speaking skills. In addition, faculty will be trained in how to use appropriate
34
College of the Mainland
technology for recording student presentations, as these electronically archived presentations
will be used in further assessment of the QEP’s effectiveness (see SECTION IX).
In an additional effort to support faculty participating in the QEP-intensive condition, fall and
spring semester discussion meetings, facilitated by the QEP Director, will be held among QEPintensive instructors to share ideas, problem-solve, and provide assistance as needed.
All elements of the QEP will be piloted in spring 2013, including the professional development
component (some of which will occur in fall 2012), which will be provided to faculty in the pilot
classes at the QEP-intensive level.
See Figure 4, below, for a graphic representation of the professional development elements of
COM’s QEP.
QEP-Basic and
QEP-Intensive
Review
speech
concepts
Review written explanation
of basic speech concepts to
establish reliable use of QEP
oral communication rubric
for grading student
assignments.
Educate faculty in using
technology to capture oral
communication assignments
in the classroom.
QEP-Intensive
only
QEP-Intensive
only
View sample
videos of
speech
concepts
View video
lecture
Videos explaining the five
oral communication topics.
1-Nonverbal
2-Verbal
3-Organization
4-Using Presentation Aids
5-Content (optional)
Videos demonstrating
varying quality examples
on a 1 – 4 scale.
The scale mirrors the QEP
grading rubric where:
4=Excellent
1=Poor
QEP-Intensive
only
Practical
application
exercises
Trainees participate in
demonstration/applicatio
n of topic through
modeling
exercise/activity and role
playing.
Four types of oral
communication
categories are features in
this exercise/activity.
1-Individual Class
Presentation
2-Small Group
Presentation
3-One-on-one
Communication
4-Other (i.e. Debates,
etc.)
Figure 4: Professional Development Elements of QEP-Basic vs. QEP-Intensive Faculty Training
35
College of the Mainland
Action #2: Technological Support
Technological support will be provided so that student presentations can be electronically
recorded. Approximately ten percent of oral presentations (randomly selected) will be
electronically captured for use by the QEP Assessment Committee in establishing convergent
validity of the oral communication rubric. (See SECTION IX Assessment.)
During fall 2011, the Technology Committee along with the QEP Director reviewed products for
storing video presentations and selected ShareStream as the product of choice. This software
product allows access to video recordings via the web and through BlackBoard. Brett Stephens,
a member of the Distance Education Department of the College, will administer the software
and is the primary contact between the College and the company.
Once a semester, in classes selected by the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness
for video recording, the student presentations will be recorded using LadiBug document
cameras (or portable digital cameras in classrooms without a Ladibug). Each instructor will save
the presentations and then submit them to the administrator of ShareStream who will upload
them to the ShareStream server. The presentations are in a password protected area to
safeguard students’ identities, and they will be accessible to the student, the instructor, and to
members of the QEP Assessment Committee.
Action #3: Inclusion of QEP Update at COM Board of Trustees Meetings and
Instructional Leadership Council Monthly Meetings
The premise of this QEP is that oral communication has been underemphasized in COM’s
curriculum. Thus, students have had limited opportunities to develop and perfect their speaking
skills.
In order to underscore the importance of these skills, there will be regular QEP updates
provided both at meetings of the Board of Trustees and the Instructional Leadership Council.
COM’s Board of Trustees (BOT) meets monthly, and regular agenda items include updates from
constituent heads, including the President of the Faculty Senate, the President of the
Professional Council, the President of the Classified Council, and the President of the Student
Government Association. Added to the agenda on a rotating basis will be an update on the
QEP from either the QEP Director or the Vice President for Instruction. BOT members will be
kept informed about the status of the QEP, data pertaining to student learner outcomes, and
any modifications made to interventions or assessment processes. By placing the QEP on the
BOT agenda on a regular basis, the importance of oral communication skills will be elevated,
and the QEP’s focus will remain a priority.
The Instructional Leadership Council (ILC) meets monthly, coordinated by the Vice President for
Instruction, and consists of instructional Deans, Department Chairs, Program Directors, and
other identified personnel whose roles are to support instruction. These meetings typically
focus on issues pertinent to instruction, whether administrative in nature or more directly related
to pedagogy. An update on the QEP will become a regular agenda item for this meeting, not
only to keep everyone informed, but also to troubleshoot any problems with regard to
implementation.
36
College of the Mainland
Action #4: Student Speakers Showcase
To further emphasize the potential impact of effective speech, an annual Student Speakers
Showcase will be established. Faculty will nominate students to give an encore performance of
one of their oral presentations at a campus-wide showcase of student speeches. Students may
be given an incentive (such as a bookstore gift certificate) for participating. This showcase will
celebrate student achievement in oral communication and also serve to model effective
communication for others. In addition, it will keep the QEP topic in the public eye, as the
community will be invited to attend. In this way, local employers will appreciate that COM
places emphasis on oral communication, a valued employment skill often cited as lacking in job
applicants. COM regularly hosts guest speakers from diverse backgrounds to make
presentations on a variety of topics, so the Student Speakers Showcase will give students an
opportunity to educate the campus via presentations of their own.
Action #5: “Words that Changed History” Day
In addition to the Student Speakers Showcase, which will celebrate original student
presentations, students will be selected to dramatize famous orations in history at an annual,
campus-wide “Words that Changed History” Day. While dramatization is not equivalent to
developing and delivering one’s own presentation, the purpose of this activity will be to
demonstrate how powerful the effective articulation of ideas can be. Faculty will nominate
students to participate, and the community will be invited to attend this event. Students
attending the event will not only witness effective speech delivery but will also learn about
landmark orations in history.
Action #6: Recruitment of Effective Visiting Speakers
COM already has an impressive track record when it comes to inviting speakers to campus to
deliver presentations on a variety of topics. In any given academic year, guest speakers
address such topics as Hispanic heritage, civil rights, women’s history, literacy, and more.
These efforts will be supported by the QEP Implementation Committee, who will identify
potential orators to be invited to come to campus to speak. These presentations will be
highlighted for students, who will be encouraged to attend and to take note of what made the
presentation effective.
Action #7: Representation of QEP on Institutional Effectiveness Council
The QEP is already a standing agenda item on the monthly meeting agenda of COM’s
Institutional Effectiveness Council (IEC). This body includes representatives from the various
assessment bodies/processes on campus, including the Instructional Assessment Committee,
the Online Course Review Committee, the Achieving the Dream Data Committee, the
Instructional Review process, and the Administrative Review process. Because assessment
and evaluation are important parts of the QEP, the QEP Director serves as a member of the
IEC, and as the QEP moves forward, the assessment of its related student learner outcomes
will be regularly monitored by this body.
