Assessment Report
Institutional Learning Outcome
Written and Oral Communication
2/28/2013
Written and Oral Communication ILO:
Students will demonstrate the interactive nature of communication involving
speaking, writing, listening and reading. Evidence will be the student’s ability to
make a clear, well-organized verbal presentation employing appropriate evidence
to support the arguments or conclusions and to write a clear, well-organized paper
using documentation and quantitative tools when appropriate.
Definition: Learners express themselves clearly and concisely to others in logical,
well-organized papers and/or verbal presentations using documentation and
quantitative tools when appropriate. Learners listen, understand, debate, and use
information communicated by others.
You should be able to demonstrate proficiency in the following areas:
a) Writing
b) Listening
c) Speaking and/or Conversing and/or Debating
d) Interpersonal Interactions
Planning: On August 23, 2012, during the campus Flex Day, faculty divided into
groups to discuss campus wide/cross discipline assessment of LAMC’s seven
Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs). A group that included representatives
from various disciplines met to discuss development of the Written and Oral
Communication ILO assessment. The group examined and discussed the ILO, a
sample rubric, and ideas on how to assess it.
Multiple meeting regarding the assessment and joint rubric occurred to assure
that all represented departments had a say in the final wording of the rubric.
Assessment Method: A common rubric was developed which included the
criteria for assessment and the weighting scale (point value) for each criterion.
The rubric had four criteria:






Voice Projection
Vocal Delivery
Eye Contact
Gestures
Rate
Flow of Speech Personal Response
The ILO team sent multiple invitations soliciting voluntary participation from each
department and instructor that taught a class that had identified Written and Oral
Communication in their curriculum process. Each participating instructor in the
ILO assessment was to select or modify an existing assignment from his or her
class to use for the assessment. Once the assignment was evaluated by the
instructor, they logged into the online SLO system to describe the assessment
method, enter data, and any initial analysis or resource requests.
We had participation from multiple departments and instructors. We held our first
two face-to-face meetings on 11/27/12 and 12/4/12. We also worked on the ILOs
over e-mail. Once the instructors had entered the data, the individual reports
were collected and the criteria were tallied across the board.
Result averages:






82%
78.2%
78.4%
77.9%
80.6%
76.5%
Voice Projection
Vocal Delivery
Eye Contact
Gestures
Rate
Flow of Speech
We met twice to discuss the assessment and results and most participants met at
least once. In attendance for some or all of our meetings were: Pat Flood, Deborah
Paulsen, Juliet Wallace, Margie Long, and Guillermo Aviles-Rodriguez. Some of the
issues discussed at our meetings were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Students need more general knowledge
Margie states that counseling needs to encourage students to take more
speech. Students stand to gain from exposure to voice and articulation
Do we need to judge more of the content students bring?
We discussed the value peer evaluation as part of oral presentations
Overall the average of Voice Projection was the highest of all criteria at 82%
Overall the average of Flow of Speech was the lowest of all criteria at 76.5
We discussed revising the Written and Oral Communication ILO
The best idea for assessing classes was discussed
CNN is a good source for students to observe speakers communicating
effectively
Final list of participants for the Written and Oral Communication ILO include:
Introduction to Philosophy, Logic in Practice, Introduction to Sculpture,
Introduction to Acting (2x), Intermediate Acting, Introduction to the Theater,
Oral Communication I (x7)
Discussed the possibility of a placement assessment for speech