UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN: PRESENTATION U
YOU are the ultimate presentation!
(Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum)
UK SACS Leadership Team:
Eli Capilouto, President
Tim Tracy, Interim Provost
Heidi Anderson, Associate Provost, Institutional Effectiveness1
Tom Harris, Vice President, University Relations
J. J. Jackson, Vice President, Institutional Diversity
Vince Kellen, Chief Information Officer
Angie Martin, Vice President, Financial Operations, and Treasurer
Robert Mock, Vice President, Student Affairs
Deanna Sellnow, QEP Co-Chair
Diane Snow, QEP Co-Chair
Hollie Swanson, University Senate Past Chair
Sharon Turner, Dean, Dentistry
On-Site Visit
April 9 - 11, 2013
1Institution’s
SACSCOC Liaison
University of Kentucky
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS
2
EXHIBITS
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Presentation U
5
CHAPTER 1: INSTITUTIONAL PROCESS FOR TOPIC IDENTIFICATION
7
CHAPTER 2: RATIONALE, HISTORY, AND BEST PRACTICES
21
CHAPTER 3: LEARNING AND PROGRAM OUTCOMES
34
CHAPTER 4: FIVE-YEAR ACTION PLAN
40
Administrative Structure
40
Student Tutoring
41
Faculty Fellows Program
41
Collaboration with Existing Units
43
Implementation Timeline
48
CHAPTER 5: ASSESSMENT PLAN
54
CHAPTER 6: ITEMIZED BUDGET
67
REFERENCES
72
APPENDICES
73
Appendix A: QEP Topic Selection and Development Plan/Timeline
73
Appendix B: Sample Campus QEP Update Slideshow
74
Appendix C: QEP Proposal Submission Form and Rubric
75
Appendix D: QEP White Paper Guidelines and Assessment Rubric
76
Appendix E: CRM to GCCR Proposal
77
Appendix F: CIS 300 Syllabus Draft
84
Appendix G: Assessment Measurement Tools
86
Appendix H: Assessment Plan Timeline
96
2
University of Kentucky
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1.1:
TST Timeline
9
EXHIBIT 1.2:
NSSE Benchmarks, UK Compared to Carnegie Peers
10
EXHIBIT 1.3:
Student Satisfaction with Entire Educational Experience
10
EXHIBIT 1.4:
CLA 2007-2009 Results
12
EXHIBIT 1.5:
CAAP—Math Spring 2009 Summary Results
12
EXHIBIT 1.6:
CAAP—Critical Thinking Spring 2010 Summary Results
12
EXHIBIT 1.7:
Areas of Weakness Identified
13
EXHIBIT 1.8:
Concept Mapping
14
EXHIBIT 1.9:
Proposal Submission
16
EXHIBIT 1.10: QEP Themes Addressed
17
EXHIBIT 1.11: Constituent Groups Represented
17
EXHIBIT 1.12: Proposals Selected for White Papers
18
EXHIBIT 1.13: The QEP Brand
20
EXHIBIT 2.1:
Graduating Senior Survey: Self-Report of Improvement
22
EXHIBIT 2.2:
Graduating Senior Survey: Self-Report of Improvement over Six
Years
22
EXHIBIT 2.3:
Performance Level over Three Phases of the CLA, 2007 Cohort
24
EXHIBIT 2.4:
Wabash National Study Results, UK Student Growth Over Time
25
EXHIBIT 2.5:
Percentage of Graduates completing an Oral Communication
25
Course
EXHIBIT 2.6:
Related Programs
31
EXHIBIT 3.1:
Learning Outcomes and their Operationalized Outcomes
36
EXHIBIT 3.2:
Program Outcomes and their Operationalized Outcomes
38
EXHIBIT 4.1:
Organizational Design of Presentation U
40
EXHIBIT 4.2:
Five-Year Impact Potential
43
EXHIBIT 4.3:
Tutoring Collaboration Opportunities
43
EXHIBIT 4.4:
Faculty Development with CELT
44
EXHIBIT 4.5:
Roles and Responsibilities
44
EXHIBIT 4.6:
Timeline Overview
48
EXHIBIT 4.7:
Pilot Project Part A Timeline
49
EXHIBIT 4.8:
Pilot Project Part A Assessment Process
50
EXHIBIT 4.9:
Presentation U Timeline
51
3
University of Kentucky
EXHIBITS Continued
EXHIBIT 4.10: Presentation U Implementation Plan
52
EXHIBIT 5.1:
Learning Outcomes Mapped to Measures
57
EXHIBIT 5.2:
Program Outcomes Mapped to Measures
61
EXHIBIT 5.3:
Presentation U Assessment Plan
62
EXHIBIT 6.1:
Itemized Presentation U Budget
69
4
University of Kentucky
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The University of Kentucky (UK) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), Presentation U, is the result
of a broad-based, campus-wide effort to develop a long-range strategy for improving student
learning. The QEP builds on communication skills developed through the UK Core (general
education) curriculum by targeting the development of multimodal communication skills in upperdivision undergraduate students. The QEP vertically integrates instruction and assessment of
three types of communication skills:



Oral (sounds, speaking, and listening);
Written (words, reading, and writing); and
Visual (nonverbal symbols, images, and seeing).
UK faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders were instrumental in conceptualizing the QEP. They
relied on the 2009-2014 UK Strategic Plan, which sets forth the expectation that “graduates at all
levels are able to demonstrate expertise in their disciplines and are prepared to succeed in
professional and community settings.” Developing strong communication skills—a goal with which
employers wholeheartedly agree (Hart 2009)—aligns well with the Strategic Plan. Review of
stakeholder input, assessment report data, internal program review reports, national and in-house
surveys, and a wide variety of institutional research documents identified: 1) a deficiency in
students’ written communication skills (described briefly below); 2) perceived shortcomings in
developing job-related skills and knowledge; 3) the absence of consistent development in and
assessment of oral communication skills; 4) little emphasis on visual communication skills; and,
most importantly, 5) little emphasis on oral, written, and visual communication competencies
within disciplines.
Initial longitudinal research using the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) suggests that UK
students trail behind in written communication competencies. Study of CLA scores indicates that
UK student improvement on analytic writing tasks from the freshman to senior year falls “below”
expected levels; moreover, this result occurs between the rising junior and senior years, during
which time improvement is “well below” expected levels. This key finding, coupled with the facts
that oral and visual communication skills have not been emphasized adequately and that
multimodal communication is a new and challenging need for today’s graduates, led the
University to select “multimodal communication across the curriculum” as its QEP topic. Thus, the
overarching goal of the resulting program—Presentation U—is to:
Prepare students to employ effective, state-of-the-art, multimodal communication skills as
expected of professionals in their chosen fields.
To further define the overarching goal, this document analyzes the rationale, history, and best
practices in this area (Chapter 2) and describes the learning and program outcomes to be
achieved (Chapter 3). From these efforts, the University created Presentation U—a campus-wide
initiative branded by UK students—which consists of two distinct components (Chapter 4):


A Student Tutoring Program
A Faculty Fellows Program
The two programs will be housed in the Presentation Center (see below) and staffed by a full-time
Program Director who reports to the Provost, three part-time Coordinators (Student Services,
Faculty Development, and Assessment), an IT Manager, and an Implementation Team/Advisory
Council, as well as professionally trained undergraduate student tutors, graduate student
5
University of Kentucky
mentors, and trained faculty. For the Student Tutoring component, Presentation Center staff will
assist students in creating and refining multimodal communication projects and products. The
Faculty Fellows Program will involve incentive-based cohorts of 25 volunteer faculty members per
semester, with each faculty member revising a selected course in one semester, delivering the
new multimodal-rich course in a subsequent semester, and assessing and further revising during
the following semester. Faculty will continue to apply these principles in future courses to impact
additional students.
To inform this plan, the University engaged in a pilot program (Fall 2012) that focused on
developing multimodal communication skills across nine sections of the same course
(approximately 200 upper-division students majoring in accounting, analytics, economics, finance,
marketing, or management). The Office of the Provost funded four faculty members ($176,000) to
develop, teach, and assess the program and student learning outcomes. Results of the pilot will
inform continuous improvement in the design, processes, and success of Presentation U.
(Chapter 5 fully details all assessment plans,)
The University of Kentucky has made a substantial commitment to the QEP (Chapter 6), nearly
$1,000,000 per year in support of faculty staffing (46%), student mentors and tutors (30%),
stipends for Faculty Fellows (17%), and operating expenses (7%). UK has also committed
$535,000 for renovations of “The Hub” (in the William T. Young Library), which will serve as the
site for Presentation U. The program will report directly to the Provost to emphasize high-level
administration support and ensure resource adequacy. UK students have also expressed great
enthusiasm for this program: a self-imposed student fee restricted to student-selected
preparations for the Center ($10 software; $4 equipment; $3 mobile application development) will
generate more than $950,000 annually.
In summary, the University of Kentucky has developed Presentation U, a Quality Enhancement
Plan that demonstrates institutional capability for initiating, implementing, completing, and
assessing enhanced student learning of multimodal communication across the curriculum. Broadbased involvement of institutional constituencies has resulted in Presentation U, which identifies
clear goals and a detailed plan for assessing achievement of those goals. Overall, Presentation U
will improve upper-division student multimodal communication across the curriculum through skillbuilding beyond the general curriculum communication pedagogies using a two-prong bestpractices-based approach to educate faculty to be better teachers, mentors and role models and
to prepare students to be capable producers of information.
6
University of Kentucky
CHAPTER 1: INSTITUTIONAL PROCESS FOR TOPIC IDENTIFICATION
This chapter describes: 1) the deliberate institutional process the University used to identify the
QEP topic and 2) the broad-based involvement of institutional constituencies in the identification
and development of the topic. Therefore, the focus of this chapter is process. Subsequent
chapters provide the assessment-driven rationale for the topic; history and best practices related
to the topic; a statement of student learning and program outcomes; a comprehensive
assessment plan; and evidence for the existence of sufficient resources to initiate, implement,
complete, and sustain (if successful) the proposed QEP.
Topic Identification: A Team-based Approach
The University of Kentucky Quality Enhancement Plan—Presentation U—was developed using a
team-based approach, relying on three teams: the Pre-Planning Team (PPT), the Topic Selection
Team (TST), and the Topic Development Team (TDT). Once accepted by SACSCOC, the QEP
will be guided by a fourth team, the QEP Implementation Team (IT).
Pre-Planning Team (PPT). The PPT created an overarching plan and timeline for identifying the
QEP topic and developing the plan based on best practices. Throughout its work, the PPT
consulted and informed the University Senate and the SACS Leadership Team regularly. The
PPT consisted of seventeen members, listed below, appointed by the Provost. A major goal in
identifying team members was to form a broad-based constituency to ensure widespread campus
representation and input. The Co-Chairs for all teams were Dr. Deanna Sellnow (Communication
and Information Studies) and Dr. Diane Snow (Medical Center/Spinal Cord and Brain Injury
Research Center). These two individuals had prior leadership experience and expertise and
together represented both UK’s academic and professional campuses. Dr. Sellnow attended the
SACS Institute in summer 2009 (Houston, TX) and was well versed on SACS reaffirmation of
accreditation regulations. Attending with Dr. Sellnow were Dr. Marsha Watson (University
Assessment), Dr. Mike Mullen (Agriculture), and Dr. Rena Murphy (Health Sciences), three
individuals who were also members of the PPT.
Continuity. To ensure accurate historical perspective and continuity, at least six individuals
(accounting for possible attrition) from the PPT moved on to the Topic Selection Team (TST).
Similarly, six individuals from the TST moved on to the Topic Development Team (TDT). At least
one team member and one ex-officio member continued through the entire process. Finally, six
TDT members are on the Implementation Team, which is currently orchestrating the Pilot Project.
Members of this team will also serve as members of the first interdisciplinary Advisory Board for
Presentation U.
Last name
Adams
Anderson
Duncan
Herbst
Hoyt
Jensen
Mullen
Murphy
Ray
Rogers
Rose
First Name
Ruth
Heidi
Ben
John
Gail
Jane
Mike
Rena
Connie
Jeff (Nels)
Tara
Campus Affiliation
Fine Arts
Faculty Affairs
Plant Pathology
Student Center Services
Economics
Education
Agriculture (at that time)
Health Sciences
Institutional Effectiveness
Foreign Languages
University Assessment
7
University of Kentucky
*Sellnow
*Snow
Staten
Tagavi
Vaughn
Deanna
Diane
Ruth
Kaveh
Connie
Communication and Information
Medical Center
Nursing
Engineering
Institutional Effectiveness
Pre-planning began in November 2009 with a presentation providing necessary background for
the PPT to begin its work. Subsequently, the PPT gathered additional information regarding QEP
requirements and best practices. The University Senate endorsed the QEP Topic Selection and
Development Plan/Timeline (see Appendix A) on February 8, 2010.
The Topic Selection Team (TST). Shortly thereafter the Provost appointed 32 members to the
Topic Selection Team (TST) based on input from the PPT Co-Chairs. A major goal in
appointment was to continue providing a broad-based constituency to ensure widespread
campus representation in the selection of a QEP topic. Members included the following:
Last Name
First Name
Campus Affiliation
Adams
Badger
Baker
Basu
Blackwell
Cavagnero
Elliott
Fielden
Garces
Greenwell
Harding
Harper
Herbst
Hillebrand
Jensen
Lewis
Mullen
Murphy
O’Bryan
Ray
Rogers
Scott
*Sellnow
Simpson
Skaggs
*Snow
Spillman
Stanhope
Swinford
Tabb
Tagavi
Watson
Ruth
Karen
Charlotte
Srimati
Jeannine
Michael
Allison
Micah C
Helen
Stacey
Roberta M
Christine
John
Evan
Jane M
Karin A
Michael D
Rena
Mark J
Constance
Jeff
Maura L
Deanna D
Leah
Jen
Diane M
Kimberly A
Marcia K
Bill
Ashley S
Kaveh
Marsha
Fine Arts
Social Work
Public Health (student)
Social Sciences, A&S
Graduate School
Physics
PR
Student Government
Pharmacy
Libraries
Law
Dentistry
Student Center Services
Patterson School
Education
Academic Enhancement
Undergraduate Education
Health Sciences
Design
Institutional Effectiveness
Foreign Languages
Business & Economics
Communication & Information
Assessment
Institutional Effectiveness
Medical Center/SCoBIRC
Agriculture
Nursing
Financial Operations
Information Technology
Engineering
Assessment
The TST employed systematic processes to ensure broad-based involvement in brainstorming
and narrowing topic ideas. The TST conducted its work from March 2010 to March 2011 (see
Exhibit 1.1) following the plan and timeline set by the PPT. The following sections describe the
major steps undertaken by the TST.
8
University of Kentucky
Exhibit 1.1: TST Timeline
March–June 2010
June 2010
September 2010
October 2010
December 2010
March 2011
Reviewed University Assessment Data
Educated Campus about the QEP and why UK is doing one
Invited “Big Ideas” for improving student learning at UK
Had a 2-day assessment retreat to mine data and identify major crosscutting themes for improving student learning
Announced the six themes and call for proposals
Selected ten proposals for white paper development
Discussed and voted on proposals. Submitted the top four to the SACS
Leadership Team (SLT)
SLT discussed the four White Papers and selected Multimodal
Communication Across the Curriculum (MCXC)
Review University Assessment Data. The team followed a systematic approach for achieving
consensus about a broad-based QEP topic. In spring 2012 the committee heard information
regarding institution-level assessment of student learning and the environment for learning in
presentations by Dr. Roger Sugarman, Director of Institutional Research, and Tara Rose, then
Assistant Director of University Assessment and now Director. These presentations informed the
team regarding the current status of and gaps in student learning at UK (see Chapter 2 for
analysis of results leading to the QEP topic and for additional details). The presentation on “The
Context of Learning” highlighted research results on student attrition, a model for identifying
predictors of student success, and survey data from the Graduating Senior Survey (GSS) and the
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). Excerpts are presented below.
Student Attrition. At 81%, UK’s retention rate for the 2007 cohort was 12.4 percentage points
below the median rate of UK’s top 20 benchmark institutions. Dr. Sugarman noted, “to
improve retention, an institution must help students adjust to the environment, including
policies, procedures, educational programming and culture.”
Modeling. The Office of Institutional Research conducted a regression model designed to
explain students’ first-semester grades, a key indicator of student success. According to the
model, grades were positively associated with: high school GPAs, ACT Composite scores,
being female, participation in UK 101, the distance between a student’s home and UK, the
number of hours students reported studying/doing homework during high school senior year,
self-reported “drive to achieve,” and level of identification with being a good student. Grades
were negatively associated with: being a first-generation college student, the number of hours
students planned to be employed during their first term, self-reported procrastination
tendencies, and self-reported “serious financial difficulties” during the previous year.
Graduating Senior Survey (GSS). UK’s Office of Institutional Research surveys graduating
seniors each year. In response to the question–“Compared with when you started your first
year, how would you describe your following skills and knowledge?”–UK’s 2008-2009 seniors
rated their improvement on a scale from 1 (much weaker) to 5 (much stronger), as follows:
 Making effective oral presentations: mean=4.2; 27% said “much stronger.”
 Thinking critically and analytically: mean=4.2; 33% said “much stronger.”
 Using computers and information technology: mean=4.1; 26% said “much stronger.”
 Writing effectively: mean=4.1; 29% said “much stronger.”
9
University of Kentucky
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The NSSE survey is a questionnaire
administered to samples of first-year students and seniors that assesses students' level of
engagement in their academic careers. The NSSE measures five key clusters of activities,
referred to as benchmarks, which research has shown to be tied to desired collegiate
outcomes: level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty
interactions, enriching educational experiences, and supportive campus environment. UK has
used the data, as needed, for statewide goal-setting and to guide institutional decision-making
with regard to deployment of resources, curriculum, and other learning activities. Exhibit 1.2
shows the NSSE benchmarks and how UK students scored ( = lower, ↑ = higher, or <-> =
same) compared to their Carnegie peers for three years of participation.
Exhibit 1.2: NSSE Benchmarks, UK Compared to Carnegie Peers
2005
NSSE Benchmark
2007
Freshman
Senior
<->