37
College of the Mainland
SECTION VI
TIMELINE
A logical calendaring of all actions to be implemented (providing
support for compliance with CS 3.3.2 “institutional capability for the initiation,
implementation, and completion of the QEP”)
Timeline for Implementation of the QEP
March 2009
Formation of QEP Development Committee (to develop detailed plans and
timelines, which will form the basis of the SACS QEP report)
Fall 2010
Survey of faculty to determine which faculty/courses already integrate oral
communication into their instruction
Fall 2011
Identification of courses to serve as pilot courses for the QEP
Fall 2011
Selection of electronic portfolio software/technology needed
Spring 2012
Begin phased acquisition and installation of necessary electronic portfolio
technology in classrooms
July 2012
Development of process for collecting assessment data (coordinated
through IR)
August 2012
Submission of final QEP report to SACS
August 2012
Formation of QEP Implementation Committee (responsible for the actual
implementation of the QEP)
Fall 2012
Professional development training for pilot faculty in effective oral
communication and the types of assignments that might be incorporated
October 2012
SACS on-site review visit
Spring 2013
Implementation of the pilot QEP through the integration of oral
communication assignments into the pilot courses, the use of the
assessment rubric, and the administration of the speech anxiety scale
Spring 2013
Training of faculty/staff involved in QEP courses to be integrated into QEP
in fall 2013 with regard to effective oral communication, the use of relevant
technology, and the use of the oral communication rubric
38
College of the Mainland
Spring 2013
Development of plan to recruit students to give presentations in Student
Speakers Showcase
Spring 2013
Development of plan to recruit students to participate in Words that
Changed History Day
Summer 2013
Analysis of data from spring pilot implementation, to include student learner
outcome data, end-of-semester course evaluations, faculty feedback, and
data from professional development evaluation instrument
Summer 2013
Modification of rubric or other elements of the QEP based on pilot data
(data-based modification to be ongoing, as appropriate)
Fall 2013
Implementation (post-pilot phase) of QEP begins
Fall 2013
QEP Implementation Committee begins process of researching ways of
expanding QEP design to include online course sections
Spring 2014
Review of identified syllabi to validate inclusion of oral communication in
designated courses
Spring 2014
Training of faculty/staff involved in QEP courses to be integrated into QEP
in fall 2014 with regard to effective oral communication, the use of relevant
technology, and the use of the oral communication rubric
April 2014
First annual Student Speakers Showcase
Summer 2014
Analysis and dissemination of student learner outcome data from rubrics
and speech anxiety scale
Summer 2014
Review of random sample of electronically archived student presentations
to determine inter-rater reliability of rubric scoring
Fall 2014
Disseminate feedback to faculty with regard to inter-rater reliability of rubric
scoring; QEP Director to meet with faculty as needed to review scoring
criteria
Fall 2014
Continued expansion of QEP through integration of Year 2 courses
Fall 2014
Survey of faculty to obtain input on QEP process
October 2014
First annual Words that Changed History Day
Spring 2015
Review of identified syllabi to validate inclusion of oral communication in
designated courses
39
College of the Mainland
Spring 2015
Online QEP faculty trained in technology for recording and capturing oral
presentations in distance education format
April 2015
Second annual Student Speakers Showcase
Summer 2015
Analysis and dissemination of data from rubrics and speech anxiety scale
Summer 2015
Review of random sample of electronically archived student presentations
to determine inter-rater reliability of rubric scoring
Summer 2015
Disseminate feedback to faculty with regard to inter-rater reliability of rubric
scoring; QEP Director to meet with faculty as needed to review scoring
criteria
Fall 2015
Inclusion of online courses into QEP design begins
Fall 2015
Survey of faculty to obtain input on QEP process
October 2015
Second annual Words that Changed History Day
Spring 2016
Review of identified syllabi to validate inclusion of oral communication in
designated courses
April 2016
Third annual Student Speakers Showcase
Summer 2016
Analysis and dissemination of data from rubrics and speech anxiety scale
Summer 2016
Review of random sample of electronically archived student presentations
to determine inter-rater reliability of rubric scoring
Summer 2016
Disseminate feedback to faculty with regard to inter-rater reliability of rubric
scoring; QEP Director to meet with faculty as needed to review scoring
criteria
Fall 2016
Survey of faculty to obtain input on QEP process
October 2016
Third annual Words that Changed History Day
Spring 2017
Review of identified syllabi to validate inclusion of oral communication in
designated courses
April 2017
Fourth annual Student Speakers Showcase
Summer 2017
Analysis and dissemination of data from rubrics and speech anxiety scale
40
College of the Mainland
Summer 2017
Review of random sample of electronically archived student presentations
to determine inter-rater reliability of rubric scoring
Summer 2017
Disseminate feedback to faculty with regard to inter-rater reliability of rubric
scoring; QEP Director to meet with faculty as needed to review scoring
criteria
Fall 2017
Survey of faculty to obtain input on QEP process
Fall 2017
Survey of community to solicit their opinions regarding the oral
communication skills of COM students/graduates
October 2017
Fourth annual Words that Changed History Day
Spring 2018
Review of identified syllabi to validate inclusion of oral communication in
designated courses
April 2018
Fifth annual Student Speakers Showcase
Summer 2018
Analysis and dissemination of data from rubrics and speech anxiety scale
October 2018
Fifth annual Words that Changed History Day
October 2018
Submission of SACS Fifth-Year Interim Report (including Part V: The
Impact Report of the Quality Enhancement Plan)
NOTE 1: Professional development experiences will be assessed each time they occur, using COM’s online
evaluation tool, developed as part of the Achieving the Dream initiative.
NOTE 2: For a more detailed timeline of actions taken related to the QEP, see the copy of COM’s Project
Management Timeline in Appendix E.
41
College of the Mainland
SECTION VII
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Clear lines of responsibility for implementation and
sustainability (providing support for compliance CS 3.3.2 “institutional capability
for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP”)
This section demonstrates:
Institutional capability
for the initiation,
implementation, and
completion of the QEP
Administrative Infrastructure
The QEP at COM was organized in three phases to facilitate: 1) the topic selection process, the
topic development process, and 2) the implementation of the QEP.
QEP Topic Selection Process
Members of the QEP Topic Selection Committee were selected by the committee’s co-chairs,
Dr. Steven Sewell and Mr. Bruce Glover, in spring 2007. As noted in SECTION II, membership
of this committee reflected broad campus representation, including individuals from general
education departments, workforce programs, student support services, the administration, and
the student body. See Appendix F for a list of the QEP Topic Selection Committee’s members.
While the co-chairs of the QEP Topic Selection Committee answered directly to the VicePresident for Instruction, COM’s administration supported a faculty-driven topic selection
process and did not direct the committee toward any particular topic.
The organizational structure demonstrates that the QEP was viewed as being primarily an
instructional initiative, based on its goal of enhancing student learning, as evidenced by the
faculty-driven process as well as the organizational structure which placed the QEP under
instructional administration.
The organizational flow chart relevant to the topic selection process is presented below.
42
College of the Mainland
QEP Topic Development Process
Once the QEP Topic Selection Committee completed its task with the selection of oral
communication as the QEP topic, the focus turned to developing elements of the selected QEP
topic proposal. To this end, subcommittees were formed in 2009 to carry out the planning for
the major QEP components, and the chairs of these subcommittees served as the membership
of the QEP Topic Development Committee. The subcommittees formed, and their respective
missions, included the following:
Faculty Development and Coordination Subcommittee
Mission: Plan faculty development experiences, assigning responsibilities, determining target
audiences, etc., focusing on training faculty in the assessment of oral communications, the use
of necessary technologies, and ways to improve their own oral communication skills.
Assessment Subcommittee
Mission: Compile and organize the assessment instruments to be used in the QEP (as outlined
in SECTION IX, Assessment section of this proposal), develop a schedule for assessments, and
create a plan for coordinating these assessments, working with the Office of Institutional
Research and Effectiveness, as appropriate.
43
College of the Mainland
Technology Subcommittee
Mission: Research the various kinds of technology that could be used to record and archive
student presentation and make a recommendation to the QEP Implementation Committee
regarding the type of technology that would best fit the needs of COM’s QEP.
Marketing Subcommittee
Mission: Develop short-term, medium-term, and long-term plans for educating the campus and
community about the QEP (its focus, its purpose, its goals, and its value).
Budget Subcommittee
Mission: Determine and document (on a more specific basis) expected and actual QEP
expenses, including salaries and benefits, office supplies, technology, marketing, professional
development, etc.
Student Speakers Showcase Subcommittee
Mission: Make specific plans for the coordination of this annual event, including the
assignment of responsibilities, methods of recruiting students, how to invite the community, etc.
Words that Changed History Day Subcommittee
Mission: Make specific plans for the coordination of this annual event, including the
assignment of responsibilities, methods of selecting speeches to be dramatized, methods of
recruiting students, how to invite the community, etc.
See Appendix G for a list of the QEP Topic Development Committee’s members.
The organizational flow chart relevant to the topic development process is presented below.
44
College of the Mainland
45
College of the Mainland
QEP Implementation Process
A QEP Director (Dr. Gilchrist White, Professor of English) was appointed in the summer of 2011
to oversee the implementation of the topic. Assuming responsibility for the QEP from the cochairs of the QEP Topic Selection and Topic Development Committees, the QEP Director, with
input from outgoing co-chair, Dr. Steven Sewell, drafted members to serve on the QEP
Implementation Committee, which consists of individuals with expertise in the topic area and/or
a strong interest in implementing the QEP. This committee will be charged with the
responsibility of enacting the plan in its entirety, once the QEP topic is approved by the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). Thus,
this committee includes faculty with expertise in oral communication, faculty and staff involved in
implementing the QEP, and student services staff involved in supporting the QEP, including the
implementation of the “Words that Changed History” Day and the organization of the Student
Speakers Showcase.
Most of the subcommittees formed in the topic development phase will continue in operation
during the implementation phase. Those subcommittees include the following:
Faculty Development and Coordination Subcommittee
Assessment Subcommittee
Technology Subcommittee
Marketing Subcommittee
Student Speakers Showcase Subcommittee
Words that Changed History Day Subcommittee
See Appendix H for a list of the QEP Topic Implementation Committee members.
The QEP Director will chair the QEP Implementation Committee, direct the activities of the
various subcommittees, and oversee the operation of the Speaking, Reading, and Writing
Center. She will answer directly to the Vice President for Instruction (VPI), who in turn reports
directly to the President. Regular reports will be provided to the VPI with regard to the schedule
of implementation, budget expenditures, progress with regard to student learner outcomes, and
challenges encountered. As previously noted, regular reports will also be provided to the Board
of Trustees, as well as to the Instructional Leadership Council.
The QEP Director will perform these duties in exchange for two course releases in both the fall
and spring semesters in addition to an annual stipend of $5820, equivalent to the
reimbursement package offered to Department Chairs.
The organizational flow chart relevant to the topic implementation process is presented below.
46
College of the Mainland
47
College of the Mainland
SECTION VIII
RESOURCES
A realistic allocation of sufficient human, financial, and physical
resources (providing support for compliance CS 3.3.2 “institutional capability
for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP”)
This section demonstrates:
Institutional capability
for the initiation,
implementation, and
completion of the QEP
College of the Mainland Capabilities Supporting Oral Communication
The College of the Mainland has a broad range of capabilities that will serve to support the
development of student oral communication skills. Major capabilities will be provided by the
following offices/processes:
Speaking, Reading, and Writing Center
Existing tutoring services will be augmented with services focused on the development of oral
communication skills. A classroom space in the Technical and Vocational Building has already
been converted to house a comprehensive tutoring center that will provide opportunities for
students to receive assistance with reading, writing, and speaking. This center also includes
two soundproof booths in which students can record and practice speech delivery. Tips on
managing speech anxiety will also be shared with students who are uncomfortable speaking in
front of an audience.
