LA HARBOR COLLEGE
Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) Assessment Report
Course Assessment
Division: Humanities and Fine Arts
Discipline/Program:
Communication Studies
Course Number and Name: Speech 151 Small Group Communication
Program Contact Person: __Daryle Nagano-Krier______________________ Phone: __310-233-4643__________________
Reviewed by: Elena Reigadas, SLO Assessment Coordinator
Date:
1/4/14
Attach additional pages as necessary.
Institutional
Learning Outcomes
2
Course Intended
Outcomes
(1) Explain how using
Systems Theory can help
increase a group’s
productivity and
cohesiveness.
Means of Assessment and Criteria for
Success
Spring 2010
During the Spring 2010 semester Speech 151
Students focused on the impact of Systems
Theory on group productivity and
cohesiveness. The committee decided that
students will be asked to define/paraphrase and
state the benefits of all eight variables that
Systems Theory exhibits (Openness to
Environment, Interdependence, Input
Variables, Process Variables, Output Variables,
Synergy, Entropy and Equifinality. Systems
Theory is discussed in class during the second
week and it referred to throughout every
chapter giving students ample opportunity to
familiarize themselves with the components of
the theory. Therefore, it was expected that 70%
of the students will be able to meet the
standards of this assessment.
Summary of Data Collected
Use of Results
Based on the results (only one
section of 151 was offered)
90% of the students were able
to meet the course intended
outcome.
According to the results, it seems
that students have a good grasp on
the variables of Systems Theory
and success has been realized.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to recall
each variable and paraphrase
in their own words what it
entailed. In addition, students
were able to provide how each
variable benefited the group’s
productivity and cohesiveness.
1
(2) Elaborate on the task
and social dimensions of a
problem-solving group.
Spring 2013
During the Spring 2013 semester Speech 151
Students focused on the impact of Systems
Theory on group productivity and
cohesiveness. The committee decided that
students will be asked to define/paraphrase and
state the benefits of all eight variables that
Systems Theory exhibits (Openness to
Environment, Interdependence, Input
Variables, Process Variables, Output Variables,
Synergy, Entropy and Equifinality. Systems
Theory is discussed in class during the second
week and it referred to throughout every
chapter giving students ample opportunity to
familiarize themselves with the components of
the theory. Therefore, it was expected that 75%
of the students will be able to meet the
standards of this assessment.
Students will be able to write out the problemsolving steps necessary to solve a problem for
both a for-profit and non-profit organization.
During the Fall 2010 semester one
section of Speech 151 assessed SLO #2:
Elaborate on the task and social dimensions of
problem-solving groups. Students focused on
the problem-solving steps necessary to solve a
problem in both a non-profit and for-profit
setting. The committee decided that students
will be asked to first define each step (1. Assess
the present situation, 2. Identify goals, 3.
Identify several alternatives, 4. Identify
positive and negative consequences of
alternatives and 5. Select the chosen
alternative) in the problem-solving sequence
and that state how each step would be used in a
real life situation (non-profit and for-profit).
Problem-Solving is discussed early on and is
referred to throughout every chapter giving
students ample opportunity to familiarize
themselves with the components of the theory.
Therefore, it was expected that 70% of the
students will be able to meet the standards of
this assessment.
Students were asked to research both a
non-profit and for-profit organization that was
experiencing a current communication-related
Based on the results (only one
section of 151 was offered)
80% of the students were able
to meet the course intended
outcome.
According to the results, it seems
that students have a good grasp on
the variables of Systems Theory
and success has been realized.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to recall
each variable and paraphrase
in their own words what it
entailed. In addition, students
were able to provide how each
variable benefited the group’s
productivity and cohesiveness.
Based on the results
(only one section of 151 was
offered) 90% of the students
were able to meet the
objectives of Student Learning
Outcome #2. The 10% that
weren’t able to get through
each step and come up with a
feasible solution simply didn’t
do the prior research of
finding a current problem to
assess.
Students were not
allowed to have notes and had
to recall each step in order and
explain in their own words
how each step related to the
problem they were trying to
solve. In addition, students
were able to provide how each
step related to the specific
problem the business was
experiencing.
According to the results,
it seems that students have a good
grasp on the steps to group
problem-solving.
For the Spring 2011
semester Student Learning
Outcome #3 will be assessed.
problem. They were then asked to solve the
problem utilizing each of the five steps and
ending with a feasible solution.
Fall 2013
Fall 2013
Fall 2013
Students will be able to write out the problemsolving steps necessary to solve a problem for
both a for-profit and non-profit organization.