<->
<->
<->

<->
<->
<->
<->

<->
<->
<->
<->
<->
↑
↑
Enriching educational
experiences

<->




Supportive campus
environment

<->


<->

Level of academic challenge
Active and collaborative
learning
Student-faculty interaction
Freshman
2009
Senior
Freshman
Senior
The NSSE also asks UK students the question, “How satisfied are you with your entire
educational experience?” Exhibit 1.3 shows a comparison of UK first-year students and UK
seniors to their Carnegie peers for administration years 2007 and 2009.
Exhibit 1.3: Student Satisfaction with Entire Educational Experience,
UK Compared to Carnegie Peers
Additional information on the IR survey website provides much greater detail for NSSE
results. For example, using a scale of 1 (very little) to 4 (very much) for 16 items related to
educational and personal growth, students responded to the question, “To what extent has
your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal
10
University of Kentucky
development?” UK seniors had a lower mean response than at least one comparison group
on the following items (among others):





“Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills” – UK mean response=2.92, UK
benchmark peers=2.99 (p<.05); 67 percent of UK seniors reported that their university
experiences contributed quite a bit or very much, compared to 69 percent of UK’s
benchmark peers.
“Writing clearly and effectively” -- UK mean response=2.98, UK benchmark
peers=3.08 (p<.001); 72 percent of UK seniors reported that their university
experiences contributed quite a bit or very much, compared to 76 percent of their UK
benchmark peers.
“Speaking clearly and effectively” -- UK mean response=2.84, UK Kentucky
peers=3.03 (p<.001); 65 percent of UK seniors reported that their university
experiences contributed quite a bit or very much, compared to 72 percent of their
Kentucky peers.
“Thinking critically and analytically” -- UK mean response=3.28, UK benchmark
peers=3.45 (p<.001); 86 percent of UK seniors reported that their university
experiences contributed quite a bit or very much, compared to 89 percent of their
benchmark peers.
“Solving complex, real world problems” -- UK mean response=2.75, UK
benchmarks=2.90 (p<.001); 60 percent of UK seniors reported that their university
experiences contributed quite a bit or very much, compared to 67 percent of their
benchmark peers.
A history of GSS results as well as results for the Undergraduate Alumni Survey, Campus
Climate Survey, National Survey of Student Engagement, and others were available to the TST
throughout the topic selection process at: http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/students/surveys.html.
“The Data on Student Learning,” presented by Tara Rose, highlighted assessment data on the
Wabash National Study (Wabash), Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), Collegiate
Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), Program Review, and Accreditation Review.
Excerpts are presented below.
Wabash National Study. The Wabash National Study is designed to help colleges and
universities improve student learning and enhance the educational impact of their programs.
UK freshmen participated in fall 2006 and spring 2007. Results from the first two assessments
indicated the following:





88% of UK students perceived faculty interest in teaching and student development as
moderate (47%) or strong (41%)
98% of UK students scored moderate (78%) to weak (20%) on diversity experiences
UK students registered minimal change on most Outcomes Measures, which included
effective reasoning and problem solving, inclination to inquire and lifelong learning,
and positive attitude toward literacy
UK students showed a significant increase in moral reasoning
UK students registered a sharp decrease in academic motivation, a component of the
Inclination to Inquire outcome
Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). The CLA is a nationally normed, authentic
assessment measuring institutional achievement in student learning in four key general
education areas: critical thinking, analytic reasoning, problem solving, and written
11
University of Kentucky
communication. CLA results are controlled for incoming academic ability. The CLA was first
administered as part of a longitudinal study of general education learning in fall 2007. The
initial administration (Phase 1 of the study) tested two cohorts: 1) first-time, full-time freshmen
in fall 2007 and 2) UK seniors in spring 2008. Test design ensures that the initial results are
immediately useful as a cross-sectional analysis of learning. Spring 2009 was the second
administration. Table D-2 provides results from the fall 2007 student cohort that was re-tested
in spring 2009. UK’s students showed improvement that was “Below” expected on the
Performance Task. (Note: Results in Exhibit 1.4 are those that were available for review
during the QEP Topic Selection process; they differ from those presented in the final CLA
institutional report due to adjustments made to the samples.)
Exhibit 1.4: CLA 2007-2009 Results
Fall 2007
Performance Task
Analytic Writing
Task
Make-an-Argument
Critique-anArgument
Total CLA Score
Spring 2009
Student
Count
173
168
Mean
score
1209
1129
Std
Deviation
202
144
Mean
score
1224
1170
Std
Deviation
166
179
Performance
Level
Below Expected
At
168
171
1122
1134
173
181
1151
1186
217
193
At
At
168
1172
145
1199
149
At Expected
A basic summary of the cross-sectional results and the full institutional report are available at:
http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/studentlearning/general/cla.html.
Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP). The CAAP is useful for measuring
value-added performance gains and is designed to assess Reading, Writing Skills, Writing
Essay, Mathematics, Science, and Critical Thinking. As part of a statewide mandated
accountability program, UK administered the CAAP Math module to 308 UK students in
spring 2009. A list of 200-level courses offered by departments teaching in the general
education program was randomly selected. Students who took the administration were
enrolled in the courses sampled. The Critical Thinking module was administered to 592 UK
students in spring 2010; the guidelines were to survey 200 freshmen and 200 seniors during
classroom instruction. As before, courses were randomly sampled. Results for the CAAP
Math and Critical Thinking are provided in Exhibits 1.5 and 1.6 respectively. UK students
scored at or above national averages on both modules.
Exhibit 1.5: CAAP–Math Spring 2009 Summary Results
UK
Mean
Standard Deviation
N
58.5
3.8
308
National
58.5
4
1,678
Exhibit 1.6: CAAP–Critical Thinking Spring 2010 Summary Results
Count
Percentage
UK
National
Average
Average Score
Freshman
128
22%
62
62
Sophomore
252
43%
63
62
Junior
124
21%
63
62
12
University of Kentucky
Senior
Other/No
Response
Summary
61
27
10%
4%
63
63
62
62
592
100%
63
62
Program Review and Accreditation Analysis. The Office of Assessment conducted a
qualitative analysis of program review self-study and accreditation response documents in
spring 2010, including those completed in 2002 through 2010. The purpose was to provide
the TST with an idea of overarching themes or patterns of weakness that emerged from the
program evaluations. Exhibit 1.7(below) provides the number of times the “area of weakness”
was cited within the documents reviewed. While needing resources and improving facilities
are commonly expressed needs of academic programs, the identification of curriculum
improvement as a major area of weakness suggests that faculty need time and support to
facilitate ongoing improvement through curriculum revision.
Exhibit 1.7: Areas of Weakness Identified in Program Review or Accreditation Documents,
2002-2010
In summary, assessment and institutional research data provided the Topic Selection Team
(TST) with a basic, institution-level understanding of the available information on UK student
learning and the environment for learning. In turn, this information provided rich context for the
TST as its work unfolded.
Educate the Campus about the QEP and Solicit “Big Ideas.” To achieve its goal, the TST formed
two sub-committees: Town Criers and Data Collectors. The Town Criers consisted of individuals
who went “door-to-door” to units across campus and presented campus update information
sessions (see Appendix B, QEP Campus Update Slideshow, when on campus). Their goals were
to: 1) educate the campus about the QEP, 2) encourage participation, and 3) request input by
asking each person to visit the QEP website (www.uky.edu/QEP) and submit “Big Ideas” related
to improving UK student learning via a simple online entry form by May 31, 2010. All submitted
ideas appear on the QEP website1. The Data Collectors gathered and summarized data from the
following sources (see Chapter 2 for more details):
1. “Big Ideas.” All campus stakeholders, including students, faculty, staff, parents, alumni,
community members, were invited to post ideas about what they would like to see the
University do to improve student learning and/or the environment for student learning. The
1
Big Ideas may be found on the QEP website at www.uky.edu/SACS/qep_archive.html.
13
University of Kentucky
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
invitation was broadcast on the radio, in the student newspaper, on the UK website, at the
University Senate, and through exhaustive door-to-door, face-to-face unit visits to
departments, colleges, student groups, and programs across campus. Suggestions were
collected in a website repository.
Unit Reports. To complement institution-level assessment data archived in the files of the
Office of Assessment, the TST devised a template to collect additional assessment data
systematically from all units across campus. The team distributed these Unit Report
templates to deans, associate deans, chairs, directors, student affairs program directors,
and others. The completed reports were collected and catalogued (available on site).
Program Reviews. The TST collected Program Review summaries from the Office of
Assessment.
News Media. The TST collected two-years of back issues of the campus newspaper, The
Kernel, and the predominant community newspaper, The Lexington Herald-Leader.
Student Testimony. Random students were asked what they felt the University could do to
improve student learning and/or the environment for student learning.
SACSCOC Reports. The TST consulted UK’s most recent SACSCOC Reaffirmation of
Accreditation report and a fifth-year impact report.
Data Mining Assessment Retreat. During a 2-day retreat (June 10-11, 2010), members of the
TST examined the six sources of evidence described above. TST members formed small groups,
and each group examined one set of the aforementioned documents to discover emergent
themes. The group capitalized on the expertise of group member, Dr. Jane Jensen, Education,
who explained how to conduct a qualitative thematic analysis to identify emergent themes. The
group learned and then applied a systematic approach to analyzing qualitative data by identifying
themes based on redundancy (number of occurrences) and intensity (passion/power in
occurrences). Subsequently, each sub-committee reported its findings to the larger group.
The larger group codified “top hits” via a two-step process. First, the team identified topics
present in multiple sub-committee reports. Second, the team linked related topics using conceptmapping (Exhibit 1.8). Team members individually identified common and vital characteristics
that eventually self-assembled into six overarching emergent themes.
Exhibit 1.8: Concept Mapping
The TST identified six cross-cutting themes
using a thematic analysis and conceptmapping approach.
Post-hoc Theme Validation. Following the retreat, the TST revisited how institution-level research
and assessment data supported each theme, using results from the Graduating Student Survey,
Undergraduate Alumni Survey, Wabash National Study, Campus Climate Survey, National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), Collegiate
Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), Unit Reports, and Retention Data Reports.
However, because this section focuses on the topic selection process, Chapter 2 describes the
assessment results and issues surrounding the actual topic selected.
14
University of Kentucky
Emergent Themes. The systematic data analysis and synthesis process described above
revealed six themes that addressed issues related to student learning outcomes and/or the
environment for student learning. A description of each theme and an example of related
assessment or institutional research results follow:
1. Developing Engaged Citizenship. This topic addresses the need to develop engaged
citizens who demonstrate knowledge, awareness, and an understanding of the
complexities of citizenship in order to contribute to a culturally diverse, multilingual world.
It addresses the need to develop and apply leadership skills by seeing issues and
concerns from multiple perspectives and recognizing and evaluating the ethical dilemmas,
conflicts, and trade-offs involved in personal and collective decision-making. By cultivating
students’ abilities to apply these skills in a variety of circumstances, this topic may include
research methodologies, leadership, and civic engagement in local, regional, national, or
international settings.
Example of Related Results: UK seniors perform lower than their peers on the National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) item–“Community Service or Volunteer Work,” an
item that may be used as an indicator of civic engagement. On the 2009 NSSE, 61% of
seniors reported that they had “Done” this activity, compared to 69% of seniors at UK’s
benchmark institutions (significance level p<.001).
2. Expanding Global Awareness and Involvement. This topic brings together ideas related to
globalization, localization, internationalization, world politics, and cultural exchange.
Students and the campus as a whole will benefit from having both a better understanding
of others and their position within the world, as well as a better understanding of
Kentucky’s unique qualities and how the Commonwealth fits into the national and
international picture. It is important for students throughout their education to gain greater
awareness of current events and international issues. This topic calls for increased
opportunities for broader cultural understanding and enrichment across campus.
Example of Related Results: UK seniors perform lower than their peers on the NSSE
item–“Had serious conversations with students who are very different from you in terms of
their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values.” As an example, on the 2009
NSSE, using a scale of 1 (Never) to 4 (Very Often), UK seniors’ average rating on this
item was 2.71 compared to 2.88 for a set of benchmark institutions (significance level
p<.001).
3. Fostering a Supportive and Vibrant Campus Culture. This issue addresses how UK can
create a strong and vibrant campus culture. Campus culture is defined as student-driven
and dependent on responsible behavior, respect for others, and celebration of excellence;
it celebrates diversity, upholds empathy, and compels civility. A vibrant campus culture
embodies the total learning environment, referring to the qualities and characteristics of
the spaces and places where students gather, live, and learn. It includes everything
supporting the communities and activities that take place in the lives of students.
Example of Related Results: The Graduating Student Survey asks seniors a series of 10
questions related to various kinds of activities that UK emphasizes. On a scale of 1 (Very
Little) to 4 (Very Much), UK’s 2008-2009 seniors failed to endorse any item at a level
higher than 2.94, including items such as “Providing the support you need to help you
succeed academically” and “Developing an understanding and appreciation of human
diversity.”
15
University of Kentucky
4. Enhancing Scholarship: Critical Thinking, Effective Communication, & Academic Integrity.
This topic includes many of the skills necessary for students to be ethical, informed
decision-makers and communicators. By building information literacy skills to research a
topic, synthesize, and judge the quality of information, students will be able to think
critically and make evidence-based decisions across multiple disciplines utilizing the
highest standards of academic honesty and integrity. They will acquire effective, articulate
communication skills through a variety of traditional and emerging modalities (e.g.,
reading, writing, speaking, listening, visually and digitally).
Example of Related Results: Results of UK’s initial participation in a longitudinal study
using the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) found that Phase 1 (freshman) to Phase
2 (rising junior) improvement of UK students on the performance task was “Below”
expected.
5. Advancing 21st Century Teaching and Learning. This topic relates to innovation in
pedagogy and opportunities for holistic learning by taking advantage of the wealth of
technologies available today to integrate new knowledge with learning experiences and
real life applications. Progressive pedagogy is moving beyond didactic teaching into
interdisciplinary, case-based instruction and interdisciplinary mentoring. By collaborating
across disciplines and across physical barriers, innovative curricula and pedagogy can
enhance teaching and learning outcomes.
Example of Related Results: A qualitative analysis of program review and accreditation
reports during the 2002 to 2010 time frame found that “curriculum improvement” was one
of the faculty’s most frequently cited needs (N=232) to ensure high quality programs.
6. Navigating Successful Transitions. This topic focuses on student success by better
facilitating life transitions for UK students before, during, and after their educational
experience at UK. Transitions include moving from secondary school to life at UK,
transitions relevant to growth during undergraduate years, as well as transitions from the
university setting to the workforce or graduate and professional schools. Improvements in
academic and career advising and placement, enhancing life skills of students in
preparation for graduation, and greater access to research and engagement experiences
empower students to affect the living-learning environment of the campus.
Example of Related Results: UK students have a difficult time making the transition from
high school to a university setting, as evidenced by a retention rate that is significantly
lower than it should be based on the quality of the first-year class. For the fall 2008 cohort,
the retention rate was 80.3% compared to an average retention rate of 90.4% for UK’s
benchmark institutions.
Call for Proposals. In September 2010, the
TST rolled out the six emergent themes and
Exhibit 1.9: Proposal Submission
invited faculty, staff, students, alumni,
parents, and community members to submit
proposals related to one or more of them, as
indicated by Exhibit 1.9, the logo used in
conjunction with the campaign to solicit
proposals.” The invitation was made via an
interview with the QEP co-chairs by then
President Todd on WUKY, postcards
16
University of Kentucky
distributed across campus, an announcement to the University Senate, an article in the Kernel,
and announcements on UK websites, including the homepage. To keep the process simple,
individuals submitted proposals by clicking on a website icon that linked to an electronic proposal
submission form (see Appendix C). These brief proposals were due October 1, 2010.
The TST received 63 proposals submitted by individuals representing a variety of campus
constituencies, including students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community members, and
addressing each of the six themes (Exhibit 1.10 and Exhibit 1.11). As illustrated in Exhibit 1.4,
24 of the 63 proposals (46%) addressed the 21st century teaching and learning theme, 19 (37%)
addressed the engaged citizenship and campus culture themes, 17 (33%) addressed global
awareness, 16 (31%) addressed scholarship, and 10 (19%) addressed transition navigation. As
illustrated in Exhibit 1.10, 24 of the 63 responders reported themselves as undergraduate
students and 40 as faculty or staff. The TST believed that the themes were well-represented in
the proposal submissions, lending credibility to the theme identification process; additionally,
good participation by both students and faculty suggested interest and support by key groups that
will be involved in and affected by the QEP.
Exhibit 1.10: QEP Themes Addressed
Note: The sum is more than 63 because some proposals addressed multiple themes.
Exhibit 1.11: Constituent Groups Represented
Note: Responses add to more than 100% because some proposal submitters marked themselves as
representing more than one constituent group.
17
University of Kentucky
TST members used a rubric (see Appendix C) to evaluate the 63 proposals and confirmed that
the selected proposals focused on the QEP requirement to enhance student learning and/or the
environment for student learning, ranking their Top 10. On October 15, 2010, the members
discussed the proposals and selected 10 to invite authors to develop their proposals into white
papers. Authors of the following proposals (Exhibit 1.12) were invited for white paper submission
(due on December 1, 2010). Authors were given specific guidelines for development (see
Appendix D for an explanation of the guidelines) that included preparing an evidenced-based
paper describing a QEP idea that is reflective of best practices.
Exhibit 1.12: Proposals Selected for White Papers
1
2
3
Proposal Authors
Alexandra Atkins
Candace Chumley
Amy Gaffney
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Jonathan Gaffney
Mark Kornbluh
Jason Pieratt
Marcia Rapchak
Megan Smith
Rhonda Strouse
Ben Withers
Title of Proposal
Global Competence
High School to College to Career Roadmap
Multimodal Communication Across the
Curriculum
Scale Up Classroom Redesign
Global Awareness
Effective College to Career Transitions
Information Literacy
Fostering Creative Leadership
Center for Service Learning & Civic Engagement
Thematic Year
Status
Student
Student
Faculty
Student
Faculty
Staff
Student/Faculty
Alumni
Staff
Faculty
White Paper Evaluation. Each proposal author became a white paper development team leader.
One person from the TST participated on each team to provide SACSCOC insight as the papers
were developed. Each team submitting a white paper earned a $1,000 honorarium; nine white
papers were received. Evaluation of submissions used the submission guidelines provided to
authors as a rubric (see Appendix D).
Select the Top 4 White Papers for SACS Leadership Team Review. Based upon the results of the
rubric evaluations, a comprehensive discussion on December 15, 2011, and a series of
confidential votes, the TST forwarded four papers to the SACS Leadership Team (SLT: see list
on page 1) for consideration:




Center for Service-Learning and Civic Engagement
Entwining Curricula Internationally (a.k.a. Global Awareness)
Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum
Thematic Year Program: Creating a Campus Learning Community
Select Topic Using Specific Criteria for Decision. All four white papers submitted to UK’s SACS
Leadership Team met the criteria set forth by SACSCOC for addressing an assessment-driven
topic to enhance UK student learning and/or the environment for student learning. The final SLT
evaluation used the criteria of feasibility, alignment with the University’s Strategic Plan, and
alignment with UK’s existing curricular focus. After reading each white paper, the SLT discussed
them at length and voted on March 24, 2011. The selected topic was Multimodal Communication
Across the Curriculum (MCXC).
18
University of Kentucky
From Topic Selection to Topic Development
The Topic Development Team (TDT). TDT membership included “content experts” and ad hoc
members, as indicated below. The TDT met monthly from May through December 2011. Meeting
notes were posted on the QEP website2. The TDT goal was to flesh out the ideas offered in the
White Paper and develop them into a comprehensive plan for implementing MCXC.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
2
Last Name
First Name
College/Unit
Status
Badger
Barron
Black
Blanton
Bosch
Cassone
Eldred
Frisby
Gaffney
Greenwell
Grubbs
Hamperian
Holladay
Hollingsworth
Hulse
Jones
Kaufmann
Kern
Lane
Lewis
Lusk
Messer
Mountford
O’Bryan
Philips
Prats
Rice
Rose
Sacks
Schwake
*Sellnow
Skillman
*Snow
Sparks
Stevenson
Strange
Wagoner
Wells
Whitehouse
Wilson
Withers
Yost
Karen
Susan
Penni
Jay
Anna
Vincent
Janet
Brandi
Amy
Stacey
Morris
Kathy
Erin
Randolph
David
Andrew
Renee
Kathi
Derek
Karin
Braden
Amy
Roxanne
Mark
Meg
Judy
Jeff
Tara
David
Nathan
Deanna
Laura
Diane
Logan
Brian
Emily
Heather Yattaw
Jenny
Parker
Lisa
Ben
Scott
Social Work
Psychology
Pharmacy
PR (Director)
Linguistics (Assoc Dean, UG Educ, A&S)
Biology (Chair)
English/Engineering
Communication & Information
Communication & Information
UK Libraries
Graduate School
Info Management
PR
Undergraduate Education/History
B&E
SAB/Political Sci
CIS
CELT/History
CIS
Academic Enhancement
Engineering
Sociology
English
Design
Alumni
English
English
Assessment
CELT
Athletics
Communication & Information
Agriculture; Communications
Medicine
Student Gov/COM/ISC
Mol Biol, Immunol, and Genetics
Education
Student Involvement
PR
Student Gov/Social Studies
Provost Budget Office
Art (Chair)
Engineering
Faculty, 9 mo
Faculty, 12 mo
Faculty, 12 mo
Staff
Faculty, 12 mo
Faculty, 12 mo
Faculty, 9 mo
Faculty, 9 mo
Faculty, 9 mo
Faculty, 12 mo
Admin, 12 mo
Staff
Staff
Admin, 12 mo
Faculty, 12 mo
UG Student
Grad Student
Faculty, 9 mo
Faculty, 9 mo
Asst Prov., UGE
Faculty, 12 mo
Grad Student
Faculty, 9 mo
Faculty, 12 mo
Staff
Faculty, 9 mo
Faculty, 9 mo
Staff
Staff
Staff
Faculty, 10 mo
Faculty
Faculty, 12 mo
UG Student
Faculty, 12 mo
UG Student
Staff
Staff
UG Student
Admin
Faculty, 12 mo
Faculty, 9 mo
Meeting Minutes may be found at http://www.uky.edu/SACS/QEP_meetings.html.
19
University of Kentucky
The TDT consisted of five sub-committees:
1. The Grounders. (Chair, Dr. Brandi Frisby): Dr. Frisby, a contributing author of the original
white paper, chaired this sub-committee as it gathered research on which to ground the
plan. Sub-committee members examined SACSCOC documents related to effectively
constructed QEPs, best practices materials from programs similar to MCXC implemented
at other institutions (e.g., writing across the curriculum, speaking across the curriculum,
writing and speaking across the curriculum), assessment data at UK pointing to a gap in
outcomes related to multimodal (written, oral, visual) communication, and published
research purporting a need to do a better job of developing multimodal communication
skills in college graduates.
2. The Builders. (Chair, Dr. Derek Lane): Dr. Lane was also a contributing author of the
original white paper. This sub-committee expanded the original white paper by grounding
the rationale more firmly in UK assessment data results regarding multimodal
communication skill deficiencies and providing more specific details describing the overall
plan of the MCXC program.
3. Assessors. (Chair, Dr. Amy Gaffney): Dr. Gaffney submitted the initial MCXC proposal
and was the team leader in preparing the original white paper. This sub-committee
developed assessment plans for MCXC as well as its development and implementation
processes.
4. Financers. (Chair, Lisa Wilson): Lisa Wilson, Vice Provost, Provost’s Budget Office, led
this sub-committee in developing a modular budget for each component of the plan. The
group elected a modular approach because it would simplify the process of making
adjustments based on assessment results, if warranted, throughout the five-year
implementation period.
5. Promoters. (Co-Chairs, Jay Blanton and Dr. Roxanne Mountford): Jay Blanton is the
Public Relations/Marketing Executive Director and works in the UK President’s Office. Dr.
Mountford is Director of the Division of Writing, Rhetoric, and Digital Media. This subcommittee was composed of two divisions: (1) the “Updaters,” who traveled across
campus to keep the community informed about QEP progress (Appendix B, a sample
PowerPoint slideshow, available to On-Site Review Team members on site) and (2) the
“PR Team,” who developed campaigns, slogans, logos, banners, Facebook and other
electronic media, and printed and digital publications. The PR team gathered data from a
number of student focus groups regarding the perceived value of what they called “Project
X,” including what to call such a program and where to house it. Since the QEP’s goal is
to enhance student learning, students should play a major role in naming it. In an effort
toward simplicity and clarity, students proposed Presentation U as the QEP “brand.”
Members of the TDT supported it unanimously (Exhibit 1.13).
Chapter 2 describes much of the work completed by the TDT as it worked to complete its task of
fully developing MCXC for the QEP.
Exhibit 1.13: The QEP Brand
YOU are the Ultimate Presentation!
Students selected “Presentation U” as the name
of UK’s QEP with the tagline: “YOU are the
Ultimate Presentation.” They indicated that the
tutoring facility should be centrally located at the
William T. Young Library and named simply the
“Presentation Center.”
20
University of Kentucky
CHAPTER 2: RATIONALE, HISTORY, AND BEST PRACTICES
This chapter begins with a data-driven and needs-based rationale for focusing on Multimodal
Communication Across the Curriculum (MCXC) as UK’s QEP topic, followed by a summary of the
history of writing and speaking across-the-curriculum programs in the U.S. To identify best
practices for Presentation U, the Grounders subcommittee of the Topic Development Team (TDT)
conducted an extensive literature review. They then synthesized research regarding the utility of
such an MCXC program and provided a systematic historical review of similar programs (e.g.,
writing across the curriculum and oral communication across the curriculum). Finally, this chapter
concludes by establishing several best practices that emerged from the committee’s research and
were incorporated into UK’s proposed Presentation U.
Rationale
As described in Chapter 1, the selection of MCXC as UK’s QEP is based on the University’s
2009-2014 Strategic Plan, various forms of assessment and institutional research data from UK,
and relevant national data for comparison. Therefore, this rationale for the selection of MCXC first
affirms a strong alignment of the topic with the 2009-2014 Strategic Plan and then moves into a
review of institutional and national data that—given UK’s vision to be among the best in the
nation—are highly relevant for its students and their development.
Alignment with the Strategic Plan. The QEP’s focus on improving multimodal communication
skills addresses the University’s mission of “. . . improving people’s lives through excellence in
education . . .” most centrally by enhancing fundamental skills sought by employers of college
graduates in order that UK graduates can more effectively interact within their professions and
better understand, inter-relate, communicate, and respond to the needs and wishes of their
clients and communities. By doing so in ways that consider multiple modalities, channels, and
contexts, the QEP will address UK’s flagship institutional goal, (Goal 1) “Prepare students for
leading roles in an innovation-driven economy and global society,” as it seeks to help students in
developing twenty-first century multimodal communication skills that reach beyond traditional
written and/or oral forms. Further, by extending multimodal communication across the curriculum,
the QEP will help ensure that graduates are able to (Objective 1.3) “demonstrate expertise in their
disciplines and . . . succeed in professional and community settings.” Finally, as graduates apply
disciplinary knowledge and approaches in service to the well-being of Kentuckians and those
beyond its borders and are recognized for excellence and leadership, the QEP will ultimately help
the University fulfill its vision to be “one of the nation’s 20 best public research universities.”
The various excerpts cited above from the 2009-2014 Strategic Plan reflect key areas of
alignment to demonstrate that the QEP is grounded in University needs. Those key areas are:
excellence, preparation for leading roles, expertise in the discipline, and being among the best,
and they are implicit in the overarching goal of the University of Kentucky’s QEP—to prepare
students to employ effective, state-of-the-art, multimodal communication skills as expected of
professionals in their chosen fields. Furthermore, the key areas of alignment provide context for
the following review of assessment and institutional research data that support the QEP topic.
Institutional Data. The QEP Topic Selection Team (TST) sought input from the Office of
Assessment and the Office of Institutional Research for institution-level information regarding the
current status of UK student learning and the environment for learning. Given the inherent
difficulties associated with assessing human behavior and the varied theoretical philosophies
about assessment, the information provided drew intentionally from a variety of perspectives—
self-report survey data (Alumni, Graduating Senior, and NSSE), nationally normed testing results
21
University of Kentucky
(CLA), recommendations of program and accreditation reviews, and special studies designed to
inform institution-level progress in student learning and development (Wabash National Study),
among others. Providing data from a variety of perspectives allowed for the analysis and
synthesis of a rich dataset that supported the selection of MCXC as the QEP topic. The
summaries below focus on selected results available, both then and now, that are related to
written, oral and visual communication competencies across the curriculum.
Survey Results. Although self-reported survey data is weak as a measure of student
learning, an important value in reviewing survey data comes from the discovery of
common themes that coalesce to provide direction for improvement. Therefore, UK
surveys freshmen, graduating seniors, and alumni on a regular basis. The results
presented in the first exhibit below are from seniors who graduated in academic year
2008-2009 and are the same results that were available during the topic selection
process. Exhibit 2.1 shows the mean response on a scale from 1 (much weaker) to 5
(much stronger) for seniors who were asked to describe how their skills had improved
compared to the first year. Exhibit 2.2 shows over a six-year period the mean response of
seniors who described improvement in their skills and knowledge for three items related to
MCXC. Both sets of data suggest that UK’s graduating seniors believe they have made
reasonable improvement in oral presentation and writing effectively and that these
findings have been fairly stable over time.
Exhibit 2.1: Graduating Senior Self-report of Improvement, Mean Response
Appreciating the arts
3.73
Making effective oral presentations
4.15
Thinking critically and analytically
4.24
Understanding methods and applying…
3.9
Using computers and information technology
4.06
Using foreign languages
3.4
Using statistical or mathematical…
3.83
Writing effectively
4.13
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Mean Response
Exhibit 2.2: Graduating Senior Self-report of Improvement, Mean Response Over Six Years
22
University of Kentucky
Additionally, the most recent related survey results include the following:



The 2011-2012 Graduating Senior Survey (GSS) found that less than half of seniors
endorsed their improvement on “making effective oral presentations” and “writing
effectively” as “a lot of progress.” (Note: The 2011-2012 GSS changed the response
options for these items to gain more insight into students’ perceptions as to the level of
their improvement.)
Similar to the 2009 NSSE results available during the topic selection process, the
2012 NSSE found that seniors rated UK’s contribution to their growth lower
(significance level p<.001) than their peers at Carnegie institutions in these key areas,
among others (where 1 = “very little” and 4 = “very much”):
o Writing clearly and effectively: UK mean = 2.92; Carnegie mean = 3.07
o Speaking clearly and effectively: UK mean = 2.78; Carnegie mean = 2.94
o Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills: UK mean = 2.91; Carnegie
mean = 3.03
(Note: UK did not use an institutional benchmark peer group for the 2012 NSSE; thus,
comparisons here use the Carnegie group.)
The 2010-2011 Undergraduate Alumni Survey (conducted two years after students
graduate) found relatively low endorsements of “Excellent” when asking alumni to rate
the quality of various aspects of the curriculum:
o Only 12% rated the UK curriculum excellent for “providing job-related skills and
knowledge”: only 27% rated their major curriculum excellent on the same item.
o Only 12% rated the UK curriculum excellent for “preparation to meet demands
of my job”; only 23% rated their major curriculum excellent on the same item.
An important theme emerges through a careful review of UK’s survey data—students do not
appear to endorse excellence to a high degree with respect to the curriculum in helping them
develop effective oral and written communication skills and in preparing them for their work
lives. Although graduating seniors tend to self-report progress in making effective oral
presentations and writing effectively, their Carnegie peers rate the contribution of their
institutions higher, and as alumni, UK graduates appear to be somewhat dissatisfied with their
preparation for work, which, it is safe to assume, involves possessing adequate oral and
writing skills. Therefore, in considering key elements of the UK strategic plan—excellence,
preparation for leading roles, expertise in the discipline, and being among the best—these
findings generate concern about less-than-excellent perceptions of the quality of a UK
education in helping students improve communication skills and develop job-related skills.
The UK QEP—Presentation U—will address this concern.
Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). With respect to self-reported survey data, perhaps a
more informative measure of student learning can be found in results of the Collegiate
Learning Assessment (CLA). UK initiated participation in a longitudinal study of student
improvement on the CLA starting with the fall 2007 freshman cohort. The longitudinal design
of the CLA required that UK administer it to the same cohort three times: first in fall 2007, next
in spring 2009, and finally, in spring 2011. Results of the CLA provide an “effect size”
indicating learning gains between the three phases (i.e., freshman, rising junior, and senior
CLA administrations); an effect size of 0.5 is considered “large.” Initial results available in
2009-2010 found that UK student learning gains from the freshman to rising junior levels
were:

Below expected on the “Performance Task” that requires students to use an integrated
set of critical thinking, analytic reasoning, problem solving, and written communication
23
University of Kentucky

skills to answer several open-ended questions about a hypothetical but realistic
situation.
At expected for the “Analytic Writing Task” made up of “make-an-argument” and
“critique-an-argument” components measuring a student’s skill in articulating complex
ideas, examining claims and evidence, supporting ideas with relevant reasons and
examples, sustaining a coherent discussion, and using standard written English.
While the early results of the CLA with respect to the Performance Task supported the need
for improving instruction related to written communication skills, the final results of the
longitudinal study, as shown in Exhibit 2.3 below, were both surprising and compelling:



When comparing student performance in 2007 (freshmen) and 2009 (rising juniors),
the improvement in scores was below expected for the performance task and above
expected for the analytic writing task. (Note: initial 2007 to 2009 CLA results differ
from those in the final longitudinal study due to sample adjustments made by CLA.)
When comparing student performance in 2007 (freshmen) and 2011 (seniors), the
improvement in scores was above expected for the performance task and below
expected for the analytic writing task.
When comparing student performance in 2009 (rising juniors) with their performance
in 2011 (seniors), the improvement in scores was well above expected for the
performance task and well below expected for the analytic writing task (making and
critiquing arguments).
Exhibit 2.3: Performance Level over Three Phases of the CLA, 2007 Cohort
Surprisingly, the initial trends of improvement on the performance task and analytical writing task
were reversed between the rising junior and senior years, a time when students begin to focus
studies on their majors. More research on this finding is necessary to facilitate understanding of
what is happening, and the University is pursuing this line of inquiry starting with a new
longitudinal study implemented in fall 2011. More compelling for the QEP, however, these
findings suggest that UK students improve very little after completing required general education
courses designed to develop these kinds of skills, which suggests further that UK needs to help
students strengthen these skills as they complete their major program of study. Therefore, there
is a need for a consistent, focused curriculum in the major to help improve students’ written
communication skill. The UK QEP—Presentation U—will address this need.
Additional Findings. Other data available to support the QEP topic included the following:
Wabash National Study. The Wabash National Study employed a three-phase longitudinal
design. The first two phases were conducted in 2006-2007: a cohort of full-time freshmen was
tested in both fall and spring semesters. The final phase was conducted in February 2010.
Exhibit 2.4 shows the proportion of students from the freshman cohort of fall 2006 who exhibited
24
University of Kentucky
moderate to high growth (change of 0.3 standard deviations or more), small growth (change
between 0.05 and 0.3 standard deviations), or no growth/decline (change less than 0.05 standard
deviations) in the outcomes. After four years at UK, 20 percent of students had no growth or
declined in critical thinking, 60 percent of students had no growth or declined in positive attitude
toward literacy (reading and writing), and 74 percent of students had no growth or declined in
academic motivation. These findings suggest that UK students need additional support in
developing key skills related to MCXC and in sustaining motivation toward academic success.
Presentation U will address these needs.
Exhibit 2.4: Wabash National Study Results, UK Student Growth Over Time
Oral Communication Course Analysis. In April 2004 oral communication was suspended from
general education and not reinstated until fall 2009. As indicated in Exhibit 2.5 (below), from
academic year 2003 through 2009, 65 percent of UK undergraduates took at least one oral
communication course before receiving degrees; conversely, 35 percent did not. Thus, there has
been a lack of focus and commitment to oral communication at UK during a time when it has
become increasingly important for success in the workplace. Presentation U will help reverse this
trend and strengthen UK students’ skills beyond general education and into their chosen fields.
Exhibit 2.5: Percentage of Graduates completing an Oral Communication Course
25
University of Kentucky
The Case for Visual Communication. An important finding that emerged from reviewing
institutional data available for documenting the need to improve student learning was the obvious
absence of any reference to visual communication, an area of intellectual and academic pursuit
made particularly salient in today’s world of high tech visual resources designed to communicate
ideas, opinions, and messages. This finding, in and of itself, suggests that UK needs to update its
curriculum to address and assess visual communication competencies. The new UK Core
includes visual competencies in general education. If data indicate a need to further strengthen
written and oral communication within disciplines, then it follows that UK should work to
strengthen visual communication within disciplines as well. The QEP, Presentation U, will
address this need.
Taken together, the assessment and institutional research findings above resulted in the following
concerns that guided development of UK’s QEP, Presentation U:
1) deficiencies in students’ written communication skills, as evidenced by CLA results;
2) perceived shortcomings among students in development of job-related skills and
knowledge, as evidenced by self-report survey results;
3) gaps in consistent development and assessment of oral communication skills, as
evidenced by oral communication course completions as well as survey results;
4) little emphasis, if any, on visual communication skills; and, therefore, most importantly,
5) little emphasis on oral, written, and visual communication competencies within disciplines.
Nationwide Research. For an institution such as UK that aspires to be among the best research
universities in the nation, nationwide research is an essential source of information about
teaching multimodal communication skills across the curriculum. Colleges and universities
nationwide typically require at least one course in written composition and one course in oral
communication as part of general education. Doing so is intended to prepare students to
communicate effectively upon graduation. However, research repeatedly reveals that students do
not effectively transfer the skills learned in these fundamentals courses into their majors or into
their actions as professionals after graduation (Finley, 2012). This deficit stems from the fact that
fundamentals alone are not enough and one size does not fit all. In other words, these skills are
not congenital but, rather, acquired and developed over time through the processes of instruction,
practice, assessment, and revision. Thus, students need to further hone the fundamental skills
acquired in the general education curriculum in ways that prepare them specifically for their
academic disciplines and the professions their chosen majors represent. The following
paragraphs highlight several vital reasons for selecting Presentation U as the UK QEP.
While all employers want to hire college graduates who can communicate effectively, they seek
most diligently those who are competent in the appropriate vernacular. Survey after survey of
business and industry professionals reports that communication skills are among the most sought
after skills in new hires. Mastering communication, public speaking and debate is “critical in any
environment where you’re working with others to get things done—in other words, all jobs”
(Schiavone, 2012), president and founder of CollegeRecruiter.com, concludes that all graduates
“should successfully complete at least a few classes in topics such as writing, debate, speech,
public speaking, and communication [to] enhance their communication skills [and] concretely
demonstrate these skills to potential employers” (Schiavone, 2012).
One of the most comprehensive studies on skills employers seek in college graduates was
conducted by Peter D. Hart Associates on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and
Universities (AACU) and released in 2007. Responses from a series of interviews with 305
26
University of Kentucky
employers of college graduates, company owners, CEOs, presidents, and vice presidents
revealed the most important and sought-after skills as:







Teamwork skills and the ability to collaborate with others in a diverse group (44%)
Critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills (33%)
The ability to communicate orally and in writing (30%)
The ability to assemble and organize information from multiple sources (21%)
The ability to innovate and think creatively (20%)
The ability to work with numbers/statistics (9%)
Foreign language proficiency (3%).
Interestingly, results from interviews with 510 recent college graduates in the same study also
ranked these top three skill sets as most important:



Teamwork skills and the ability to collaborate with others in a diverse group (38%)
Critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills (37%)
The ability to communicate orally and in writing (37%)
Thus, a QEP focused intentionally on refining multimodal communication skills (i.e., integrated
written, oral, and visual communication delivered in flat print, face-to-face, and digital
environments) and tailoring this information to the particulars of their chosen fields will better
prepare UK graduates for the working world they will enter when they graduate.
Second, employers reported that these are the very skills college graduates lack. In a follow-up
survey of 302 employers and college graduates conducted by the AACU in 2009, only “one in
four employers thinks . . . colleges are doing a good job in preparing students for [today’s]
challenges” (Hart, 2010, p. 2). More specifically, 89 percent of those interviewed said colleges
should place greater emphasis on developing students’ “ability to effectively communicate orally
and in writing” (p. 9). Eighty-one percent of those interviewed reported that college graduates also
lack desired critical and analytical reasoning skills (p. 9). Although these data are not specific to
UK, one can reasonably assume they reflect UK students as much as others, especially when
only 12 percent of UK alumni report that preparation for the demands of their job was excellent.
Thus, these data are quite useful in informing efforts at UK. As such, Presentation U will not only
address the concerns and needs that emerged during a review of institution-level data, but will
also address a national need identified by employers who may seek to hire UK graduates.
Additional Rationale for Addressing Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum
Building on UK Core. Although the aforementioned rationale alone warrants selection of MCXC
as UK’s QEP topic, Presentation U addresses another important UK aim, which is based on
fundamental design principles underlying UK’s revised general education curriculum—UK Core.
In 2008, the University community began developing a new and improved general education
curriculum to replace the existing general education curriculum, the University Studies Program
(USP). The University Senate and Provost jointly established a General Education Reform
Steering Committee to do so in ways that adhered to seven essential design principles. One of
the seven design principles of the newly established UK Core requires the University’s general
education program to:
“Intentionally identify and strengthen the connections between the general education
curriculum and the student’s major field of study.”
27
University of Kentucky
Further, UK Core addresses these principles based on four assessable learning outcomes, one of
which is:
“Students will demonstrate competent written, oral, and visual communication as
producers and consumers of information.”
Presentation U, targeting juniors and seniors in upper-division courses, will complement the
design principles and learning outcomes of UK Core (freshman and sophomore years). In looking
at the sequence of events over the four undergraduate years, UK Core will address this learning
outcome through a two-course integrated multimodal composition and communication sequence
that reflects effective communication skills and practices. Presentation U will then build on the UK
Core outcome by reinforcing multimodal communication skills that meet the needs of each
student’s individual discipline.
Communication Requirement in the Major (CRM). Another important UK initiative rests with a
proposal currently being reviewed at the University Senate to expand the University-wide
Graduation Writing Requirement into what was initially described as the Communication
Requirement in the Major (CRM). To clarify, UK implemented a six-year GWR pilot in Fall 2004.
The intent was to embed a writing-intensive course into all majors across the University by 2010.
Writing-intensive courses required students to prepare a substantial research paper that
underwent a series of revisions based on peer and instructor reviews; unfortunately, the goal was
not realized by 2010. A majority of students were, in fact, achieving the Graduation Writing
Requirement through an English course (e.g., ENG 203, 205, 231, 232, 233, 234, 261, 281)
rather than through an assignment or series of assignments in the student’s chosen major.
At that time, the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education appointed a task force
comprised of individuals representing a broad cross-section of undergraduate programs to
determine why integration of the Graduation Writing Requirement had not occurred and then to
propose a revision or replacement that addresses the issues.
The committee has now revised the CRM into what is being described as the Graduation
Composition and Communication Requirement (GCCR) in the major, which is more directly
aligned with the integrated written, oral, and visual communication outcome in the UK Core (see
Appendix E). The proposed GCCR replaces a one-size-fits-all writing requirement with a more
flexible communication requirement tailored directly to the expectations of the professions for
which each major prepares its students.
In an effort to promote flexibility, each undergraduate degree program will be asked to: 1) identify
one or more specific GCCR program learning outcomes, 2) provide assignments and courses
that fulfill the identified outcomes, and 3) develop a specific program learning outcome and
assessment plan focused directly on the GCCR. While these specific learning outcomes are not
yet available, in general, students will be expected to be able to: 1) craft a document of at least
4,500 words, 2) deliver a 10 minute presentation OR create at least one significant
visual/electronic artifact (e.g., a website or video presentation), and 3) respond to feedback on the
assigned work. Since the GCCR is to be managed within each department or unit, if approved,
Presentation U will provide the necessary faculty education and student tutoring support
infrastructure to ensure the success of this expanded requirement. Finally, although an
assessment showed that 112 of the 141 undergraduate majors at UK have a student learning
outcome related to some aspect of communication, to date no formalized systematic instruction
or student product assessment of them exists. Thus, Presentation U will break new ground in
helping to fill this instruction and assessment gap at UK.
28
University of Kentucky
A Cutting-Edge Focus. Across the country similar programs to Presentation U exist, focusing
intentionally on writing across the curriculum, on speaking across the curriculum, and even on
writing and speaking across the curriculum. However, none of them was originally created with
the goal of intentionally and purposefully embracing all three modalities (written, oral, visual) and
all three delivery channels (flat print, face-to-face, digital). Thus, Presentation U’s multimodal
communication focus places UK among the trendsetters in addressing communication broadly
across the curriculum, acknowledging the role of integrated written, oral, and visual
communication. In turn, UK graduates will also stand out as “trendsetters” by demonstrating the
higher level of multimodal communication skills that employers are seeking, helping the University
achieve its mission, vision, and goals.
Presentation U’s vision for MCXC offered as situated learning is particularly exciting. Lave and
Wenger (1991) are credited with first proposing the concept of situated learning, which is
grounded in the assumption that learning is a co-constructed social process that is most effective
when situated within a specific context. Ultimately, the University of Kentucky will situate
multimodal communication skills training and development within the contexts of individual majors
to help students discover, internalize, and practice these skills in the very business and
community settings and within the constraints of their chosen fields. UK will do so by “assist[ing]
faculty across the university in developing . . . communication assignments and evaluation tools
for their courses,” (Sellnow & Martin, 2010, pp. 37-38). Presentation U aspires to do what
Dannels and Housley-Gaffney (2009) suggest in terms of bridging the divide between CXC
(Communication Across the Curriculum) and WAC (Writing Across the Curriculum) programs to
work together in ways that will, ultimately, better prepare UK college graduates for life beyond the
University. Thus, the University of Kentucky is innovative in its vision for preparing its graduates
in terms of communication skills, but it is also joined by other institutions—North Carolina State
University, Rutgers, Stanford, and Iowa State University, to name a few—that are pursuing
related projects. Students will benefit greatly from this nationwide movement to develop
multimodal communication skill-building into curricula in a variety of ways in introductory courses
as well as vertically integrating it within the disciplines.
Historical Perspective
Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC or WXC) and Communication Across the Curriculum (CAC
or CXC) programs first emerged in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s as a component of
general education (e.g., Bazerman, et al., 2005; Cronin & Glenn, 1991). This initiative may have
come about, in part, as a response to a perceived literacy crisis captured by a 1975 Newsweek
article, “Why Johnny Can’t Write.” Perhaps the single best comprehensive resource for
information is the WAC Clearinghouse3.
Complaints from business and industry leaders that “college graduates do not possess adequate
written and oral communication skills” provided a primary rationale for creating such programs
(Cronin & Glen, 1991, p. 356). Interestingly, however, half of the CXC centers established before
1990 were disbanded by the late 1990s (Weiss, 1998). Reasons stemmed from “financial
exigencies, to leader dependence, to insufficient institutionalization” (Sellnow & Martin, 2010, p.
37).
Over the past decade, however, such programs have gained renewed momentum. Notably
different this time, however, is the fact that WAC and CXC programs are beginning to merge, as
colleges and universities realize that effective communication is more than either writing or
3
Information on the WAC Clearinghouse may be found at http://wac.colostate.edu/.
29
University of Kentucky
speaking alone (e.g., Dannels & Housley-Gaffney, 2009; Reiss, Selfe, & Young, 1998; Sheridan
& Inman, 2010). Research suggests five models of such programs: (1) speaking-intensive
programs, (2) combined speaking and writing programs, (3) discipline-specific programs, (4)
faculty development programs, and (5) start-up programs (Helsel & Hogg, 2006). Furthermore,
scholars seem to agree that a model that emphasizes faculty development, support, and
recognition is critical to success (Hampson, 2009; Helsel & Hogg, 2006; Hobgood, 2000; Weiss,
1990; Yancy & Huot, 1997). Finally, successful programs today appear to focus on both student
tutoring and faculty development (Dannels, 2001a). However, only about twenty percent of these
programs provide a structure focused on both (Helsel & Hogg, 2006). Systematic assessment
focusing on both student achievement and faculty development is also clearly critical to program
success (Dannels, 2001a). Such insights will inform Presentation U (see Best Practices below).
Related Programs
Beyond published research about the history and current state of WAC and CXC programs, the
Grounders identified fifteen programs at other institutions related to the proposed Presentation U
(see Exhibit 2.6). To learn more about these programs and how they might help in creation and
implementation of Presentation U, committee members reviewed written documents and/or
conducted interviews with program directors. For example, Rebecca Burdette, Assistant Director
of the Communication Across the Curriculum program at Louisiana State University, reported:
In only five short years, we have built a dedicated community of 300+ faculty committed to
improving the communication skills of LSU undergraduates in every college . . . and [the
program] has positively impacted student learning overall, resulting in deeper learning of
course content and improved critical thinking and analytical skills. (personal
correspondence taken from the original white paper)
Similarly, April Kedrowicz, director of the CLEAR (Communication, Leadership, Ethics, and
Research) program at the University of Utah, indicated that the program:
has had a positive effect on student learning and communication skill development.
Graduates are entering the workforce with above average speaking, writing, and teaming
competencies.” (personal correspondence taken from the original white paper).
And, Deanna Dannels, PhD, associate director of North Carolina State University’s Campus
Writing and Speaking Program (CWSP), explained that they have:
helped faculty across campus, in every discipline from agriculture to zoology. Through our
faculty development programs, students are more engaged in both formal and informal
writing and speaking. Faculty consistently report back to us that their students’
communication skills improve at the same time that students’ understanding of course
content improves. (personal correspondence taken from the original white paper).
These efforts not only helped to establish best practices (see below) for developing Presentation
U, but also affirmed that such programs can improve student learning.
30
University of Kentucky
Student
Focus
Faculty
Focus
Center
Finding a Voice: Improving Oral &
Written Competence
X
X
X
X
X
Dillard University
Communication Skills
Enhancement Grounded in Critical
Thinking
X
X
X
Writing Matters
X
X
George Corley Wallace
State Community College
Write Now!
X
X
X
X
X
Piedmont Virginia
Community College
Write Here, Write Now! Creating a
Culture of Writing
X
X
X
X
X
Iowa State
WOVE (written, oral, visual,
electronic)
X
X
X
X
X
Louisiana State University
Communication Across the
Curriculum
X
X
X
X
X
University of Houston
Writing Center
X
X
SW Christian College
Improving Writing Skills
X
King College
Communication Skills
X
North Carolina Central
University
Communicating to Succeed
X
Our Lady of the Lake
College
Engaged Learning through Writing
Initiative
X
University of Mississippi
Write Here. Write Now. Enhancing
Student Writing.
X
North Carolina State
Campus Writing and Speaking
Program
X
University of North
Carolina-Greensboro
Communication Across the
Curriculum
X
Frank Phillips College
31
Across
Majors
Oral
University of Southern
Mississippi
Across
Years
Program Title
Digital
Institution
Written
Exhibit 2.6: Related Programs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
University of Kentucky
Best Practices
Several best practices emerged from the committee’s research into the history, current state, and
challenges faced by WAC and CXC programs. These best practices include a clear focus on: 1)
faculty development and support paired with a student tutoring program, 2) assessment, 3)
vertical integration of relevant communication skill training within the disciplines and over the
course of a student’s entire college career, and 4) interdisciplinarity.
First, a program that focuses intentionally on faculty development paired with student
tutoring enhances student learning, faculty involvement, and faculty coordination among
units across the campus (Agee & Holisky, 2000; Weiss, 1990). Faculty development is critical
to debunking misconceptions about what communication is, how to evaluate it, and that anyone
can teach it without any formal training (Dannels 2001a; Helsel & Hogg, 2006; Russell, 1987). To
be successful, faculty development must be an ongoing, recursive process that includes regular
meetings (Anstendig & Ritchie, 2003). Opportunities for training and consultation with experts
must also be readily available and ongoing (Cronin and Glenn, 1991; Morello, 2000). Thus,
faculty development will comprise one of the three learning outcomes of Presentation U.
Faculty should not be forced to participate but, instead, should be allowed to volunteer and be
offered incentives for doing so (Hobgood, 2000). Faculty development efforts must be supported
with financial, human, and physical resources as well as in the form of tenure, promotion, and
merit recognition (Cronin & Glenn, 1990; Dannels, 2001a). In fact, lack of faculty development,
support and involvement is cited most often as a primary reason programs fail (Cronin, Grice, &
Palmerton, 2000; Helsel & Hogg, 2006; Weiss, 1998). Thus, the University’s proposed
Presentation U institutes a volunteer Faculty Fellows Program supported by financial incentives
for faculty participation ($3,000), locates the program within the Provost’s Office to ensure
University support, and establishes a budget that supports successful implementation. In addition,
successful completion will result in a formal certificate as well as showcasing of the faculty
member’s success as evidenced by his/her achievements, abilities, and successful multimodal
communication products. All Faculty Fellows will be honored as positive examples and role
models. The Presentation U plan also provides for sustainability, should the Faculty Fellows
Program prove successful.
Finally, in recognition that successful programs today appear to focus on both student tutoring
and faculty development (Dannels, 2001a), Presentation U will include a student tutoring
component to help students refine their multimodal communication projects for classes,
conferences, or other professional presentations.
Second, learning outcomes and assessment must drive programs (Cronin & Glenn, 1990).
Assessment must be a priority to find out “what students know” and can “do upon graduation”
(Helsel & Hogg, p. 37). To be effective, assessment must be clearly connected to the larger
university assessment program (Helsel & Hogg, 2006). Assessment for improvement of
communication skills over time must occur throughout a student’s college career rather than in
only one class or only when students visit the tutoring center. This research is critical for such
programs to succeed and flourish (Dannels & Gaffney, 2009). Thus, learning outcomes and
assessment findings undergird Presentation U, which will undergo continuous assessment and
improvement.
Third, communication skill development must be integrated into and situated within
programs and majors throughout the University (Morello, 2000). Research suggests that
early attempts to provide WAC and CXC failed, in part, because they were tied directly and
exclusively to the general education program. After students completed their written and oral
32
University of Kentucky
communication general education courses, they failed to transfer those skills into their work in
upper-division major courses. Effective communication skills cannot be achieved in one or two
isolated skills-based general education courses. Not only is “communication . . . too important to
get taught in a single course” (Steinfatt, 1986, p. 464), its relevance is best determined as it
pertains to the professions for which a given major prepares its students (Dannels, 2001b).
Foundational courses (such as the Composition and Communication I and II courses required in
the UK Core) are necessary for teaching fundamentals; however, these skills are made relevant
only when vertically integrated and refined within the disciplines. Thus, Presentation U will focus
on skill development of junior and senior students in upper-division courses in diverse disciplines.
Fourth, many programs failed in the past, in part, because they were not fully integrated “into the
organizational structure of the university” (Russell, 1987, p. 185) and consisted of many
“dispersed, decentralized conversations” (Dannels & Gaffney, 2009, p. 141). To be successful,
WAC and CXC programs must be intentionally interdisciplinary. That is, they must be
“woven so tightly into the fabric of the institution as to resist the subtle unraveling of academic
politics” (Russell, 1987, p. 191). To ensure success, participation, contributions, and leadership
must be shared among disciplines (Garside, 2002; Helsel & Hogg, 2006). Presentation U will
employ communication experts to serve as consultants who work with faculty within various
disciplines to develop instructional strategies and assignments suited to the outcomes expected
of graduates in those programs. This concept rooted in situated learning theory has come to be
referred to in some circles as communication in the disciplines (CID) rather than communication
across the curriculum (CXC), which can sometimes be misinterpreted as a one-size-fits-all
approach. One size certainly does not fit all when it comes to the types of communication skills
required in different professions and in interaction with those professions’ diverse communities.
Thus, placing the program in the Provost’s Office addresses the best practices described above
and encourages acculturation of the program within the University.
Summary. Presentation U will adhere closely to each of these best practices as the University of
Kentucky provides multimodal communication skill-building to its graduates by means of both
student tutoring and professional development for the faculty (who will ultimately teach and model
these skills). This dual focus housed within a Presentation Center will help students improve
multimodal communication skills within their declared major field and better prepare them for the
workforce, addressing the concerns and needs identified in the rationale. Learning and program
outcomes for Presentation U are clearly established in Chapter 3; each element of the
Presentation U action plan is described in Chapter 4; and detailed plans for assessment of
Presentation U outcomes are presented in Chapter 5.
33
University of Kentucky
CHAPTER 3: LEARNING AND PROGRAM OUTCOMES
This chapter sets forth expected learning and program outcomes for UK’s QEP, Presentation U. It
begins with a brief summary of findings that led to the identification of multimodal communication
across the disciplines (MCXC) as the QEP topic, followed by a summary of best practices that will
be incorporated into Presentation U. Next, a clear definition of multimodal communication acrossthe-disciplines is established, followed by learning outcomes that are specified for both students
and faculty who participate in Presentation U. Finally, program outcomes will be specified for the
major components comprising the Presentation Center.
Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum
Development of the rationale for Presentation U made clear the need to address the following
areas to improve student learning:





a deficiency in students’ written communication skills;
perceived shortcomings in developing job-related skills and knowledge;
the absence of consistent development and assessment of oral communication skills;
little emphasis on visual communication skills; and, most importantly,
little emphasis on combined oral, written, and visual communication competencies within
disciplines.
These identified points, collectively, indicate less than adequate preparation for UK students in all
areas of multimodal communication in the majors. It is important to note here at the onset that,
while oral and written communication have been part of a general university education for many
years, visual communication and multimodal communication are relatively new, arriving with the
digital age, and represent largely “untested waters” (i.e. as yet incompletely or un-assessed at the
university level). In the University’s efforts to address multimodal communication across the
curriculum, UK is recognizing a rising trend. If successful, this effort will advance students and
point the direction for university education in the twenty-first century. For these reasons, UK
chose to focus on the integration of multimodal communication skills within the major,
complementing and building upon pedagogies from the general education curriculum (UK Core).
Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum
A review of related literature and similar existing programs identified best practices to be
incorporated into Presentation U:
1. A Faculty Fellows Program to help faculty develop expertise around teaching multimodal
communication skill in re-designed MCXC courses, paired with a student tutoring
component to help students refine their multimodal communication projects for MCXC
courses.
2. Comprehensive assessment of learning and program outcomes to facilitate continuous
improvement and ensure success.
3. Vertical integration of relevant communication skill training that builds on successful
general education outcomes and focuses on skill development of junior and senior
students in upper-division courses.
4. Work with faculty in many disciplines to develop instructional strategies and assignments
suited to the outcomes expected of graduates in those programs.
34
University of Kentucky
Definition of Multi-modal Communication Across the Discipline
Multimodal communication is the ability to communicate in the following formats: oral/aural
(sounds/speaking/hearing/listening), written (words/reading/writing), and visual (seeing/images/
nonverbal symbols) across the curriculum. These multimodal messages may be communicated in
flat print (academic papers, research reports, brochures, newsletters, etc.), face-to-face
(conversations, consultations, public speeches, etc.), or using digital (television, cell phone,
computer, Internet, etc.) channels.
Communication occurs in intrapersonal, interpersonal, small group, and public contexts or
settings and addresses both production and consumption. Interpersonal contexts involve two
people. Interpersonal communication regularly serves the purpose of forming and maintaining
relationships among, for example, acquaintances, friends, colleagues, and intimates. Small group
contexts involve a few people who may come together to interact and collaborate in order to
achieve a common goal. Some examples include family groups, social groups, support groups,
service groups, and workplace teams. Public contexts involve large audiences whether the
communication comes as one-to-many or a few-to-many. Communication in public contexts aims
at publishing, distributing, or broadcasting a unified message and may come in the form of a
news report, public speech, newsletter, or website. For purposes of refining the goals of the QEP,
here the focus is on information production and on interpersonal, small group, and public
contexts.
The Goal of Presentation U
To address student learning deficiencies in written communication, less-than-excellent
preparation for job demands, and inconsistent or inadequate curricular offerings in oral and visual
communication, the overarching goal for Presentation U is to: Prepare students to employ
effective, state-of-the-art, multimodal communication skills as expected of professionals in their
chosen fields. Learning and program outcomes have been developed to ensure that this goal is
achieved.
Learning Outcomes
Learning outcomes (LOs) are broad statements that describe the specific sets of knowledge,
skills, behaviors, beliefs/attitudes, or values indicative of successful growth and development for
students and faculty. Achieving the overarching goal of Presentation U will require new learning
outcomes for two key groups: Presentation U students and Faculty Fellows. For the purpose of
establishing learning outcomes, the phrase “Presentation U students” refers to students who
complete MCXC courses taught by Faculty Fellows Program participants.
Most important, UK seeks to prepare students to communicate effectively using multiple modes,
via various channels, and within different contexts as appropriate in a particular field of study or
profession. Thus, UK has identified the following broadly stated learning outcomes for
Presentation U students:
Learning Outcome 1 (LO1: addressing learning improvement in knowledge and skills).
Presentation U students will demonstrate competent communication (written, oral, and/or
visual) skills as producers of information4 as defined within individual disciplines.
4
For purposes of assessment, the QEP student learning outcome is intentionally focused on competent
communication as producers of information. However, it is understood that instruction focused on
35
University of Kentucky
Learning Outcome 2 (LO2: addressing positive change in beliefs/attitudes). Presentation U
students will be able to describe their development of communication skills, job-related skills
and knowledge, and preparation for job demands at high levels indicative of excellence.
To achieve these student learning outcomes, UK also seeks to prepare faculty to teach
multimodal communication effectively within their disciplines. Thus, UK has identified the
following broadly stated learning outcome for Faculty Fellows:
Learning Outcome 3 (LO3: addressing the environment supporting student learning). Faculty
Fellows will demonstrate the ability to implement written, oral, and/or visual
communication assignments and/or activities that reflect disciplinary definitions of
competent communication.
Exhibit 3.1 depicts operationalized outcomes for Presentation U students and Faculty Fellows.
Operationalized outcomes are specific, measureable statements of performance, which, taken
together, comprise broadly stated learning outcomes. Thus, operationalized outcomes are subcomponents of each learning outcome; they are specific statements of what students and faculty
will be able to do.
Exhibit 3.1: Learning Outcomes and their Operationalized Outcomes for Presentation U
Students and Faculty Fellows
Learning Outcome 1 (LO1): Students will demonstrate competent communication (written, oral,
and/or visual) as defined within individual disciplines as producers of information.
Operationalized Outcomes for LO1:
Students will develop written communication competency as demonstrated by:
Content
LO1-1. Effective, comprehensive, and accurate use of evidence to explain and support ideas.
LO1-2. Use of evidence-formed analysis that is both cogent and connected to a clearly defined purpose.
LO1-3. Submissions that fully meet assignment criteria.
Structure
LO1-4. Clear organization of content with effective connection among ideas and purpose, with transitions
that enhance readability.
LO1-5. Language and tone that are appropriate for the audience and occasion.
LO1-6. Adherence to writing standards regarding style and conventions (e.g., grammar, sentence structure,
spelling, use of citations).
Delivery
LO1-7. Presentation in a format appropriate for the audience and occasion.
LO1-8. Appropriate adaptation to the conventions of the genre and medium.
Students will develop speaking communication competency as demonstrated by:
Content
LO1-9. Appropriately using evidence to support goal and main ideas.
competent communication as producers will inevitably also include a natural focus on competent
communication as consumers of information as well (but the consumer aspect will not be assessed as part
of the QEP).
36
University of Kentucky
LO1-10. Using evidence-formed analysis that is both cogent and connected to a clearly defined purpose.
LO1-11. A presentation that fully meets assignment criteria.
Structure
LO1-12. Clear organization of content with effective connection among ideas and purpose, with transitions
that enhance understanding of the flow among ideas.
LO1-13. Language and tone that are appropriate for the audience and occasion.
LO1-14. Adherence to the standards regarding style and conventions (e.g., grammar, pronunciation and
enunciation, source citations).
Delivery
LO1-15. Effective use of voice that is intelligible, conversational, and expressive.
LO1-16. Effective body language that conveys confidence and poise in ways that enhance the verbal
message.
LO1-17. Effectively construction and integrated presentational (visual, audio, audiovisual) aids.
Students will develop visual communication competency as demonstrated by:
Content
LO1-18. Choice of visual content that enhances understanding of the message and contributes to a unified
theme.
LO1-19. Visual communication artifacts that fully meet assignment criteria.• Visuals that are cited
appropriately in text and references.
Structure
LO1-20. Document designs that demonstrate a strategic integration and lay-out of visual content that
supports impact, meaning, and/or appeal of the message.
LO1-21. Visual conventions that are appropriate for the intended audience and venue (e.g., color, font,
placement, space).
LO1-22. Visual features that are appropriate for purpose, audience, and occasion.
Delivery
LO1-23. Choice of visual medium that is appropriate for purpose, audience, and occasion.
LO1-24. Professional quality and design that effectively engage the audience and communicate the
message and purpose
Learning Outcome 2 (LO2): Presentation U students are able to describe their development of
communication skills, job-related skills and knowledge, and preparation for job demands at high
levels indicative of excellence.
Operationalized Outcomes for LO2:
LO2-1. In their senior year, Presentation U students will describe their improvement in written, oral, and
visual communication skills at a level higher than non-Presentation U seniors.
LO2-2. In their senior year, Presentation U students will describe their UK experience as contributing very
much to their job-related skills and knowledge and at levels that meet or exceed peers at Carnegie
institutions.
LO2-3. As alumni, Presentation U students will describe their major curriculum as preparing them for job
demands at a level exceeding those of non-Presentation U alumni.
Learning Outcome 3 (LO3): Faculty Fellows will demonstrate the ability to implement written, oral,
and/or visual communication assignments and/or activities that reflect disciplinary definitions of
competent communication.
37
University of Kentucky
Operationalized Outcomes for LO3:
Faculty Fellows are able to:
LO3-1. Define what constitutes competent written, oral, and/or visual communication in their fields.
LO3-2. Design activities that create opportunities for students to enhance their major-specific written, oral,
and/or visual communication.
LO3-3. Effectively implement activities and/or assignments that create opportunities for students to develop
their major-specific communication proficiencies.
LO3-4. Use assessment rubrics to evaluate students’ proficiency in major-specific written, oral, and/or
visual communication.
Program Outcomes
Program Outcomes (POs) are broad statements that describe operational and process
expectations indicating effective programs. Achieving the overarching goal of Presentation U will
require exceptional performance of the two programs that constitute the Presentation Center: the
Student Tutoring Program and the Faculty Fellows Program. Thus, UK has identified the following
broadly stated outcomes for these programs:
Program Outcome 1 (PO1): The Student Tutoring Program will support a sufficient
number of Presentation U students to achieve the goal of Presentation U.
Program Outcome 2 (PO2): The Student Tutoring Program will provide courteous,
responsive, and effective academic support for Presentation U students.
Program Outcome 3 (PO3): The Faculty Fellows Program will support a sufficient number
of faculty to achieve the goal of Presentation U.
Program Outcome 4 (PO4): The Faculty Fellows Program will provide useful information
in workshops that lead to effective implementation of MCXC courses in the major.
Exhibit 3.2 depicts program and operationalized outcomes for the major program components of
the Presentation Center.
Exhibit 3.2: Program Outcomes and their Operationalized Outcomes for the
Presentation Center
Program Outcome 1 (PO1): The Student Tutoring Program will support a sufficient number of
Presentation U students to achieve the goal of Presentation U.
Operationalized Outcomes for PO1:
PO1-1. The Student Tutoring Program will serve a high percentage of Presentation U students each
semester.
PO1-2. A high percentage of students previously served by the Student Tutoring Program will seek
additional support.
Program Outcome 2 (PO2): The Student Tutoring Program will provide courteous, responsive,
and effective academic support for Presentation U students.
Operationalized Outcomes for PO2:
A high percentage of students served by the Student Tutoring Program will:
PO2-1. Evaluate tutors as helpful and responsive to their needs.
PO2-2. Report improved understanding of and performance on MCXC projects as a result of tutoring
participation.
38
University of Kentucky
Program Outcome 3 (PO3): The Faculty Fellows Program will support a sufficient number of
faculty to achieve the goal of Presentation U.
Operationalized Outcomes for PO3:
PO3-1. The Faculty Fellows Program will enroll the maximum number of faculty that can be supported
each year.
PO3-2. The composition of Faculty Fellows will be representative of the diverse departments that offer
undergraduate degree programs.
PO3-2. A high percentage of Faculty Fellows will implement and sustain multimodal communication
instruction, projects, and assessment in their courses.
Program Outcome 4 (PO4): The Faculty Fellows Program will provide useful information in
workshops that lead to effective implementation of MCXC courses in the major.
Operationalized Outcomes for PO4:
A high percentage of Faculty Fellows who participate in workshops will:
PO4-1. Strongly agree that the content was useful for their needs and interests.
PO4-2. Agree that they have a better understanding of how to use rubrics for assessing communication
assignments in their courses.
PO4-3. Implement multimodal communication in their courses.
PO4-4. Report that students in their course demonstrated achievement of the outcome: competent
communication (written, oral, and/or visual, across multiple modes) within the discipline.
Assessment strategies have been developed for both learning outcomes and program outcomes
and are presented in detail in Chapter 5, Assessment Plan.
39
University of Kentucky
CHAPTER 4: FIVE-YEAR ACTION PLAN
This chapter provides an overview of Presentation U’s administrative structure, design, and
operations. It describes a pre-implementation pilot project (Phase I, Part A) and the five-year
Presentation U implementation plan (Phase I, Part B and Phase II). To meet the goal of improving
students’ multimodal communication skills within the majors, Presentation U focuses on upperdivision undergraduates. It consists of two major components: a Student Tutoring Program and a
Faculty Fellows Program, both of which will be located in the Presentation Center.
Administrative Structure
Presentation U will report to the Provost. The Program Director, three Program Coordinators, and
a six to eight member interdisciplinary Advisory Council will oversee the program (Exhibit 4.15)
and ensure successful and efficient collaboration with appropriate pre-existing programs such as
the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, the MC3 Lab, the Writing Center, the
eStudio, and the Study (see Exhibits 4.3 and 4.4).
The Program Director will be a tenured full professor with experience in program administration,
expertise in multimodal communication, and evidence of teaching excellence in higher education.
This full-time position will hire and oversee the faculty, staff, and students working in the program,
as well as all Presentation U operations. A half-time Coordinator for Student Services will recruit,
train, and supervise student tutors and mentors and manage day-to-day operations in the Center.
A half-time Coordinator for Faculty Development will oversee the Faculty Fellows program. A halftime Coordinator for Assessment will lead assessment processes and prepare assessment
reports. Additional descriptions of all roles and responsibilities appear in Exhibit 4.5.
Exhibit 4.1: Organizational Design of Presentation U
5
Advisory Council Structure. For the first two years, the Advisory Council/Implementation Team will be
larger than 6 to 8 members and will consist of two separate subcommittees in order to ensure full attention
to the needs of each program. The first subcommittee will focus on operations involving student tutoring to
be conducted at the Presentation Center. The second subcommittee will focus on operations of the Faculty
Fellows Program to promote faculty development. After two years, these two groups will be melded and