The center is already serving students and is staffed currently by a professional tutor and a peer
tutor, but staffing will be augmented beginning fall 2012 with full-time faculty members from the
Humanities Department, who will serve some or all of their office hours in the Center in order to
be available to students.
Counseling and Disability Services
COM’s QEP seeks not only to enhance student oral communication skills but also to increase
student comfort levels with speaking in front of an audience. To that end, speech anxiety will be
assessed (see SECTION IX for more information on this assessment component), and students
with high levels of anxiety may seek assistance from a COM counselor for tips on how to
effectively manage this anxiety. Tutors in the Speaking, Reading, and Writing Center will also
be equipped to assist students in overcoming speaking anxiety.
In accordance with COM’s regular policies, students with documented disabilities who require
accommodations in order to be academically successful will be supported through the Office for
Students with Disabilities. Specific accommodations will be customized according to the
disability in question.
48
College of the Mainland
Student Success Course
The College of the Mainland offers a three-credit-hour student success course (PSYC/EDUC
1300 Psychology for Success) that is mandatory for students testing into developmental classes
in reading, English, and/or math. This course not only seeks to help student navigate the world
of higher education but also focuses on decision-making skills, motivation, and lifelong learning.
An oral communication component is part of the course, often giving students their first
experience in speaking in front of an audience.
Teaching and Learning Committee of the Planning Council
The Planning Council was established at COM in 2009 to serve as a point of consensus in a
participatory process that identifies and analyzes issues of significant interest to the College
community. It is through the Planning Council that the President obtains recommendations for
the annual planning priorities and budget allocations. The Council also evaluates the use of
planning and assessment results to improve the quality of services in the areas of
administration, instruction, student services and college operations.
The Teaching and Learning Committee (TLC) studies, analyzes, and makes recommendations
to the Planning Council about programs, curricular resources, and pedagogy. This includes best
practices, innovations, and related issues serving the facilitation and enhancement of the
teaching and learning process at COM. Recommendations formulated by this committee are
forwarded to COM’s Planning Council, which, in turn, makes recommendations to COM’s
administration with regard to how discretionary funds should be prioritized. As the QEP moves
forward, this committee may recommend actions that support the QEP or address challenges
encountered in its implementation.
Faculty Brown Bag Lunches
Faculty meet on a voluntary basis for “brown bag lunch” discussion groups every other month.
These lunches offer an opportunity for faculty to share pedagogical strategies and concerns on
a variety of topics. While these meetings are scheduled and facilitated by the Faculty Senate
President, the QEP Director will attend these lunches to be available as a resource on QEPrelated questions and concerns as well as to raise the profile of the QEP and its focus on oral
communication. These lunches provide a ready-made forum for faculty to discuss issues
pertaining to the implementation of the QEP, including innovative oral communication
assignments, and effective ways to model oral communication.
Instructional Assessment Committee (IAC)
COM regularly assesses student learning outcomes in a systematic manner, and this process is
overseen by the IAC. All sections of credit-bearing courses (including those taught by full-time
faculty as well as those taught by part-time faculty) are assessed with regard to student learning
outcomes every semester. Data pertaining to these outcomes are entered into an electronic
database, using a five-column model that requires information on how the outcome is assessed,
the criterion for success, actual results from each course section taught that semester, and most
importantly, how the faculty member will use the results to improve outcomes the next
semester. Not only is this data pertinent to the individual faculty member, but the data is also
regularly aggregated across course sections to provide information about how effectively
student learning outcomes are being achieved across all sections of the course in question.
With these processes already in place, the documentation of student learning outcome
achievement related to the QEP will be efficiently accomplished. Faculty members are already
familiar with the assessment process established, so it is anticipated that minimal training will be
required to provide faculty with the skills necessary to access and use the database.
49
College of the Mainland
Institutional Effectiveness Council (IEC)
COM’s IEC provides oversight of all assessment activities at the College. The IEC is comprised
of representatives from assessment bodies across campus in addition to the Director of
Institutional Research and Effectiveness, and other relevant staff. The IEC is charged with
coordinating, compiling, and ensuring the congruence of all assessment data collection and
processes on campus.
Specifically, the IEC is responsible for:
1. Coordination of the various IE processes on campus to avoid duplication of effort and to
ensure consistency and continuity of purpose
2. Making recommendations based on a review and evaluation of institutional effectiveness
reports and assessment data
3. Annual review and evaluation of unit plan objectives, their means of assessment and
use of results to ensure quality in the planning and assessment process
4. Providing support for improving campus wide training on the IE process.
The Director of the QEP, Dr. Gilchrist White, serves on the IEC, reflecting the importance of the
QEP to the College’s mission. Data pertinent to the QEP’s student learning outcomes will be
reviewed by the IEC, who in turn, will report this data in the College’s annual plan.
College of the Mainland Allocation of Funds for the QEP
Presented below is the budget for the QEP, broken out into a primary budget and an in-kind
budget.
50
College of the Mainland
College of the Mainland QEP Budget
2011-12
2012-13
Year 1
2013-14
Year 2
2014-15
Year 3
2015-16
Year 4
2016-17
Year 5
2017-18
Totals
21,000
6,400
2,400
21,000
0
0
21,000
0
0
21,000
0
0
21,000
0
0
21,000
0
0
21,000
0
0
147,000
6,400
2,400
30,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
0
0
2,000
10,195
2,000
0
2,000
0
2,000
0
2,000
0
2,000
0
12,000
10,195
2,000
15,450
1,175
1,175
1,175
1,175
1,175
22,150
Student Speakers
Showcase
0
0
500
500
500
500
500
2,500
Speaker’s Bureau
0
0
500
500
500
500
500
2,500
6,000
5,820
5,820
5,820
5,820
5,820
5,820
40,920
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
70,000
0
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
24,000
87,995
58,270
44,995
44,995
44,995
44,995
44,995
371,240
Technology
Sharestream
Cameras + equip
Televisions for
Speaking Center
Speaking, Reading,
and Writing Center
Renovation Costs (one
time)
Operational Expenses
Furniture (one time)
Marketing
Personnel
QEP Director’s
Stipend
QEP Director’s Adjunct
Costs
(course releases)
Adjunct Costs for
Speech Faculty
Totals
51
College of the Mainland
College of the Mainland QEP In-Kind Budget
2011-12
2012-13
Year 1
2013-14
Year 2
2014-15
Year 3
2015-16
Year 4
2016-17
Year 5
2017-18
Totals
17,000
0
0
18,400
0
18,400
0
18,400
0
18,400
0
18,400
0
18,400
17,000
110,400
0
7363
3144
3144
3144
3144
3144
23,083
5814
1094
1094
1094
1094
1094
1094
12,378
375
600
600
600
600
600
600
3975
1590
2820
2820
2820
3560
3560
3560
20,730
1100
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
2200
14,300
25.879
32,477
28,258
28,258
28,998
28,998
28,998
201,866
Speaking, Reading,
and Writing Center
Computers
Tutors (professional
and peer)
Institutional
Research and
Effectiveness
Support
Personnel
Marketing Support
Personnel
Professional
Development
Support
Personnel
Administrative
Support
Personnel (for
ShareStream and
video recording)
Personnel (for
administration)
Totals
52
College of the Mainland
SECTION IX
ASSESSMENT
A comprehensive evaluation plan (providing support for
compliance with CS 3.3.2 “a plan to assess their achievement”)
This section demonstrates:
Identification of
goals and a plan to
assess their
achievement
The emphasis on oral communication throughout the curriculum seeks to transform COM’s
students into excellent speakers. The QEP also seeks to help students become accustomed to
speaking in front of an audience, reducing communication-related anxiety. However, these
efforts must be evaluated to determine whether these outcomes have been achieved.
COM’s culture has become increasingly evidenced-based over the last six years since the
College joined the Achieving the Dream (ATD) initiative in 2006. With its emphasis on datainformed decision-making and its focus on student success, the ATD initiative has facilitated
COM’s evolution into an institution that regularly evaluates its student success interventions,
modifying them as necessary based on the evidence. In addition, COM regularly collects data
on student success indicators to include successful course completions in developmental
education, transitions from developmental education to credit-bearing gateway courses,
successful course completions in gateway courses, retention and persistence, and certificates
and awards. Thus, the evaluation of the QEP’s impact on student learning outcomes will be
integrated into the institution’s regular institutional effectiveness efforts.
QEP Pilot Phase
The professional development modules for faculty will be piloted in fall of 2012 and spring of
2013 with a small group of faculty members who will implement the QEP in pilot courses in the
spring of 2013. During this pilot phase, the professional development experiences, the QEP
Oral Communication rubric, and technology used to capture student presentations will be
evaluated to determine what modifications need to be made. These determinations will be
made based on feedback gathered from faculty members, who will be interviewed with regard to
the implementation of these interventions.