Based on the results (only one
section of 151 was offered)
80% of the students were able
to meet the objectives of
Student Learning Outcome #2.
The 20% that weren’t able to
get through each step and
come up with a feasible
solution simply didn’t do the
prior research of finding a
current problem to assess.
According to the results, it seems
that students have a good grasp on
the steps to group problem-solving.
One section of Speech 151 assessed SLO #2:
Elaborate on the task and social dimensions of
problem-solving groups. Students focused on
the problem-solving steps necessary to solve a
problem in both a non-profit and for-profit
setting. The committee decided that students
will be asked to first define each step (1. Assess
the present situation, 2. Identify goals, 3.
Identify several alternatives, 4. Identify
positive and negative consequences of
alternatives and 5. Select the chosen
alternative) in the problem-solving sequence
and that state how each step would be used in a
real life situation (non-profit and for-profit).
Problem-Solving is discussed early on and is
referred to throughout every chapter giving
students ample opportunity to familiarize
themselves with the components of the theory.
Therefore, it was expected that 70% of the
students will be able to meet the standards of
this assessment.
For the Spring 2014 semester
Student Learning Outcome #3 will
be assessed.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to recall
each step in order and explain
in their own words how each
step related to the problem
they were trying to solve. In
addition, students were able to
provide how each step related
to the specific problem the
business was experiencing.
Students were asked to research both a nonprofit and for-profit organization that was
experiencing a current communication-related
problem. They were then asked to solve the
problem utilizing each of the five steps and
ending with a feasible solution.
1
(3) Discuss the
differences between a
supportive group response
and a defensive group
response.
Students will be able to identify a defensive
response and then change it to a supportive
response.
During the Spring 2011 semester one section of
Speech 151 assessed SLO #3: Discuss the
Based on the results (only one
section of 151 was offered)
83% of the students were able
to meet the objectives of
Student Learning Outcome #3.
Ten percent of the students
According to the results, it seems
that students have a good grasp on
the difference between defensive
and supportive responses. In the
future, instructors can incorporate
more live role play with students to
differences between a supportive group
response and a defensive group response.
Students were provided with Jack Gibbs six
Defensive Responses (Evaluation, Control,
Strategy, Neutrality, Superiority and Certainty).
They were then asked to first state which
Supportive Response (Description, Problem
Orientation, Spontaneity, Empathy, Equality,
and Provisionalism) would be appropriate in
each scenario. The second thing they were
asked to do was to write out Supportive
Responses using their own words/examples.
It was expected that 70% of the students will be
able to meet the standards of this assessment.
4
(4) Apply the three major
perspectives of leadership
to different group
situations.
Students will be able to identify each
leadership perspective and then give examples
of how a leader from that perspective would
behave.
During the Fall 2011 semester one section of
Speech 151 assessed SLO #4: Apply the three
major perspectives of leadership to different
group situations.
Students were provided with Korten’s three
leadership styles (Authoritarian, Democratic
and Laissez-Faire). They were then asked to
first state which Leadership Style
(Authoritarian, Democratic and Laissez-Faire)
was being illustrated in each scenario. The
second thing they were asked to do was to
write out examples of how a leader from that
perspective would behave.
It was expected that 70% of the students will be
able to meet the standards of this assessment.
were able to identify the
supportive and/or defensive
response but were not able to
change it to a supportive
response. Seven percent of the
students were not able to
identify the differences or
define defensive and
supportive responses.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to recall
the differences between a
defensive and supportive
response. In addition to 83%
of the students being able to
define defensive and
supportive responses students
were able to provide how they
would tailor a response to
make it supportive.
Based on the results (only one
section of 151 was offered)
85% of the students were able
to meet the objectives of
Student Learning Outcome #4.
Ten percent of the students
were able to identify each
leadership perspective but
were not able to give examples
of how a leader from that
perspective would behave.
Five percent of the students
were not able to identify all
four leadership perspectives or
give examples.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to recall
the leadership styles and give
examples of how a leader from
that perspective would behave.
In addition to 85% of the
students being able to identify
the different styles students
were able to provide original
actively practice Defensive and
Supportive Climates.
For the Fall 2011 semester Student
Learning Outcome #4 will be
assessed.
According to the results, it seems
that students have an above
average understanding of the three
major perspectives of leadership in
different group situations. In the
future, instructors can incorporate
more media/movie examples and
point out examples of leaders
exhibiting the different leadership
styles.