pruned to form the smaller 6 to 8 member advisory board that will operate as such from that point on.
40
University of Kentucky
Student Tutoring Program
Student tutoring services will be housed in the Presentation Center to be located in the basement
of the William T. Young Library as an extension of “The Hub.” The Hub currently provides
technology and research services as well as study space. The Hub is currently being renovated
to add oral presentation practice rooms, space for large-group and small-group workshops and
collaborative projects, and state-of-the-art digital technology hardware and software. These initial
renovations, which are taking place during the 2012-2013 academic year, are being covered by
the $17 student fee. Tutoring will be one additional service available during the Hub’s operating
hours. Hours of operation, staffing, and training plans are based on pilot assessment results from
students who visited a similar facility (the MC3 Lab) during the Fall 2012 semester using the
“Presentation U Tally Sheet” and “Presentation U Experience Survey” located in Appendix G
(items #3 and #8).
Presentation U will target juniors and seniors enrolled in the courses redesigned and taught by
Faculty Fellows Program participants. However, all UK students, faculty, and staff seeking to
refine their multimodal communication projects for classes, conferences, or other professional
presentations may use the services of the student tutors in the Presentation Center. These tutors
will provide individual and small-group peer tutoring in any communication modality (e.g., oral
presentations, visual products, written documents, audiovisual broadcasts, websites, digital
products). Tutors may also conduct small and large-group workshops, as needed, that focus on
aspects of effective multimodal communication (e.g., gathering and evaluating information
sources, constructing effective visuals, delivering effective speeches, improving writing style and
mechanics, and designing effective digital products and websites). Tutors will conduct these
workshops in the Presentation Center with oversight by the Coordinator for Student Services.
Requirements for student tutors are modeled after successful campus programs that employ
them (e.g., the eStudio, the MC3 Lab, the Study, the Writing Center). Student tutors must have
completed both Composition and Communication I and II from the UK Core with a B or better,
have a cumulative grade point average of 3.0 or better, and pass an interview screening with the
Coordinator for Student Services. Additional details regarding the number of tutors projected to
be employed each year can be found in Exhibit 4.5.
Faculty Fellows Program
A program focused on developing students’ broad-based communication skills cannot thrive
without the predominant presence of an educated, skilled faculty. To this end, Presentation U
advisory board members, UK faculty with expertise in MCXC modes, and Presentation U
leadership will provide training focused specifically on designing instruction, assignments,
evaluation rubrics, and assessment methods to faculty who aspire to integrate multimodal
communication into their courses.
In Phase I, a pilot project (Part A) was conducted and is currently being assessed to refine the
processes proposed for the Faculty Fellows program. Pilot Project A (CIS 300), conducted in the
College of Business and Economics during Summer 2012/Fall 2012/Spring 2013, will inform the
multimodal communication instructional methods, assessment tools, and student learning
outcomes (e.g., pre and post assessment data collected from students, rubrics used by faculty to
evaluate multimodal communication products, and Student Experience survey data from those
tutored at the MC3 Lab). Volunteer faculty participation was enthusiastic and successful. A
second Pilot Project B (Fall 2013), will focus on the first semester Faculty Fellows training
41
University of Kentucky
workshops and consultations in preparing faculty to integrate multimodal communication
instruction, assignments, and assessment in their courses.
Presentation U’s Faculty Fellows Program will be implemented as a primary component of the
Presentation Center (see above). Eligible faculty members will be invited to apply to the voluntary
Faculty Fellows Program beginning in Fall 2013 and during each subsequent semester
throughout the five-year implementation period. Assessment of the initial pilot project (Phase I,
Part A) and informal queries indicate that faculty are interested and enthusiastic about
participating. Of UK’s 2,291 full-time faculty, 442 part-time faculty, and 844 teaching assistants
employed in Fall 2011, 1,694 full-time faculty and 414 part-time faculty were considered
instructional and eligible to teach upper-division courses, based upon UK’s 2011-2012
Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Fact Booklet, and to apply to the program. In addition,
Type I Teaching Assistants who teach upper-division courses and can commit to the threesemester program will also be eligible.
Targeted recruitment efforts will attempt to build Faculty Fellows cohorts representing diverse
majors. Faculty applications will ask for name, e-mail, department, college, course number/title,
and expected student enrollment. Appropriate courses can come from any discipline and be selfselected by colleges, departments, and faculty as ones that could be modified appropriately to
include an MCXC student learning outcome along with instruction and assignments to teach and
assess it. Should a review of applications reveal that an area (e.g., Fine Arts, Engineering, Public
Health) is under-represented, the implementation team/advisory board will conduct a targeted
recruitment campaign for participants in that area. Each Faculty Fellow will earn an incentive
stipend ($3,000) for participating in a three-semester cohort (activities occurring in each semester
are described in Exhibit 4.9). Each faculty cohort (n < 25) will meet regularly to develop and
implement needs-based multimodal communication material in their courses as well as to refine
them based on review of assessment results. Seven cohorts of Faculty Fellows will have
completed their course implementation assessment by the time of the SACSCOC Impact Report.
Following completion of their three-semester commitment in the Faculty Fellows Program,
participants will be encouraged to continue teaching multimodal communication skills in these
revised courses. As part of that effort, participants will earn a Certificate of Participation and be
recognized at a public ceremony. Their successful instructional methods, assignments, and
student products will be showcased at the Presentation Center and on the Presentation U
website.
In Fall 2011, 19,709 students were enrolled in UK undergraduate degree programs, of which
4,433 held junior status and 5,553 held senior status. Using a timeline scenario from Fall 2013
through Spring 2018, Faculty Fellows participants could potentially serve 21,875 to 43,750
students over a five-year implementation period (see Exhibit 4.2). This range represents a
conservative estimate of the maximum number of students served since some faculty who do not
participate in the Faculty Fellows program might also integrate multimodal communication
instruction, assignments, and assessment into their courses. This estimate is also based on the
assumption that each student takes one MCXC integrated course although, in reality, some
students may take more than one. The estimate also assumes that each Faculty Fellow (or
another instructor he/she mentors in the program to do so) continues to teach the revised courses
after his or her three-semester commitment. This assumption regarding continuation seems likely
given the need to integrate a GCCR (Graduation Composition and Communication Requirement)
into each major.
42
University of Kentucky
Exhibit 4.2: Five-Year Impact Potential
Collaboration between Presentation U and Existing Units
Unique to Presentation U is the focus on MCXC content expertise (related to instructional design,
assignments, and evaluation and assessment rubrics) that is not currently available in any
existing University of Kentucky support program. Fundamental to its success, however, is
intentional collaboration with existing units across campus. Achieving that collaboration will
capitalize and expand upon the expertise of systems in place on campus to maximize physical
and human resources. Exhibit 4.3 identifies UK student tutoring partners.
Exhibit 4.3: Tutoring Collaboration Opportunities
Each of these centers has developed effective student tutoring models that will serve as best
practices to inform Presentation Center tutoring efforts. The Writing Center was created to help
students improve writing skills. The Study offers tutoring services that target first and second-year
students needing remedial help in math and science. The eStudio was created to help College of
Engineering students. The MC3 Lab primarily serves students enrolled in Composition and
Communication courses and College of Communication and Information students; it also serves
as a pilot tutoring service for students taking CIS 300 during Fall 2012 and Spring 2013. None of
these centers has the space or staff required to launch a campus-wide MCXC-focused initiative
such as Presentation U.
Working in parallel with Presentation U, units such as the Center for Excellence in Learning and
Teaching (CELT) will collaborate with the Leadership Team to deliver Faculty Fellows training
workshops and consultations (see Exhibit 4.4 for some examples). The number of workshops
and their topics will be drafted by the Implementation Team during Summer 2013, then piloted,
assessed, and refined as needed for Fall 2013. These workshops will first teach certain MCXC
43
University of Kentucky
skills to instructors, then methods for teaching and assessing them in their classrooms. For
example, faculty who want to teach students to create an effective website would first be taught to
do so themselves and then be advised on how to teach and evaluate effective website
development in their courses. Faculty who want to teach students to give effective oral
presentations would first be taught to do so themselves and then advised on how best to teach
and evaluate oral presentations in their classes. Sample workshop titles include Teaching Public
Speaking, Teaching Web Design, Teaching Graphic Design, Teaching Visual Communication,
Teaching Interpersonal Communication, and Teaching Writing. Roles and responsibilities related
to Presentation U are outlined in Exhibit 4.5.
Exhibit 4.4: Faculty Development Collaboration with CELT
Best Practices Manual
Collaborate with the Presentation U leadership team (i.e., program director, coordinators, and
implementation team/advisory board) to create a best practices guide for faculty development.
Train the Trainers Model
Offer a series of webinars or face-to-face workshops on effective faculty development training
techniques to the Presentation U leadership team.
Workshop Design and Delivery
Collaborate with the Presentation U faculty development leadership team to design and
deliver a series of faculty development workshops aimed at teaching Faculty Fellows Program
participants to embed effective multimodal communication instruction and assignments in
their courses.
Full Team Engagement
Offer a series of webinars or face-to-face workshops on effective faculty development training
techniques to the Presentation U faculty development leadership team.
Exhibit 4.5: Roles and Responsibilities
Job descriptions to be submitted to Human Resources during Spring 2013
Presentation U Director (full-time)
Related
Presentation
Center Program
Responsibilities
Qualifications
Student Tutoring
Faculty Fellows
• Hire and oversee Presentation U Coordinators
• Oversee and manage the Presentation U Center
• Promote and advertise information about the Presentation U
service and logistics and disseminate to students, faculty, and
staff
• Develop and coordinate activities with program areas
• Monitor and review the performance of areas within
Presentation U to ensure quality services
• Evaluate Presentation U for suitability and assess the need for
change
• Ensure successful and efficient collaboration with pre-existing
centers/labs across the University
• Chair the Advisory Board
• Tenured Full
Professor
• Experience in
Program Administration
• Expertise in
Multimodal
Communication
• Evidence of
excellence in teaching
at a Higher Education
Institution
Coordinator for Student Services (half-time)
44
5-Year
Total Cost
$892,470
University of Kentucky
Related
Presentation
Center Program
Student Tutoring
Responsibilities
Qualifications
5-Year
Total Cost
• Recruit, train and supervise all Presentation U student tutors
and mentors
• Design and implement tutoring and mentoring services
• Promote and advertise information about the Presentation U
service and logistics and disseminate to students, faculty, and
staff
• Collaborate with existing center/lab directors in best practice
activities
• PhD Required
• Expertise in
Multimodal
Communication
• Experience in fields of
tutoring, learning
assistance, tutor
certification, and/or
other student learning/
development programs
at a Higher Education
Institution
• Experience working
with a diverse
population
$153,622
Responsibilities
Qualifications
5-Year
Total Cost
• Call for volunteer Faculty Fellows
• Facilitate orientations and training workshops
• Conduct consultations
• Assist Faculty Fellows in course revision, implementation, and
assessment
• Promote and advertise information about the Presentation U
service and logistics and disseminate to students, faculty, and
staff
• Collaborate with the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching
and Learning in best practice activities
• Tenured Professor
• Expertise in
Multimodal
communication
• Evidence of
excellence in teaching
at a Higher Education
Institution
• Expertise in teaching
pedagogy
Coordinator for Faculty Development (half-time)
Related
Presentation
Center Program
Faculty Fellows
$153,622
Coordinator for Assessment (half-time)
Related
Presentation
Center Program
Student Tutoring
Faculty Fellows
Responsibilities
Qualifications
• Hire and oversee the assessment graduate assistants
• Lead assessment efforts
• Conduct norming sessions
• Collect and analyze assessment data
• Prepare annual reporting and disseminate to Presentation U
Director and Advisory Board
• Collaborate with the University Assessment Director in
Institutional Effectiveness efforts
• PhD Required
• Three years’
experience in Student
Learning Outcomes
assessment within
Higher Education
• Proficiency in
statistical analysis,
ability to analyze,
synthesize, and present
assessment results to
diverse audiences
5-Year
Total Cost
$412,060
Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Fall 2013
Information Technology Manager (full-time)
Related
Presentation
Center Program
Responsibilities
Qualifications
45
5-Year
Total Cost
University of Kentucky
• Develop and maintain Presentation U website
• Provide IT support to Presentation U Center
• Maintain and update all lab equipment
• Assist with Presentation U assessment initiatives
• Support Director and Coordinators as needed
N/A
• Master’s degree
• Experience with
computers, Internet,
Web design and
maintenance,
keyboarding,
programming, coding,
HTML, Microsoft Office
and Blackboard
• One year experience
in assessment of
learning within at a
Higher Education
Institution preferred
Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Spring 2013
(4 positions)
$326,352
Four Graduate Mentors
Related
Presentation
Center Program
Student Tutoring
Responsibilities
Qualifications
5-Year
Total Cost
• Work 20 hours per week
• Conduct general office management activities
• Mentor Presentation U tutors in multimodal communication
• Maintain a consistent weekly schedule of work hours in
Presentation U
• Develop handouts and other instructional materials, work on
projects assigned by the Coordinator for Student Services, and
help to keep Presentation U running smoothly and efficiently;
including tutoring services
• Enrolled in UK
Graduate program
• Good communication
skills, problem solving,
ability to work well with
others, and
interpersonal skills
• Knowledge of UK
resources
• Experience in
multimodal
communication
preferred
$425,274
Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Spring 2013
Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Spring 2014
Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Spring 2015
(4 positions)
(6 positions)
(2 positions)
12 Undergraduate Tutors
Related
Presentation
Center Program
Student Tutoring
Responsibilities
Qualifications
• Work 10 hours per week
• Assist with office operations
• Tutor students in specific course material and integrate study
and learning strategies to promote independent learning
• Maintain a consistent weekly schedule of work hours in
Presentation U
• Attend workshops in order to develop and enhance multimodal
communication techniques
• Develop handouts and other instructional materials, work on
projects assigned by the Coordinator for Student Services, and
help to keep Presentation U running smoothly and efficiently.
• Enrolled in UK
undergraduate program
• Good communication
skills, problem solving,
ability to work well with
others, and
interpersonal skills
• Knowledge of UK
resources
• Experience in
multimodal
communication
preferred
Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Spring 2013
Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Spring 2014
5-Year
Total Cost
$653,760
(1 position)
(1 position)
2 Assessment Graduate Assistants
Related
Presentation