QEP-Intensive vs. QEP-Basic Classes
Following the pilot phase of the QEP, as discussed in SECTION V, the QEP will be
implemented initially along two tracks: QEP-Intensive and QEP-Basic. The primary difference
in these two tracks is the degree to which students and faculty receive training, either via an
electronic instructional module (in the case of students) or via professional development
experiences (in the case of faculty). In both tracks, class syllabi will include an oral
communication component, and student presentations will be evaluated using the QEP Oral
Communication Rubric (discussed later in this section). As noted previously in SECTION V, the
basic and intensive courses will differ as follows:
53
College of the Mainland
Table 6: A Comparison of QEP-Basic vs. QEP-Intensive Course Elements
The effectiveness of interventions implemented in the QEP-intensive conditions will be
evaluated by comparing data collected pertaining to the achievement of student learner
outcomes, based on student scores on the oral communication rubric. In addition, focus groups
will be conducted with faculty teaching basic courses as well as faculty teaching intensive
courses to determine the perceptions of faculty with regard to the supports offered to faculty in
both conditions (basic and intensive). Additionally, data from end-of-semester course
evaluations will be reviewed, as will data from the professional development evaluation
instrument, which requires faculty to identify how they will implement the knowledge/skills
gained through the QEP training. The review of these data sources will guide which elements of
the intensive course interventions will be retained and/or modified as the QEP continues to
move forward in fall 2014.
Assessment of the QEP
The QEP will be assessed both with respect to its operational elements and its impact on
student learning.
Operational Questions
The QEP Director, along with the QEP Implementation Committee with input from the QEP
Assessment Subcommittee, will evaluate the operational elements of the QEP, considering the
following questions:
 Are we implementing the elements of the QEP as planned?
54
College of the Mainland
 What changes, if any, should be made to any of the QEP interventions?
 Are we providing adequate and appropriate support to the faculty and staff involved in
the QEP?
 Are there any emerging best practices that inform any of the key elements of the QEP?
Data collected to be used in the consideration of these questions will include:
 Frequency of the use of the Speaking, Reading, and Writing Center
 Student satisfaction with their experiences in the Speaking, Reading, and Writing Center
 Submission of QEP Oral Communication Rubric scores by faculty
 Feedback from faculty with regard to the professional development component of the
QEP
 Feedback from faculty with regard to the perceived adequacy of the student instructional
module
 Data from Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) questions 4a
(“During the current school year, how often have you: Asked questions in class or
contributed to class discussions”) and 4b (“During the current school year, how often
have you: Made a class presentation”)
 Information gained from an annual review of best practices.
Impact Questions
The QEP Director, along with the QEP Implementation Committee with input from the QEP
Assessment Subcommittee, will evaluate the impact elements of the QEP, considering the
following questions:
 What evidence do we have to show student development of oral communication skills?
 What evidence do we have to indicate that students are comfortable speaking in front of
an audience?
 What evidence do we have to show an emphasis on oral communication elements
across the curriculum?
 What conclusions can we draw based on our data?
Data collected to be used in the consideration of these questions will include:
 Student scores on the Oral Communication Rubric
 Student scores on the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24)
survey administered to students at the beginning and end of each semester in each
55
College of the Mainland
QEP-enhanced course (data to be managed through the Office of Institutional Research
and Effectiveness)
 Data pertaining to faculty oral communication skills from end-of-semester course
evaluations completed by students.
QEP Oral Communication Rubric
Students’ oral communication assignments will be evaluated by faculty using a rubric developed
by the COM’s speech faculty, based on their teaching experiences and best practices. All QEPenhanced courses will use the same rubric. The rubric was developed such that a variety of
types of oral communication (formal presentations, interviewing, etc.) can be evaluated with the
same rubric. The QEP rubric will be used to evaluate student oral communication on four
criteria:
1. Verbal communication
2. Nonverbal communication
3. Content
4. Organization
Student oral communication assignments will be evaluated on a 1 to 4 scale in each of these
four areas, with a score of 4 representing a higher level of performance.
The rubric itself will be shared with students so that they may attend to these elements in
preparing for the oral communication assignment. Feedback will also be given to students
using the rubric so that they may improve their oral communication skills.
While multiple oral communication rubrics can be found in use among other institutions of higher
education, this rubric was designed to be balance ease of use with the potential for useful
feedback for students.
Faculty will receive training on using this rubric in a manner that achieves inter-rater reliability.
Faculty will practice scoring oral communication samples during their professional development
experience, with discussion and feedback given to aid in achieving reliable interpretation of the
scoring categories.
In addition, ten percent of QEP-enhanced course sections per semester (selected in conjunction
with the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness) will be videotaped and archived
online for one year and offline for two years. Each year the QEP Assessment Subcommittee
will evaluate a representative sample of the archived presentations to compare their rubric
scores assigned to the scores assigned by the faculty member in whose class the assignment
occurred. The need for follow-up training on the reliable use of the rubric will be determined
based on the degree to which inter-rater reliability is achieved.
In addition, longitudinal tracking of individual students will occur to the greatest extent possible,
such that growth in oral communication skills may be able to be demonstrated via archived
presentations for a small sample of students. The QEP Assessment Committee will review the
archived samples that show student performance at multiple points in time to look for qualitative
evidence that demonstrates growth in oral communication skills.
To view the QEP Oral Communication Rubric, see Appendix I.
56
College of the Mainland
QEP Student Learner Outcomes
It is hypothesized that students will demonstrate enhanced oral communication skills and
diminished anxiety attached to public speaking as a result of the QEP’s interventions. To be
more specific, the QEP Assessment Subcommittee, working closely with speech faculty
members, identified the QEP’s student learning outcomes as follows:
1) Students will demonstrate the ability to express their ideas verbally using expressive,
accurate and appropriate language.
2) Students will use appropriate presentation techniques (i.e., maintain eye contact,
modulate voice, demonstrate appropriate pacing, use appropriate gestures, etc.)
3) Students will demonstrate understanding of the topic by utilizing properly cited facts,
examples, and other forms of support.
4) Students will plan, prepare, and deliver a well-organized, logical oral presentation.
5) Students will demonstrate a decrease in their communication apprehension with
repeated practice of oral communication skills in QEP-enhanced courses.
Assessment Design: Student Learner Outcomes
Instructors in QEP-enhanced courses will score student oral communication assignments using
the established QEP Oral Communication rubric. (See Appendix I.) This data will be entered
into an electronic database (maintained by the Office of Institutional Research and
Effectiveness), allowing multiple statistical analyses, including comparisons of student learner
outcomes by group (QEP-Basic courses vs. QEP-Intensive courses), by instructor, by discipline,
as well as longitudinally. Cross-sectional analyses among students who have completed
increasing numbers of QEP-enhanced courses will be conducted to determine the impact of
repeated practice of oral communication skills in the classroom.
Hypothesis:
 The percentage of students scoring a 3 or 4 on the oral communication rubric will be
greater among students who have taken more QEP=enhanced courses.
Criteria for success are identified as follows:
 QEP Student Learner Outcome 1: Students will demonstrate the ability to express
their ideas verbally using expressive, accurate and appropriate language.
Criteria for success:
 50 percent of students who have completed 2 QEP-enhanced courses will score
3 or higher on a 4-point oral communication rubric.
 60 percent of students who have completed 4 QEP-enhanced courses will score
3 or higher on a 4-point oral communication rubric.
 70 percent of students who have completed 6 QEP-enhanced courses will score
3 or higher on a 4-point oral communication rubric.
 QEP Student Learner Outcome 2: Students will use appropriate presentation
techniques (i.e., maintain eye contact, modulate voice, demonstrate appropriate pacing,
use appropriate gestures, etc.)
57
College of the Mainland
Criteria for success:
 50 percent of students who have completed 2 QEP-enhanced courses will score
3 or higher on a 4-point oral communication rubric.
 60 percent of students who have completed 4 QEP-enhanced courses will score
3 or higher on a 4-point oral communication rubric.
 70 percent of students who have completed 6 QEP-enhanced courses will score
3 or higher on a 4-point oral communication rubric.
 QEP Student Learner Outcome 3: Students will demonstrate understanding of the
topic by utilizing properly cited facts, examples, and other forms of support.
Criteria for success:
 50 percent of students who have completed 2 QEP-enhanced courses will score
3 or higher on a 4-point oral communication rubric.
 60 percent of students who have completed 4 QEP-enhanced courses will score
3 or higher on a 4-point oral communication rubric.
 70 percent of students who have completed 6 QEP-enhanced courses will score
3 or higher on a 4-point oral communication rubric.
 QEP Student Learner Outcome 4: Students will plan, prepare, and deliver a wellorganized, logical oral presentation.
Criteria for success:
 50 percent of students who have completed 2 QEP-enhanced courses will score
3 or higher on a 4-point oral communication rubric.
 60 percent of students who have completed 4 QEP-enhanced courses will score
3 or higher on a 4-point oral communication rubric.
 70 percent of students who have completed 6 QEP-enhanced courses will score
3 or higher on a 4-point oral communication rubric.
Assessment Design: Communication Apprehension
It is predicted that repeated practice of oral communication skills in the classroom will lead to
reduced anxiety over public speaking. In addition, tutors in the Speaking, Reading, and Writing
Center, as well as COM counselors, will be resources for students seeking to conquer speaking
anxiety.
Communication apprehension will be assessed using the Personal Report of Communication
Apprehension (PRCA-24) survey. (See Appendix J.) The number of QEP-enhanced courses
successfully completed is predicted to be related inversely to the student’s level of
apprehension as measured on this instrument.
This instrument will be administered to students at the beginning and end of each QEPenhanced course, and will also be administered to students at the time of their initial placement
testing at entry into COM. Analyses will be conducted correlating each student’s last/most
recent PRCA – 24 score with the number of QEP courses taken, but additional statistical
analyses, including pre-/post-test comparisons will also be conducted.