For the Spring 2012 semester
Student Learning Outcome #5 will
be assessed.
4
(5) Analyze a group
discussion based on the
transactional model of
communication and
define elements of
communication
competence.
During the Spring 2012 semester one section of
Speech 151 assessed SLO #5: Analyze a group
discussion based on the transactional model of
communication and define elements of
communication competence.
Students will first define in writing what the
transactional model of communication entails.
Then students will watch a video of a group
discussion and identify
the members that are communicating
competently and give specific examples of
what they are saying both verbally and non
verbally to communicate competently.
Students were given 15 minutes without the
book or notes to write in their own words what
the transactional model entailed. Students then
watched a 20 minute video of a group meeting
and were allowed to take notes. Students were
then given 15 minutes to identify the members
that were communicating competently verbally
and nonverbally with specific examples.
It was expected that 70% of the students will be
able to meet the standards of this assessment.
examples of how a leader from
that perspective would behave.
Based on the results (only one
section of 151 was offered)
85% of the students were able
to meet the objectives of
Student Learning Outcome #5.
Ninety percent of the students
were able to define the
transactional model of
communication and provide
examples of communication
competence from the video.
Five percent were able to
describe it somewhat and were
able to identify the competent
communicators. Five percent
of the students were not able
define the transactional model
of communication, but, were
able to identify the competent
communicators from the
video.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to be
familiar with the model prior
to the assessment. Students
were allowed to take notes
during the video.
According to the results, it seems
that students have an above
average understanding of the
transactional model of
communication and are able to
identify elements of
communication competence. In the
future, instructors can incorporate
more media/movie examples and
facilitate more discussion on how
communication competence can be
increased.
Date:
June 06, 2013
Attach additional pages as necessary.
Institutional
Learning Outcomes
2
Course Intended
Outcomes
(1) Explain how using
Systems Theory can help
increase a group’s
productivity and
cohesiveness.
Means of Assessment and Criteria for
Success
Spring 2010
During the Spring 2010 semester Speech 151
Students focused on the impact of Systems
Theory on group productivity and
cohesiveness. The committee decided that
students will be asked to define/paraphrase and
state the benefits of all eight variables that
Systems Theory exhibits (Openness to
Environment, Interdependence, Input
Variables, Process Variables, Output Variables,
Synergy, Entropy and Equifinality. Systems
Theory is discussed in class during the second
week and it referred to throughout every
chapter giving students ample opportunity to
familiarize themselves with the components of
the theory. Therefore, it was expected that 70%
of the students will be able to meet the
standards of this assessment.
Spring 2013
During the Spring 2013 semester Speech 151
Students focused on the impact of Systems
Theory on group productivity and
cohesiveness. The committee decided that
students will be asked to define/paraphrase and
state the benefits of all eight variables that
Systems Theory exhibits (Openness to
Environment, Interdependence, Input
Variables, Process Variables, Output Variables,
Synergy, Entropy and Equifinality. Systems
Theory is discussed in class during the second
week and it referred to throughout every
Summary of Data Collected
Use of Results
Based on the results (only one
section of 151 was offered)
90% of the students were able
to meet the course intended
outcome.
According to the results, it seems
that students have a good grasp on
the variables of Systems Theory
and success has been realized.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to recall
each variable and paraphrase
in their own words what it
entailed. In addition, students
were able to provide how each
variable benefited the group’s
productivity and cohesiveness.
Based on the results (only one
section of 151 was offered)
80% of the students were able
to meet the course intended
outcome.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to recall
each variable and paraphrase
in their own words what it
entailed. In addition, students
were able to provide how each
variable benefited the group’s
According to the results, it seems
that students have a good grasp on
the variables of Systems Theory
and success has been realized.
1
(2) Elaborate on the task
and social dimensions of a
problem-solving group.
1
(3) Discuss the
differences between a
supportive group response
and a defensive group
response.
chapter giving students ample opportunity to
familiarize themselves with the components of
the theory. Therefore, it was expected that 75%
of the students will be able to meet the
standards of this assessment.
Students will be able to write out the problemsolving steps necessary to solve a problem for
both a for-profit and non-profit organization.
During the Fall 2010 semester one
section of Speech 151 assessed SLO #2:
Elaborate on the task and social dimensions of
problem-solving groups. Students focused on
the problem-solving steps necessary to solve a
problem in both a non-profit and for-profit
setting. The committee decided that students
will be asked to first define each step (1. Assess
the present situation, 2. Identify goals, 3.