58
College of the Mainland
Hypothesis:
 Students will demonstrate a decrease in their communication apprehension with
repeated practice of oral communication skills.
Criterion for success is identified as follows:
 QEP Student Learner Outcome 5: Students will demonstrate a decrease in their
communication apprehension with repeated practice of oral communication skills in
QEP-enhanced courses.
Criterion for success:
 There will be a statistically significant negative correlation between the number of
QEP-enhanced courses successfully completed by a student and the student’s
final post-test score on the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension
(PRCA-24) survey. (See Appendix J.)
Assessment Design: Professional Development Experiences
Professional development is a key element of this QEP. Because students will be expected to
practice oral communication skills in courses across the curriculum taught by faculty members
who are not necessarily credentialed to teach speech, faculty need to feel equipped to evaluate
and offer feedback to students with regard to their speaking abilities. In addition, they need to
be able to use the oral communication rubric in a reliable manner, and they need to model
effective oratory skills themselves.
To those ends, professional development will be offered to each new cohort of faculty joining
the QEP, per the schedule presented in SECTION V. These professional development
experiences will be evaluated using an evaluation instrument developed at COM as part of its
Achieving the Dream initiative. (See Appendix K.) This instrument is designed to collect data
not only on the participants’ perceptions of the presenter(s) (i.e., whether or not the presenters
were effective) but also relevant to the application of the information and skills acquired.
Specifically, participants will be asked to think about where and how they will apply the skills
and knowledge gained and to identify the main things gained from the experience.
Approximately six months after the training session, a follow-up survey will be administered to
the participants, in which they will be asked to identify how they have actually applied the
knowledge and skills gained in the time period following the training. This information will be
used to guide modifications of the professional development modules as necessary.
In addition, the impact of the professional development experiences on the actual oral
communication skills of faculty will also be evaluated. Questions relevant to faculty oratory skills
will be added to the College’s regular end-of-course evaluation instrument completed by
students. Students will be asked to rate faculty on oral communication skills similar to those on
which students are rated on the Oral Communication Rubric, including:
 Uses clear language skills including appropriate language, good grammar/syntax,
defined concepts, and accurate words most of the time
 Displays enthusiasm, good eye contact, and appropriate gestures most of the time
59
College of the Mainland
Questions already included in the end-of-semester course evaluations address the other two
criteria of the Oral Communication Rubric such that faculty are already evaluated on issues
pertaining to their knowledge of the subject matter and degree to which their material is
presented in a logical, organized manner.
Scores on these end-of-course evaluation questions will be analyzed to determine whether
there are group differences between faculty teaching QEP-basic courses versus QEP-intensive
courses in Year 1 of implementation, since faculty in the latter group will receive more intensive
professional development. In addition, faculty performance on these items in QEP-enhanced
courses versus non-QEP-enhanced courses will also be compared. As the QEP moves
forward, the scores on these items will be used to offer faculty the opportunity to work to
improve specific components of their own oral communication skills. In addition, the presence
of these items enhances the emphasis placed on oral communication, making it a priority at
COM.
60
College of the Mainland
SECTION X
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The College of the Mainland is evolving toward becoming an increasingly evidence-driven
institution in its pursuit of student success. With the advent of initiatives like Achieving the
Dream on this campus, we have become much more focused on decision-making that rests on
a solid foundation of data so that expenditures of time, money, and effort are maximally targeted
on enhancing student learning. Sometimes the data indicates that a particular intervention or
methodology is ineffective and needs to be modified; sometimes the data indicates that one
method is better than another. But in the case of COM’s approach to oral communication, what
the data from multiple sources indicated was that there simply was no broad-based effort to
teach these important skills to our students, and therefore, the immediately apparent need was
to develop a process for integrating oral communication into the curriculum.
Once the topic of oral communication was selected, the next step was to develop a plan not
only for its systematic integration into the curriculum but also to equip faculty with the tools
necessary for the instruction and assessment of these skills. Thus, plans for intensive
professional development have been made, and these training experiences will be evaluated
against a comparison condition involving minimally necessary training for faculty. In addition,
we have recognized the need to elevate the profile of oral communication as an essential skill
set, and to that end campus events showcasing effective speech have been planned. We will
also maintain the focus on these skills by including the QEP as a regular agenda item for
meetings of key administrative and instructional bodies.
The assessment of the QEP’s impact will be systematic and direct, focusing primarily on student
performance on oral communication assignments as well as student confidence in their
speaking skills. Faculty will also receive feedback from students via end-of-course evaluations
regarding their own oral communication skills, and this feedback may be used to improve their
own abilities to function as effective role models in the classroom.
The QEP will be data-driven such that plans to expand the QEP following the formal QEP fiveyear period will be informed by the evaluation of the QEP’s impact.
It is our goal to equip students with the skills necessary to perform successfully not only in
college but in the world beyond. As they venture forth to find employment, students need to be
able to compete effectively for jobs and to advance within the workplace once employment is
secured. It is clear that the ability to articulate ideas is valued by employers and necessary to
perform successfully in most jobs. Thus, COM’s QEP seeks to enhance student success not
only on our campus but in the world at large.
“Speech is power: Speech is to persuade, to convert, to compel. It is to bring another out of his
bad sense into your good sense.”
(Ralph Waldo Emerson)
61
College of the Mainland
SECTION XI
REFERENCES
American College Testing. (2012). Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency. Retrieved
January 15, 2012, from American College Testing: www.act.org/caap/
Andrews, J. & Higson, H. (2008). Graduate employability, 'soft skills' versus 'hard' business
knowledge: a European study. Higher Education in Europe, 33(4), 411-422.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global
century: a report from the National Leadership Coundil for Liberal Education and
America's Promise. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Buckley, M. H. (1992). Focus on research: we listen a book a day; speak a book a week:
learning from walter loban. Language Arts, 69, 622-626.
Buckley, M. R., Peach, E. B., & & Weitzel, W. (1989). Are collegiate business programs
adequately preparing students for the business world? Journal of Education for
Business, 65, 101-105.
Waggoner, J. (2003, May). Nothing hard about soft skills in the college classroom/Career
Directions: Job Skills. Tech Directions, 62(10), 22-23. Retrieved from
http://www.wcu.edu/facctr/mountainrise/archive/vol3no2/html/waggoner.pdf
Chapter 10 Oral Communication. (n.d.). Retrieved January 1, 2012, from 210.46.97.180:
http://210.46.97.180/zonghe/book/197-office%20procedure/chapter10.htm
Cheng, S. (2007). Durham Technical Community College. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from
Integrating Oral Communication Demands in the Classroom:
http://courses.durhamtech.edu/tlc/www/html/Special_Feature/Oral%20Communication%
20in%20the%20Classroom%20-%20Spring%202007.ppt
Cronin, M. & Glenn, P. (1991). Oral communication across the curriculum in higher education:
The state of the art. Communication Education, 40(4), 356-367.
Diamond, R. (1997). Broad curriculum reform needed if students are to master core skills.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 43(47), B7.
Downing, S. (2011). On course: Strategies for creating success in college and in life (6th ed.).
Boston, MA: Wadsworth CENGAGE Learning.
Durham Technical Community College. (2006). Durham Technical Community College Quality
Enhancement Plan. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from Durham Technical College :
http://www.durhamtech.edu/html/reaffirmation/qep.pdf
Emanuel, R. (2011). Critical concerns for oral communication education in Alabama and
beyond. Education Research International, 2011, 1-12.
62
College of the Mainland
Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., Stice, J. E., & Rugarcia, A. (2000). The future of engineering
education: part 2. Teaching methods that work. Chemical Engineering Education, 34(1),
26-39.
Friedland, E. (2004). Oral communication across the curriculum: What's a small college to do?
Journal of General Education, 53(3/4), 288-310.
Keating, N. L., Green, D. C., Kao, A. C., Gazmararian, J. A., Wu, V. Y., & Cleary, P. D. (2002).
How are patients' specific ambulatory car experiences related to trust, satisfaction, and
considering changing physicians? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 29-39.
Loacker, S. G. (1981, November). Alverno college's program in developing and assessing oral
communication skills. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech
Communication Association, Anaheim, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED212001). Retrieved Dec. 21, 2011 from ERIC database.
Mark, P. (2008). Redefining business communication courses to enhance student employability.
Retrieved January 1, 2012, from B>Quest:
http://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2008/pedagogy08.htm
Martin-Young, N. (1996, March). Communication skills in the workplace: employers talk back.
Retrieved January 1, 2012, from North Carolina Conference of English Instructors:
http://www.nccei.org/newsletter/comskills.html
McCroskey, J. C. (1982). An introduction to rhetorical communication (4th Ed). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2011). Job outlook: Verbal communication
skills most sought by employers. Retrieved Dec. 27, 2011 from
http://www.naceweb.org/so12082010/college_skills/
National Communication Association. (1996). Policy statement on the role of communication
courses in general education. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from National
Communication Association: http://www.natcom.org/nca/Template2.asp?bid=526
Personal Report of Communication apprehension (PRCA-24). (n.d.). Retrieved November 6,
2008, from University of Hawaii, Teacher Resources, Oral Communication Focus:
http://www.hawaii.edu/gened/oc/prca.htm
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). (2012).
The principles of accreditation: Foundations for quality enhancement (5th ed.). Decatur,
GA: SACSCOC.
Schick, S. (2000). Hard truth about soft skills. IT Training & Careers, December 1, 25.
Shweta. (n.d.). Poor communication skills can cost you the job. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from
careerbright.com: http://careerbright.com/career-self-help/poor-communication-skillscan-cost-you-the-job
Smith, M. C. (2000). What will be the demands of literacy in the workplace in the next
millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 378-380.
63
College of the Mainland
Smith, T. (2011, Feb. 8). The growing importance of soft skills. Retrieved Dec. 21, 2011, from
http://www.littlethingsmatter.com/blog/2011/02/08/the-growing-importance-of-soft-skills/
Soft Skills a key to employment today. (2002, October). Career Opportunities News, 20(2).
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (1999). Core Curriculum: Assumptions and
defining characteristics. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from Academic Affairs and
Research: Undergraduate Education:
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm?objectid=7ED36862-993C-10F2C64CA9C9EDF26C4C
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2012). Elements of the Core Curriculum
http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm?objectid=6F049CAE-F54E-26E4ED9F0DAC62FABF7D
University of Miami. (2008). University of Miami Quality Enhancement Plan (revised):
Faculty Learning Communities to Enhance Undergraduate Education. Retrieved from
University of Miami, website:
https://umshare.miami.edu/team/oaa/web/OAA_Web_Files/QEP%20FINAL%20VERSION%203.pdf
University of Southern Mississippi. (2009). Enhancing the learning environment for improved
speaking skills. Retrieved from University of Southern Mississippi Speaking Center:
website: http://www.usm.edu/qep/the_speaking_center.html
U.S. Department of Labor. (1990). The secretary’s commission on achieving necessary skills
(SCANS): Identifying and describing the skills required by work. Washington, DC:
Pelavin Associate, Inc. Retrieved from http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/idsrw/idsrw.pdf
Willett, T. H. (1984, November). Reading the client: nonverbal communication as an
interviewing tool. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication
Association.
64
College of the Mainland
SECTION XII
APPENDICES
Appendix A
COM QEP Survey
Page 1 of COM QEP Survey administered in fall of 2007
Page 2 of COM QEP Survey administered in fall of 2007
65
College of the Mainland
Page 3 of COM QEP Survey administered in fall of 2007
Page 4 of COM QEP Survey administered in fall of 2007
66
College of the Mainland
Appendix B
Executive Summary of QEP Survey
Executive Summary: QEP Survey (Fall 2007)
In the fall of 2007, the College of the Mainland’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Committee
conducted a written survey to determine which of nine skills or competencies were perceived by
respondents to be most important for students to achieve through their college experience.
These competencies included critical thinking, reading comprehension, written communication,
oral communication, math skills, computer literacy, interpersonal skills, global awareness, and
multicultural sensitivity. Respondents were also asked to rate how effectively COM addresses
each of these nine competency areas. In addition, respondents were given an opportunity to list
additional skill areas that they perceived to be important for students to gain through their
experience at COM.
Eight respondent groups were surveyed (faculty, N = 95; professional staff, N = 70; classified
staff, N = 71; board members, N = 3; employers, N = 5; community members, N = 30; COM
graduates, N = 56; and COM students, N = 1246). Results are summarized below.
With regard to the importance of the nine competencies, mean rankings were ordered as
follows:
#1 reading comprehension, #2 critical thinking, #3 oral communication, #4 written
communication, #5 interpersonal skills, #6 math skills, #7 computer literacy, #8
multicultural sensitivity, and # 9 global awareness.
Interestingly, all of the different respondent groups, except the board, ranked the same
competencies in the top four (reading comprehension, critical thinking, oral
communication, and written communication), though not always in exactly the same
order. Only the board members deviated from this trend, ranking interpersonal skills as
most important and multicultural sensitivity as being tied for the second spot with reading
comprehension and computer literacy.
With regard to the effectiveness with which COM prepares students with regard to the nine
competencies, mean effectiveness ratings placed the competencies in the following order (from
most effectively addressed to least effectively addressed):
#1 written communication, #2 reading comprehension, #3 computer literacy, #4/5 (tie)
critical thinking and math skills, #6 oral communication, #7 interpersonal skills, #8
multicultural sensitivity, and #9 global awareness.
Of the eight respondent groups surveyed, five rated global awareness (on average) as
the skill area for which students are least effectively prepared. Two of the groups
(community members and employers) rated multicultural skills as those that the College
least effectively addresses, and one group (professional staff) rated critical thinking as
67
College of the Mainland
the skill area in which students are least effectively prepared. It should be noted,
however, that the skill areas were rated on a seven-point Likert scale, with four being the
middle point, and all of the means were above 4.00 (with a range from 4.53 to 5.40).
Finally, additional skill sets named by respondents were as follows (note that some skill sets
were redundant with some already listed in the nine competencies), with the number of
respondents endorsing the skill in parentheses:
Life skills (72), study skills (62), math (58), time management (56), communication (52),
social science (47), writing (45), reading (42), physical education (40), career services
(40), life science (39), computer science (28), fine arts (27), English (19), global
awareness (19), and history (18).
Concluding Comment: Thus, the skill areas ranked as most important by respondents are
generally also those that they feel the College effectively addresses. Oral communication is
somewhat of an exception, as it was ranked as third most important but not characterized as
one of the skills most effectively addressed (its mean effectiveness rating placed it sixth). It
should also be noted that “life skills,” an additional competency area identified in the openended portion of the survey, might encompass some of the other skill areas identified (such as
study skills, time management, career services), and this set of skills might be considered
consistent with some of the competencies targeted in a first-year experience course.
68
College of the Mainland
Appendix C
COM Rubric for Evaluating Two-Page QEP Proposals from Campus
COM Quality Enhancement Plan
Rubric for Evaluating Topic Proposals
Title:
Reviewer:
There are 7 topic elements to be reviewed plus an overall evaluation element. Each element can
earn a score of 0, 1, 2, or 3 per the descriptor that most appropriately fits the element.
Score
Rationale
0 – Contains no statement of rationale
1 – Rationale is stated only in general terms
2 – Rationale is specific
3 – Rationale is specific and provides a convincing case for the project
Topic is focused, relevant and appropriate
0 – Proposal does not address how student learning and/or environment will be
affected
1 – Proposal only includes vague references to student learning and/or environment
2 – Proposals suggest implicit goals to affect student learning and or environment
3 – Proposal clearly focused on student learning and/or environment identifying
relevant and appropriate goals
Proposal identifies key student learning outcomes
0 – Does not address student learning outcomes
1 – Includes vague or inappropriately constructed student learning outcomes
2 – Provides appropriately constructed student learning outcomes
3 – Clearly describes appropriately constructed student learning outcomes
Topic is measurable and assessable
0 – No outcome assessment procedures are provided
1 – Some outcome assessment procedures are provided but the project focuses most
heavily on indirect measures of student learning.
2 – Outcomes assessment procedures include direct measures of student learning but
are described only in general terms
3 – Outcomes assessment procedures include direct measures that are clearly described
and feasible.
Proposal is well grounded in research
0 – No discussion of literature or best practices are provided
1 – Some discussion of literature, but no best practices is provided
2 – Basic discussion of literature and best practices is provided
3 – Good discussion of previous literature and clear best practices are provided
69
College of the Mainland
Impact on COM
0 – Proposal does not address how different parts of COM will be affected
1 – Proposal incompletely describes how different parts of COM will be affected
2 – Proposal superficially describes how different parts of COM will be affected
3 – Proposal thoroughly describes how different parts of COM will be affected
Implementation
0 – Discussion of implementation is not provided
1 – Discussion of implementation is provided but is not specific and/or realistic
2 – Discussion of implementation is appropriate but not fully developed or convincing
3 – Discussion of implementation is specific, clear, and reasonable given scope of
project and existing constraints
Overall Evaluation
0 – Proposal is poor and should not be approved
1 – Proposal is adequate
2 – Proposal is very good and should be selected
3 – Proposal is outstanding and should definitely be selected
Total
Comments:
70
College of the Mainland
Appendix D
COM Rubric for Evaluating Expanded QEP Topic Proposals from Campus
COM Quality Enhancement Plan
Rubric for Evaluating Expanded Topic Proposals
Elements
Scale
1. Definition of Selected Topic
0
2
4
6
Topic is not well defined
Topic is only vaguely defined
Topic is adequately defined
Topic is well defined
2. Review of Best Practices
0
1
2
3
No discussion of literature/best practices is provided
Minimal discussion of literature/best practices is provided
Good discussion of literature/best practices is provided
Excellent discussion of literature/best practices is provided
3. Identification of student learner outcomes
0
3
6
9
Does not address student learning outcomes
Includes vague or inappropriately constructed student learning outcomes
Provides appropriately constructed student learning outcomes
Clearly describes appropriately constructed student learning outcomes
4. Identification of actions to be implemented
0
3
6
9
No clear plan of actions to be implemented is provided
Plan of actions to be implemented is vague and not systematic
Plan of actions to be developed is appropriate but not fully developed
Well defined, systematic and fully developed plan of actions to be implemented
5. Establishment of a timeline for implementation
0
2
4
6
Timeline is not provided
Timeline is provided but is not specific and/or realistic
Timeline is appropriate but not fully developed or convincing
Timeline is specific, clear, and reasonable given scope of project and existing
constraints
71
Score
College of the Mainland
6. Identification of necessary resources (financial and human)
0
1
2
3
Proposal does not address resources needed
Proposal describes resource needs which are insufficient or excessive for scope of
topic
Proposal describes resource needs that can probably be adapted to the topic
Proposal describes resource needs that are appropriate and sufficient to the topic
7. Description of the administrative infrastructure for the implementation
and continuation of the QEP
0
Proposal does not describe the administrative infrastructure for implementation and
continuation of the QEP
1
Proposal incompletely describes the administrative infrastructure for implementation
and continuation of the QEP
2
Proposal adequately describes the administrative infrastructure for implementation
and continuation of the QEP
3
Proposal fully describes the administrative infrastructure for implementation and
continuation of the QEP
8. Description of how the success of the QEP will be assessed
0
No outcome assessment procedures are provided
3
Some outcome assessment procedures are provided but the project focuses most
heavily on indirect measures of student learning.