Identify several alternatives, 4. Identify
positive and negative consequences of
alternatives and 5. Select the chosen
alternative) in the problem-solving sequence
and that state how each step would be used in a
real life situation (non-profit and for-profit).
Problem-Solving is discussed early on and is
referred to throughout every chapter giving
students ample opportunity to familiarize
themselves with the components of the theory.
Therefore, it was expected that 70% of the
students will be able to meet the standards of
this assessment.
Students were asked to research both a
non-profit and for-profit organization that was
experiencing a current communication-related
problem. They were then asked to solve the
problem utilizing each of the five steps and
ending with a feasible solution.
productivity and cohesiveness.
Based on the results
(only one section of 151 was
offered) 90% of the students
were able to meet the
objectives of Student Learning
Outcome #2. The 10% that
weren’t able to get through
each step and come up with a
feasible solution simply didn’t
do the prior research of
finding a current problem to
assess.
Students were not
allowed to have notes and had
to recall each step in order and
explain in their own words
how each step related to the
problem they were trying to
solve. In addition, students
were able to provide how each
step related to the specific
problem the business was
experiencing.
According to the results,
it seems that students have a good
grasp on the steps to group
problem-solving.
For the Spring 2011
semester Student Learning
Outcome #3 will be assessed.
Students will be able to identify a defensive
response and then change it to a supportive
response.
Based on the results (only one
section of 151 was offered)
83% of the students were able
to meet the objectives of
Student Learning Outcome #3.
Ten percent of the students
were able to identify the
supportive and/or defensive
response but were not able to
According to the results, it seems
that students have a good grasp on
the difference between defensive
and supportive responses. In the
future, instructors can incorporate
more live role play with students to
actively practice Defensive and
Supportive Climates.
During the Spring 2011 semester one section of
Speech 151 assessed SLO #3: Discuss the
differences between a supportive group
response and a defensive group response.
Students were provided with Jack Gibbs six
Defensive Responses (Evaluation, Control,
Strategy, Neutrality, Superiority and Certainty).
They were then asked to first state which
Supportive Response (Description, Problem
Orientation, Spontaneity, Empathy, Equality,
and Provisionalism) would be appropriate in
each scenario. The second thing they were
asked to do was to write out Supportive
Responses using their own words/examples.
It was expected that 70% of the students will be
able to meet the standards of this assessment.
4
(4) Apply the three major
perspectives of leadership
to different group
situations.
Students will be able to identify each
leadership perspective and then give examples
of how a leader from that perspective would
behave.
During the Fall 2011 semester one section of
Speech 151 assessed SLO #4: Apply the three
major perspectives of leadership to different
group situations.
Students were provided with Korten’s three
leadership styles (Authoritarian, Democratic
and Laissez-Faire). They were then asked to
first state which Leadership Style
(Authoritarian, Democratic and Laissez-Faire)
was being illustrated in each scenario. The
second thing they were asked to do was to
write out examples of how a leader from that
perspective would behave.
It was expected that 70% of the students will be
able to meet the standards of this assessment.
4
(5) Analyze a group
During the Spring 2012 semester one section of
change it to a supportive
response. Seven percent of the
students were not able to
identify the differences or
define defensive and
supportive responses.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to recall
the differences between a
defensive and supportive
response. In addition to 83%
of the students being able to
define defensive and
supportive responses students
were able to provide how they
would tailor a response to
make it supportive.
Based on the results (only one
section of 151 was offered)
85% of the students were able
to meet the objectives of
Student Learning Outcome #4.
Ten percent of the students
were able to identify each
leadership perspective but
were not able to give examples
of how a leader from that
perspective would behave.
Five percent of the students
were not able to identify all
four leadership perspectives or
give examples.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to recall
the leadership styles and give
examples of how a leader from
that perspective would behave.
In addition to 85% of the
students being able to identify
the different styles students
were able to provide original
examples of how a leader from
that perspective would behave.
Based on the results (only one
For the Fall 2011 semester Student
Learning Outcome #4 will be
assessed.
According to the results, it seems
that students have an above
average understanding of the three
major perspectives of leadership in
different group situations. In the
future, instructors can incorporate
more media/movie examples and
point out examples of leaders
exhibiting the different leadership
styles.
For the Spring 2012 semester
Student Learning Outcome #5 will
be assessed.
According to the results, it seems
discussion based on the
transactional model of
communication and
define elements of
communication
competence.