6
Outcomes assessment procedures include direct measures of student learning but are
described only in general terms
9
Outcomes assessment procedures include direct measures that are clearly described
and feasible.
Overall Evaluation
0
1
2
3
Proposal is not well developed given the scope of the QEP
Proposal is adequate but key elements seem to be missing
Proposal is very good and should receive consideration
Proposal is outstanding. Selection of this topic will likely lead to significant
enhancement of student learning
TOTAL
Strengths
Weaknesses
72
College of the Mainland
Appendix E
QEP Master Plan Timeline in Project Management:
As of June 2012
73
College of the Mainland
74
College of the Mainland
75
College of the Mainland
76
College of the Mainland
77
College of the Mainland
Appendix F
QEP Topic Selection Committee Members and
QEP Topic Selection Support Personnel
QEP Topic Selection Committee
Position
Name
email
1. Co-chair
Steve Sewell
2. Co-chair
Bruce Glover
3. VP Instruction
James Templer
4. Faculty
Pam Millsap
5. Faculty
Michele Betancourt
6. Faculty
Eliz Revilla
7. Faculty
Jerry Duncan
8. Faculty
Susan Plasek
9. Faculty
Carla Anderson
10. Faculty
Suzzanne Gust-Thomason
11. Faculty
Melvin Williams
12. Faculty
Beth Hammett
13. Fac. Coun.
Pres. Gilchrist White
14. AVP Allied Health Cissy Matthews
15. AVP Gen. Ed.
Drew Nelson
16. Admin. Support Sandra Zavala
17. SGA President
Sam Torrez
18. Outside Reader Cathy Moran
19. Outside Reader Kay Frieze
20. Student
Cresta Bailey
21. Student
Paola Lemus
19. Student
Paola Lemus
18.
78
ssewell@com.edu
bglover@com.edu
jtempler@com.edu
pmillsap@com.edu
mbetancourt@com.edu
erevilla@com.edu
jduncan@com.edu
splasek@com.edu
canderson@com.edu
sgt@com.edu
mwilliams@com.edu
bhammett@com.edu
gwhite@com.edu
cmatthews@com.edu
anelson@com.edu
szavala@com.edu
storrez@com.edu
extension
8117
8552
8562
8192
8216
8677
8607
8442
8276
8340
8385
8389
8316
8461
8242
8579
8681
College of the Mainland
QEP Topic Selection Support Personnel
Position
Name
email
1. VP Finance
2. IR
3. Testing
4. Admissions
5. Library
6. Writing Center
7. Multicul. Team
8. Counseling
9. Public Relations
10. IT
11. WebMaster
12. Admin Support
13. AVP CE
14. AVP Workforce
15. Strategic Planning
16. Project Management
Lisa Templer
Tad Pfiefer
Sophia Tavarez
Kelly Musick
Kathryn Park
Tamara Hoodye
Tillie Henson
Michelle Kettler
Jim Higgins
David Divine
Pete Lares
Sandra Zavala
Geane Stevenson
Bill Raley
Glenda Brents
Guinn Sharpe
ltempler@com.edu
tpfiefer@com.edu
stavarez@com.edu
kmusick@com.edu
kpark@com.edu
thoodye@com.edu
thenson@com.edu
mkettler@com.edu
jhiggins@com.edu
ddivine@com.edu
plares@com.edu
szavala@com.edu
gstevenson@com.edu
braley@com.edu
gbrents@com.edu
gsharpe@com.edu
79
extension
8262
8195
8499
8496
8201
8523
8205
8124
8438
8309
8355
8579
8280
8283
8168
8338
College of the Mainland
Appendix G
QEP Topic Development Committee Members
QEP Co-Chairs: Bruce Glover and Steve Sewell
Area of Responsibility
Mission
Technology
Research the various kinds of technology that
could be used to record and archive student
presentations
Assessment
Compile and organize the assessment
instruments to be used in the QEP (as outlined in
the SECTION IX, Assessment of this proposal),
develop a schedule for assessments, and create a
plan for coordinating these assessments, working
with the Office of Institutional Research and
Effectiveness, as appropriate.
Marketing
Develop short- term, medium-term, and longterm plans for educating the campus and
community about the QEP (its focus, its purpose,
its goals, and its value).
Budget
Determine and document (on a more specific
basis) expected QEP expenses, including salaries
and benefits, office supplies, technology,
marketing, professional development, etc.
Faculty Development and
Plan faculty development experiences (see
Coordination
timeline for estimated timing), assigning
responsibilities, determining target audiences,
etc., focusing on training faculty in the
assessment of oral communications, the use of
necessary technologies, and ways to improve
their own oral communication skills.
Speaking Center
Develop plan for the establishment of the
Speaking Center, including location/space needs,
staffing schedules, supplies/technology needs,
and need for director.
Student Speakers Showcase
Make specific plans for the coordination of this
annual event, including the assignment of
responsibilities, methods of recruiting students,
how to invite the community, etc.
Words That Changed History Make specific plans for the coordination of this
Day
annual event, including the assignment of
responsibilities, methods of selecting speeches to
be dramatized, methods of recruiting students,
how to invite the community, etc.
80
Lead Person
Manzur Khan
Roger Stallings
Lana Pigao
Debbie Servantes
Regina Julian
Speech Faculty
Mara Cooper and
James Tabor
To be deferred
College of the Mainland
Appendix H
QEP Topic Implementation Committee Members with Delineated Responsibilities
Area of Responsibility
Director
Mission
Oversee implementation of the QEP
Lead Person
Gilchrist White
Share Stream Database
Manager
Manage Share Stream Database; responsible
for uploading videos to the Share Stream
database
Brett Stephens
Video Capture Technology
Responsible for oversight of video capture
technology
Brad Denison
Assessment
Oversee assessment of the QEP
Steve Sewell
Marketing
Responsible for QEP marketing
Gina Castro
Budget
Develop and maintain QEP budget
Gilchrist White
Professional Development
Responsible for development and
implementation of QEP-related professional
development for faculty
Nakia Welch
Speaking, Reading, and
Writing Center
Oversee all Speaking, Reading, and Writing
Center operations
Gilchrist White
Student Speakers
Showcase
Make specific plans for the coordination of
this annual event, including the assignment of
responsibilities, methods of recruiting
students, how to invite the community, etc.
Mara Cooper
Words That Changed
History Day
Make specific plans for the coordination of
this annual event, including the assignment of
responsibilities, methods of selecting
speeches to be dramatized, methods of
recruiting students, how to invite the
community, etc.
Gary Wilson
81
College of the Mainland
Appendix I
QEP Oral Presentation Rubric
4
CATEGORY
Uses clear language skills
Verbal
Communication including appropriate language
3
2
1
0
Uses clear language
skills at least 75% of
the time
Only uses clear
language skills about
50% of the time
No effort

Displays excellent nonverbals
such as vocal enthusiasm, good
eye contact, appropriate
gestures, good posture,
appropriate dress and overall
dynamism at least 90% of the
time

Displays excellent
nonverbals at least
75% of the time

Only uses good
nonverbals about 50%
of the time

Shows an understanding of the
topic by having solid and logical
facts, citing the source of facts
(statistical or statement driven),
having adequate examples and
other forms of support such as
testimonials, comparisons,
definitions, and visual aids at
least 90% of the time

Excellent organization including
clear thesis, clear intent, follows
subtopics as presented, clear
topic sentences and transitions
when appropriate and covers all
content at least 90% of the time


Shows an
understanding of the
topic at least 75% of
the time

Only shows an
understanding of the
topic about 50% of the
time

Good organization

Occasional
organization
Demonstrates serious/poor
language skills including
such things as slang, poor
grammar/syntax, undefined
concepts or inaccurate
vocabulary most of the time

Demonstrates serious/poor
nonverbal problems such
as monotone vocals, poor
eye contact, lack of
gestures or over-gesturing,
poor posture, inappropriate
dress and overall lack of
dynamism most of the time

Demonstrates a serious
lack of understanding the
topic most of the time by
having few/no facts, no
citing of facts, poor,
inappropriate or no
examples, testimonials,
comparisons definitions,
visual aids most of the time

Demonstrates serious/poor
organizational skills most of
the time


level, good grammar/syntax,
defined concepts, and accurate
words at least 90% of the time
Nonverbal
Communication
Content
Organization
82

No effort
No effort
No effort
College of the Mainland
QEP Oral Presentation Rubric: Explanation of Criteria
Language Use
(Verbal
Effectiveness)
Delivery
(Nonverbal
Effectiveness)
Content
Organization
Uses advanced language skills
including rich and varied words for
context, good grammar/syntax, and
defined concepts
The delivery is natural and
confident, and enhances the
message - eye contact, gestures,
facial expressions, posture, dress,
volume and pace indicate strong
self-confidence. Delivery style and
tone is consistent with message.