Speech 151 assessed SLO #5: Analyze a group
discussion based on the transactional model of
communication and define elements of
communication competence.
Students will first define in writing what the
transactional model of communication entails.
Then students will watch a video of a group
discussion and identify
the members that are communicating
competently and give specific examples of
what they are saying both verbally and non
verbally to communicate competently.
Students were given 15 minutes without the
book or notes to write in their own words what
the transactional model entailed. Students then
watched a 20 minute video of a group meeting
and were allowed to take notes. Students were
then given 15 minutes to identify the members
that were communicating competently verbally
and nonverbally with specific examples.
It was expected that 70% of the students will be
able to meet the standards of this assessment.
section of 151 was offered)
85% of the students were able
to meet the objectives of
Student Learning Outcome #5.
Ninety percent of the students
were able to define the
transactional model of
communication and provide
examples of communication
competence from the video.
Five percent were able to
describe it somewhat and were
able to identify the competent
communicators. Five percent
of the students were not able
define the transactional model
of communication, but, were
able to identify the competent
communicators from the
video.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to be
familiar with the model prior
to the assessment. Students
were allowed to take notes
during the video.
that students have an above
average understanding of the
transactional model of
communication and are able to
identify elements of
communication competence. In the
future, instructors can incorporate
more media/movie examples and
facilitate more discussion on how
communication competence can be
increased.
Date:
May 24, 2012
Attach additional pages as necessary.
Institutional
Learning Outcomes
2
1
Course Intended
Outcomes
(1) Explain how using
Systems Theory can help
increase a group’s
productivity and
cohesiveness.
(2) Elaborate on the task
and social dimensions of a
problem-solving group.
Means of Assessment and Criteria for
Success
During the Spring 2010 semester Speech 151
Students focused on the impact of Systems
Theory on group productivity and
cohesiveness. The committee decided that
students will be asked to define/paraphrase and
state the benefits of all eight variables that
Systems Theory exhibits (Openness to
Environment, Interdependence, Input
Variables, Process Variables, Output Variables,
Synergy, Entropy and Equifinality. Systems
Theory is discussed in class during the second
week and it referred to throughout every
chapter giving students ample opportunity to
familiarize themselves with the components of
the theory. Therefore, it was expected that 70%
of the students will be able to meet the
standards of this assessment.
Students will be able to write out the problemsolving steps necessary to solve a problem for
both a for-profit and non-profit organization.
During the Fall 2010 semester one
section of Speech 151 assessed SLO #2:
Elaborate on the task and social dimensions of
problem-solving groups. Students focused on
the problem-solving steps necessary to solve a
problem in both a non-profit and for-profit
setting. The committee decided that students
will be asked to first define each step (1. Assess
the present situation, 2. Identify goals, 3.
Identify several alternatives, 4. Identify
positive and negative consequences of
alternatives and 5. Select the chosen
alternative) in the problem-solving sequence
and that state how each step would be used in a
real life situation (non-profit and for-profit).
Problem-Solving is discussed early on and is
referred to throughout every chapter giving
students ample opportunity to familiarize
themselves with the components of the theory.
Therefore, it was expected that 70% of the
students will be able to meet the standards of
Summary of Data Collected
Use of Results
Based on the results (only one
section of 151 was offered)
90% of the students were able
to meet the course intended
outcome.
According to the results, it seems
that students have a good grasp on
the variables of Systems Theory
and success has been realized.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to recall
each variable and paraphrase
in their own words what it
entailed. In addition, students
were able to provide how each
variable benefited the group’s
productivity and cohesiveness.
Based on the results
(only one section of 151 was
offered) 90% of the students
were able to meet the
objectives of Student Learning
Outcome #2. The 10% that
weren’t able to get through
each step and come up with a
feasible solution simply didn’t
do the prior research of
finding a current problem to
assess.
Students were not
allowed to have notes and had
to recall each step in order and
explain in their own words
how each step related to the
problem they were trying to
solve. In addition, students
were able to provide how each
step related to the specific
problem the business was
experiencing.
According to the results,
it seems that students have a good
grasp on the steps to group
problem-solving.
For the Spring 2011
semester Student Learning
Outcome #3 will be assessed.
this assessment.
Students were asked to research both a
non-profit and for-profit organization that was
experiencing a current communication-related
problem. They were then asked to solve the
problem utilizing each of the five steps and
ending with a feasible solution.
1
(3) Discuss the
differences between a
supportive group response
and a defensive group
response.
Students will be able to identify a defensive
response and then change it to a supportive
response.