Articulation and pronunciation are
clear.
Clearly defines the topic or thesis
and its significance. Supports the
thesis and key arguments with an
analysis of relevant and appropriate
evidence. Provides evidence of
extensive and valid research from
multiple and varied sources citing
the source of facts (statistical or
statement driven), and having
numerous examples and other
forms of support such as
testimonials, comparisons,
definitions, and visual aids.
Combines and evaluates existing
ideas to form new insights.
Excellent organization. Introduces
the topic clearly and creatively.
Maintains focus on the topic.
Effectively uses smooth transitions
to connect key points. Ends with a
logical, effective and relevant
conclusion.
Uses clear language skills
including appropriate
language for context,
correct grammar/syntax,
and defined concepts
The delivery is effective –
however, some
inconsistency or hesitancy
may be observed with eye
contact, gestures, facial
expressions, posture,
dress, volume and pace
indicate reasonable
confidence. In general,
delivery style and tone is
consistent with message;
articulation and
pronunciation are clear.
Clearly defines the topic
or thesis. Supports the
thesis with evidence.
Provides evidence of valid
research from multiple
sources citing the source
of facts (statistical or
statement driven), and
having adequate
examples and other forms
of support such as
definitions, and visual aids.
Combines existing ideas
to form new insights.
Uses limited language skills
including frequently selecting
words inappropriate for context,
incorrect grammar/syntax , and
undefined concepts
The delivery is, unnatural and
hesitant and distracts from the
message - eye contact, gestures,
facial expressions, posture,
dress, volume and pace indicate
lack of confidence. Delivery
style and tone may be
inconsistent with message.
Articulation and pronunciation
tend to be sloppy.
Good organization.
Introduces the topic
clearly. Maintains focus
on the topic. Includes
transitions to connect key
points. Ends with a
coherent conclusion
based on evidence.
Occasional organization.
Introduces the topic. Generally
does not maintain focus on the
topic, but my jump around in an
illogical fashion. Includes some
transitions to connect key
points, but they may be abrupt
or awkward. Ends with a basic
conclusion not necessarily
based on the evidence.
83
Defines the topic or thesis.
Provides marginal support for
the thesis with evidence.
Provides evidence of research,
citing few if any source of facts
(statistical or statement driven),
and has inadequate examples
or other forms of support such as
testimonials, comparisons,
definitions, and visual aids. More
often lists rather than combines
ideas.
Demonstrates serious/poor
language skills including such things
as slang, poor grammar/syntax,
undefined concepts or inaccurate
vocabulary most of the time
The delivery demonstrates serious
nonverbal issues that significantly
distracts from the message monotone vocals, poor eye
contact, lack of gestures or overgesturing, poor posture,
inappropriate dress mumbling,
speaking inaudibly and overall
lack of dynamism. Delivery style
and tone is inconsistent with
message. Articulation and
pronunciation is sloppy and
inappropriate.
Demonstrates a serious lack of
understanding the topic. Does not
clearly define topic or thesis.
Provides little to no evidence of
research, citing few/no facts, has
poor /inappropriate/no examples
or other forms of support such as
testimonials, comparisons
definitions, and visual aids. Lists
ideas that are inconsistent and
illogical.
Poor organization. Does not
introduce the topic clearly. Does
not establish or maintain focus on
the topic. Uses ineffective
transitions that rarely connect key
points. Ends without a
conclusion.
College of the Mainland
Appendix J
Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA – 24)
The PRCA-24 is the instrument which is most widely used to measure
communication apprehension. It is preferable above all earlier versions of the
instrument (PRCA, PRCA10, PRCA-24B, etc.). It is highly reliable (alpha regularly
>.90) and has very high predictive validity. It permits one to obtain sub-scores on
the contexts of public speaking, dyadic interaction, small groups, and large
groups. However, these scores are substantially less reliable than the total PRCA24 scores-because of the reduced number of items. People interested only in
public speaking anxiety should consider using the PRPSA rather than the public
speaking sub-score drawn from the PRCA-24. It is much more reliable for this
purpose.
This instrument is composed of twenty-four statements concerning feelings about
communicating with others. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies
to you by marking whether you: Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; are Neutral =
3; Agree = 4; Strongly Agree = 5
_____1. I dislike participating in group discussions.
_____2. Generally, I am comfortable while participating in group discussions.
_____3. I am tense and nervous while participating in group discussions.
_____4. I like to get involved in group discussions.
_____5. Engaging in a group discussion with new people makes me tense and
nervous.
_____6. I am calm and relaxed while participating in group discussions.
_____7. Generally, I am nervous when I have to participate in a meeting.
_____8. Usually, I am comfortable when I have to participate in a meeting.
_____9. I am very calm and relaxed when I am called upon to express an opinion at a
meeting.
_____10. I am afraid to express myself at meetings.
_____11. Communicating at meetings usually makes me uncomfortable.
84
College of the Mainland
_____12. I am very relaxed when answering questions at a meeting.
_____13. While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance, I feel very
nervous.
_____14. I have no fear of speaking up in conversations.
_____15. Ordinarily I am very tense and nervous in conversations.
_____16. Ordinarily I am very calm and relaxed in conversations.
_____17. While conversing with a new acquaintance, I feel very relaxed.
_____18. I'm afraid to speak up in conversations.
_____19. I have no fear of giving a speech.
_____20. Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid while giving a speech.
_____21. I feel relaxed while giving a speech.
_____22. My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving a speech.
_____23. I face the prospect of giving a speech with confidence.
_____24. While giving a speech, I get so nervous I forget facts I really know.
SCORING:
Group discussion: 18 - (scores for items 2, 4, & 6) + (scores for items 1, 3, & 5)
Meetings: 18 - (scores for items 8, 9, & 12) + (scores for items 7, 10, & 11)
Interpersonal: 18 - (scores for items 14, 16, & 17) + (scores for items 13, 15, & 18)
Public Speaking: 18 - (scores for items 19, 21, & 23) + (scores for items 20, 22, &24)
Group Discussion Score: _______
Interpersonal Score: _______
Meetings Score: _______
Public Speaking Score: _______
85
College of the Mainland
To obtain your total score for the PRCA, simply add your sub-scores together. _______
Scores can range from 24-120. Scores below 51 represent people who have very low
CA. Scores between 51-80 represent people with average CA. Scores above 80
represent people who have high levels of trait CA.
NORMS FOR THE PRCA-24: (based on over 40,000 college students; data from over
3,000 non-student adults in a national sample provided virtually identical norms, within
0.20 for all scores.)
Mean
Standard Deviation
High
Low
Total Score
65.6
15.3
> 80
< 51
Group:
15.4
4.8
> 20
< 11
Meeting:
16.4
4.2
> 20
< 13
Dyad (Interpersonal): 14.2
3.9
>18
< 11
19.3
5.1
>24
< 14
Public:
Source:
McCroskey, J. C. (1982). An introduction to rhetorical communication (4th Ed). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
(Also available in more recent editions of this book, now published by Allyn & Bacon.)
86
College of the Mainland
Appendix K
COM Professional Development Evaluation Instrument
Professional Development:
Evaluation Instrument
As of 12/7/07
Please help us assess the effectiveness of this professional development experience by providing
candid answers to the questions below. Your answers will be treated confidentially. Thank you for
your time and participation!
Evaluation of the presenter:
Strongly
Disagree
The presenter…
Strongly
Agree
was knowledgeable about the topic.
1
2
3
effectively communicated with the audience about the topic.
1
2
3
covered the topic in a comprehensive manner.
1
2
3
What did you like best about the presentation?
What did you like least about the presentation?
87
4
5
4
4
5
5
College of the Mainland
Evaluation of knowledge/skills gained:
Please name up to three of the most important things you learned from this professional development
experience.
1.
2.
3.
Plans for Implementation of knowledge/skills gained:
Please indicate in what ways you plan to implement the knowledge/skills gained as a result of this
professional development experience by rating the likelihood of doing the following (will be a scale of a)
Definitely Not, b) Probably Not, c) Probably, d) Definitely, e)Not Applicable):
I will modify…
The content of one or more of my lectures (e.g., add content, subtract content, modify content).
How I evaluate student performance (i.e., modify grading strategies).
One or more course assignments (e.g., add an assignment, eliminate an assignment, alter an
assignment).
How I present material in my classroom (i.e., use new technologies, alter the emphasis of the
material, etc.).
How I interact with students in the classroom.
How I interact with students during office hours.
How I interact with colleagues.
88
College of the Mainland
Your ideas (from the question below only) will be grouped anonymously with those of other faculty
and shared with the faculty who participated in this professional development experience. In this
way, we can learn from each other how we might use this experience to improve student success!!
Do you have a great idea? Please list some of the specific ways (i.e., more specific than the above
statements) that you plan to implement the knowledge/skills gained.
89