During the Spring 2011 semester one section of
Speech 151 assessed SLO #3: Discuss the
differences between a supportive group
response and a defensive group response.
Students were provided with Jack Gibbs six
Defensive Responses (Evaluation, Control,
Strategy, Neutrality, Superiority and Certainty).
They were then asked to first state which
Supportive Response (Description, Problem
Orientation, Spontaneity, Empathy, Equality,
and Provisionalism) would be appropriate in
each scenario. The second thing they were
asked to do was to write out Supportive
Responses using their own words/examples.
It was expected that 70% of the students will be
able to meet the standards of this assessment.
4
(4) Apply the three major
perspectives of leadership
to different group
situations.
Students will be able to identify each
leadership perspective and then give examples
of how a leader from that perspective would
behave.
During the Fall 2011 semester one section of
Speech 151 assessed SLO #4: Apply the three
major perspectives of leadership to different
group situations.
Students were provided with Korten’s three
leadership styles (Authoritarian, Democratic
Based on the results (only one
section of 151 was offered)
83% of the students were able
to meet the objectives of
Student Learning Outcome #3.
Ten percent of the students
were able to identify the
supportive and/or defensive
response but were not able to
change it to a supportive
response. Seven percent of the
students were not able to
identify the differences or
define defensive and
supportive responses.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to recall
the differences between a
defensive and supportive
response. In addition to 83%
of the students being able to
define defensive and
supportive responses students
were able to provide how they
would tailor a response to
make it supportive.
Based on the results (only one
section of 151 was offered)
85% of the students were able
to meet the objectives of
Student Learning Outcome #4.
Ten percent of the students
were able to identify each
leadership perspective but
were not able to give examples
of how a leader from that
perspective would behave.
According to the results, it seems
that students have a good grasp on
the difference between defensive
and supportive responses. In the
future, instructors can incorporate
more live role play with students to
actively practice Defensive and
Supportive Climates.
For the Fall 2011 semester Student
Learning Outcome #4 will be
assessed.
According to the results, it seems
that students have an above
average understanding of the three
major perspectives of leadership in
different group situations. In the
future, instructors can incorporate
more media/movie examples and
point out examples of leaders
exhibiting the different leadership
styles.
and Laissez-Faire). They were then asked to
first state which Leadership Style
(Authoritarian, Democratic and Laissez-Faire)
was being illustrated in each scenario. The
second thing they were asked to do was to
write out examples of how a leader from that
perspective would behave.
It was expected that 70% of the students will be
able to meet the standards of this assessment.
4
(5) Analyze a group
discussion based on the
transactional model of
communication and
define elements of
communication
competence.
During the Spring 2012 semester one section of
Speech 151 assessed SLO #5: Analyze a group
discussion based on the transactional model of
communication and define elements of
communication competence.
Students will first define in writing what the
transactional model of communication entails.
Then students will watch a video of a group
discussion and identify
the members that are communicating
competently and give specific examples of
what they are saying both verbally and non
verbally to communicate competently.
Students were given 15 minutes without the
book or notes to write in their own words what
the transactional model entailed. Students then
watched a 20 minute video of a group meeting
and were allowed to take notes. Students were
then given 15 minutes to identify the members
that were communicating competently verbally
and nonverbally with specific examples.
It was expected that 70% of the students will be
able to meet the standards of this assessment.
Five percent of the students
were not able to identify all
four leadership perspectives or
give examples.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to recall
the leadership styles and give
examples of how a leader from
that perspective would behave.
In addition to 85% of the
students being able to identify
the different styles students
were able to provide original
examples of how a leader from
that perspective would behave.
Based on the results (only one
section of 151 was offered)
85% of the students were able
to meet the objectives of
Student Learning Outcome #5.
Ninety percent of the students
were able to define the
transactional model of
communication and provide
examples of communication
competence from the video.
Five percent were able to
describe it somewhat and were
able to identify the competent
communicators. Five percent
of the students were not able
define the transactional model
of communication, but, were
able to identify the competent
communicators from the
video.
Students were not allowed to
have notes and had to be
familiar with the model prior
to the assessment. Students
were allowed to take notes
during the video.
For the Spring 2012 semester
Student Learning Outcome #5 will
be assessed.
According to the results, it seems
that students have an above
average understanding of the
transactional model of
communication and are able to
identify elements of
communication competence. In the
future, instructors can incorporate
more media/movie examples and
facilitate more discussion on how
communication competence can be
increased.