Responsibilities
Qualifications
46
5-Year
Total Cost
University of Kentucky
Center Program
• Support the Coordinator for Assessment
• Assist in the preparation, implementation, and dissemination
of assessment activities, in research, and other assessment
initiatives
• Assist with office operations
Student Tutoring
Faculty Fellows
• Enrolled in UK
graduate degree
program
• Good communication
skills, problem solving,
ability to work well with
others, and
interpersonal skills
• Knowledge of UK
resources
• Experience in
multimodal
communication
preferred
• Proficiency in
Statistical Analysis
skills
Knowledge of
Assessment
Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Spring 2013
(2 positions)
$190,523
Center Summer Staff
Related
Presentation
Center Program
Student Tutoring
Responsibilities
Qualifications
5-Year
Total Cost
• Summer center staffing will include the Coordinator for
Student Services, 1 undergraduate tutor and 1 graduate mentor
• Employed as a
Presentation U staff
member during the
school year
$150,147
Responsibilities
Qualifications
5-Year
Total Cost
• Develop, implement, and assess multimodal communication
instruction and products
• Maintain involvement for three semesters
• Attend ongoing meetings scheduled by Coordinator for Faculty
Development
• Continue teaching multimodal communication after three
semester commitment
• Serve as mentors for future Faculty Fellows and provide best
practice exemplars for website repository
• Current full or parttime UK instructor
teaching an upperdivision course
• Interest in learning
and integrating
multimodal
communication
instruction into
programs and courses
• Interest in learning
effective pedagogical
strategies through faceto-face and online
seminars, workshops,
and/or consultations
Faculty Fellows (25 per cohort)
Related
Presentation
Center Program
Faculty Fellows
$565,163
Advisory Board (6-8 positions with expertise in MCXC)
Related
Presentation
Center Program
Responsibilities
Qualifications
47
5-Year
Total Cost
University of Kentucky
Student Tutoring
Faculty Fellows
• Rotating 2-year terms
• Assist in the selection of Faculty Fellows
• Assist in faculty-designed workshops and consultations
• Serve as normed evaluators to assess student artifacts
• Collaborate with Coordinator for Assessment in analyzing
results and submitting annual improvement actions
• Ex-officio members include the Presentation U Director and
the Coordinators for Student Services, Faculty Development,
and Assessment
• UK faculty member
• Expertise in
Multimodal
Communication
representing a broad
cross-section of the UK
Campus
• Expertise in teaching
pedagogy
• Knowledge and
experience in
Assessment
Total Personnel
Budget
N/A
$3,992,993
Implementation Timeline
Presentation U will be implemented in two phases (Phase I and II; Exhibit 4.6). The first phase
consists of a two-part pilot project (Parts A and B). Part A was conducted in the College of
Business and Economics in Fall 2012. Exhibit 4.7 describes the program, and Exhibit 4.8
focuses on the assessment process employed. Pilot Part A will provide an opportunity to test
elements of the Presentation U plan on a small scale in order to make modifications before
implementing Pilot Part B in Fall 2013. Pilot Part B will focus on conducting, assessing, and
refining the Faculty Fellows application process and workshops. Phase II marks the full-scale
implementation of Presentation U (with both the Student Tutoring Program and Faculty Fellows
Program housed within the Presentation Center) beginning in Spring 2014 (See Exhibit 4.9),
which will be informed by both Parts A and B of the Pilot. More detail for both phases appears
below.
Exhibit 4.6–Timeline Overview
Phase
Component
Date
Pilot Part A
Fall 2012-Spring 2013
Pilot Part B
Fall 2013
Presentation Center programs
Spring 2014-Fall 2018
Phase I
Phase II
5-Year Impact Report
Spring (March 25), 2019
Phase I–Pilot Projects Timeline. In Phase I, Part A (see Exhibits 4.7 and 4.8, UK piloted nine
sections (approximately 200 students) of a new course during the Fall 2012 semester using the
processes outlined for Presentation U; UK will make modifications as needed before launching
the second pilot in Fall 2013 (Part B). The course, CIS 300 (Strategic Business and Professional
Communication), was approved by the University Senate in May 2012. It focuses on developing
multimodal communication skills in upper-division students majoring in accounting, analytics,
economics, finance, marketing, or management. Its syllabus (Appendix F) and assignments were
created based on data collected from research and focus groups held with professors from the
College of Business and Economics. These assignments include the creation of materials for flat
print and digital distribution, spontaneous and formal oral presentations in face-to-face and virtual
48
University of Kentucky
environments, and team projects requiring delivery of presentations that integrate oral, written,
and visual modes delivered in face-to-face and virtual environments.
The Provost provided funding support to hire four faculty with expertise in multimodal
communication to teach these courses. The faculty attended three pre-semester training sessions
during Summer 2012. The MC3 Lab Director agreed to provide tutoring support to the students
enrolled in these courses and to pilot the student tutoring service assessment rubrics. Evaluation
rubrics, a pre-post student self-efficacy survey, and MCXC student assignments also will be used,
assessed, and refined during this part of the pilot. The purpose for using the pre-post self-efficacy
survey is to provide early feedback during the process of MCXC implementation on students’
perceptions of their improvement in multimodal communication skill. Such formative assessment
data will guide process improvements, as indicated, throughout each semester of tutoring and
instructional activity.
Exhibit 4.7: Pilot Project Part A Timeline
Spring 2012 Summer 2012
-Conduct
needs
assessment
focus groups
with B&E
faculty and
potential
employers
-Develop
syllabus and
gain Senate
approval
Fall 2012
-Conduct
Orientations/C
onsultations
with CIS 300
instructors and
follow-up
needs
assessment
-Develop
assessment
materials (e.g.,
assignments,
pre/post test
questions)
-Teach pilot
sections
-Administer
pre/post
MCXC
Student Selfefficacy
Survey
-Collect
assessable
student work
-Norm
evaluators
with facultydevelped
rubrics
Spring 2013
-Conduct
assessment
analyses in
relation to
Presentation U
design,
assessment
measures, and
implementation
process
-Modify design
process and
materials as
needed
49
Fall 2013
-Hire faculty/
administrative
staff
-Hire and train
Center tutors
and mentors
-Send out call
for Faculty
Fellows
Program
applicants
-Presentation
Center opens
in Spring 2014
University of Kentucky
Exhibit 4.8: Pilot Project Part A Assessment Process
Target
Responsible Party
Activities
Summer
2012
• QEP co-chairs
• Four faculty instructors
hired to pilot the B&E course
• Training Workshops
focused on teaching the
MCXC intensive B&E
course
Fall 2012
• Four faculty instructors
• MC3 Lab Director
• Nine sections of CIS
300 were taught that
integrated multiple
communication modes
• Hired, trained, and
supervised tutors
Spring
2013
• QEP co-chairs
• MC3 Lab Director
• Faculty instructors
• Assessment Coordinator
• Data analysis
• Reflection and revision
Assessment Method /
Process
• Faculty representatives
participated in focus
groups to discuss
communication needs of
targeted student
population in pilot
course
• Course instructors
participated in MCXC
orientation to assist with
syllabus revision
• Administered pre/post
MCXC Student Selfefficacy Surveys in CIS
300 course sections via
Qualtrics
• Randomized collection
of pre- and post-test
student assignments
designated as
assessment artifacts
• Evaluated with facultydeveloped rubrics and
normed evaluators
. Piloted the Presentation
U Tally Sheet and
Student Experience
Survey
• Assessment data
analyzed and discussed
• Revision of
assessment rubrics and
courses as indicated
Revision of MC3 Forms
and services as
indicated
Use of Results
• To inform
construction of pilot
course and future
trainings for faculty in
MCXC content
integration/course
revision
• To prepare for
future project
implementation and
evaluation of
outcomes via pilot
project
• To collect data for
analysis in following
semester
• Assessment and
analysis will test
rubrics and evaluate
the student selfefficacy survey itself
• Findings will inform
revisions to
measures, process,
and design
Phase I–Pilot Part B.
In order to assess the training methods employed for the first Faculty Fellow Program cohort, a
Pilot Part B will be instituted for Fall 2013, prior to beginning the full scale Presentation U project
in Spring 2014. Pilot Part B will recruit faculty from across campus who may or may not have
expertise in multimodal communication. All faculty members will be afforded the same training
regimen. All training workshops, consultations and portfolios will be assessed, and the Faculty
Fellow Program for 2014-2018 will be modified based upon the results of that assessment.
Phase II–Presentation U Implementation Plan. Exhibit 4.9 provides a graphic illustration of the
timeline for Presentation U from initial implementation in Spring 2014 to the 5-year Impact Report
in 2018-2019. In this illustration Cohort #1 refers to the Pilot Project Part B group of Faculty
Fellows.
50
University of Kentucky
Exhibit 4.9: Presentation U Timeline
KEY: Black = Fac/Staff; Dark blue = Cohort #1; Red = Cohort #2; Green = Cohort #3; Light Blue = Cohort
#4; Orange = Cohorts #5-#7
The Program Director will be responsible for supervising and coordinating all activities among
units and positions related to Presentation U student services and faculty development, as
described in Exhibit 4.10. Exhibit 4.10 shows one complete Faculty Fellows cycle beginning with
the Pilot Part B Cohort #1 in Fall 2013 and Cohort #2 beginning in Spring 2014. The threesemester cohorts will be repeated until the impact report is due on March 25, 2019. Chapter Five
describes the systematic assessment plan for Presentation U. Chapter 6 provides an itemized
budget.
51
Exhibit 4.10: Presentation U Implementation Plan
Year One: Pilot Part Two (Summer/Fall 2013) and Semester One (Spring 2014)
Responsible Party
Tasks/Activities
Timeline
Presentation Center infrastructure development
QEP Co-chairs, Academic Information
Technology group, Library staff
Design space and finalize equipment needs
(e.g., hardware and software)
Fall 2012/Spring 2013
Secure leadership for Presentation U and student staff for the Presentation Center
Provost-appointed implementation
team/initial Advisory Board; Presentation U
Leadership appointed thereafter
Select Presentation U Interdisciplinary
Advisory Board members, orient them to
roles/responsibilities (e.g., select Faculty
Fellows, assist with faculty development
workshops/consultations, serve as normed
evaluators of assessment artifacts)
Spring 2013
Provost and Search Committee (to be
established by and chaired by the QEP Cochairs)
Advertise for, interview, hire, and train
Presentation U Leadership team
(Presentation U Director, Coordinator for
Student Services, Coordinator for Faculty
Development, Coordinator for Assessment)
Spring 2013/Summer 2013
Presentation U Coordinator for Student
Services
Advertise for, interview, hire, & train student
peer tutors & mentors; formalize
assessment procedures
Summer 2013/Fall 2013
Presentation U Leadership
Market and disseminate information about
Presentation U services to students,
faculty, staff
Summer 2013 (and ongoing)
Presentation U Leadership, student peer
tutors and mentors
Begin offering Presentation U tutoring
services at the Presentation Center
Fall 2013
Open the Presentation Center
Establish Faculty Fellow Program (Cohort #1—Pilot Part B)
Presentation U Coordinator for Faculty
Development
Send out call for eligible faculty to apply to
Faculty Fellows Program
Spring 2013
Faculty Fellow Program potential
participants
Interested faculty fill out a Faculty Fellows
Application
Summer 2013
Presentation U Advisory Board members,
Leadership
Select Faculty Fellows (n ≤ 25) for inclusion
in the Faculty Fellows Program Cohort #1
Fall 2013 (September)
Faculty Fellow Program Cohort #1 (Pilot Part B) Prepare courses for implementation with inclusion of MCXC material and for
assessment
Faculty Fellows, Coordinator for Faculty
Development , Faculty and/or staff with
expertise in MCXC modes and pedagogy
from campus wide programs, Advisory
Board members
Faculty Fellows revise courses/course
assignments to include MCXC material;
Workshops, consultations, orientations are
provided for Faculty Fellows for course and
pedagogy development
Fall 2013 (September- December)
Faculty Fellow Program participants (Cohort #1/Pilot Part B) implement revised MCXC courses and gather assessment data
Faculty Fellow Program participants;
Coordinator of Faculty Development
Implement revised MCXC courses and
update their portfolios
96
Spring 2014 (January)
University of Kentucky
Faculty Fellow Program participants;
Coordinator of Assessment
Gather pre and post tests as well as direct
and indirect student learning assessment
data randomly at the beginning and end of
the semester
Spring 2014 (January and April/May)
Select Faculty Fellow Program participants (Cohort #2)
Presentation U Coordinator for Faculty
Development
Send out call for eligible faculty to apply to
Faculty Fellows Program
Spring 2014 (January)
Faculty Fellow Program potential
participants
Interested faculty apply to Faculty Fellows
Program
Spring 2014 (January)
Presentation U Advisory Board members,
Leadership
Select Faculty Fellows (n ≤ 25) and their
courses for inclusion in the Faculty Fellows
Program Cohort #2
Spring 2014 (January)
Faculty Fellow Program participants (Cohort #2) Prepare courses for implementation with inclusion of MCXC material and for
assessment
Faculty Fellows, Coordinator for Faculty
Development , Faculty with expertise in
MCXC modes and/or pedagogy from
campus-wide programs, Advisory Board
members
Faculty Fellows (Cohort #2) revise
courses/course assignments to include
MCXC material; Workshops, consultations,
orientations are provided for Faculty
Fellows for course and pedagogy
development
Spring 2014 (January- April)
Review utilization and needs assessment
data; assess adequacy of current services
Spring 2014- Summer 2014
Assessment findings shared with
Presentation U leadership, the Provost,
Faculty Fellow participants, Advisory Board
members, students, other constituents
Summer 2014 (August)
Review use of Presentation Center services
Presentation U Advisory
Board members, Presentation U
Leadership
Dissemination of assessment results
Coordinator of Assessment
Implementation and assessment, as described in Exhibit 4.10, will continue throughout the
remainder of each cohort through Fall 2018.
53
CHAPTER 5: ASSESSMENT PLAN
The goal of Presentation U is to prepare upper-division students to employ effective, state-of-theart, multimodal communication skills as expected of professionals in their chosen fields.
Therefore, the success of Presentation U will be defined, ultimately, by the achievement of the
student learning outcomes, which include demonstrating multimodal communication
competencies within their disciplines and describing their development in communication and
work-related skills at a high level, and by documenting the impact of Presentation U on student
achievement. This Chapter presents the Assessment Plan, outlining an assessment strategy
designed to ensure rich, useful data to measure outcomes and inform needed improvements.
Definition of Key Terms
Multimodal communication across the curriculum focuses on enhancing UK students’ skills in
employing oral (i.e., sounds/hearing), written (i.e., words/reading), and visual (i.e.,
seeing/nonverbal symbols) modalities across the curriculum. These multimodal messages may
be communicated via flat print, as with academic papers, research reports, brochures,
newsletters; face-to-face, with conversations, consultations, or public speeches; and using digital
modes of transmission, including television, cell phone, computer, and Internet channels.
Communication may be: intrapersonal (not focused on here); interpersonal (between two people–
building relationships between acquaintances, friends, colleagues, and intimates); small group
(among a few people—strengthening family groups, social groups, support groups, service
groups, and workplace teams); and public (one-to-many or few-to-many, communicating in
contexts or settings, as with news reports, public speeches, newsletters, or websites).
Terms used in presenting the Assessment Plan described in this chapter include the following:
Learning Outcomes (LOs) are broad statements that describe the specific sets of
knowledge, skills, behaviors, or values indicating successful growth and development for
both students and faculty.
Program Outcomes (POs) are broad statements that describe operational and process
expectations indicative of effective programs.
Operationalized Outcomes (OOs) are specific, measureable statements of performance,
which, taken together, comprise broadly stated learning and program outcomes.
Measures are the direct and indirect means (tests, portfolios, surveys, inventories, and
tallies) used to assess achievement of learning and program outcomes.
Methods are the processes and practices used to collect, analyze, interpret, and use
assessment data to inform and confirm continuous improvement in achieving stated
outcomes.
General Overview of Assessment Plan
As discussed at length in Chapter 4, Presentation U employs a two-pronged approach: a Student
Tutoring Program and a Faculty Fellows Program, both administered in the Presentation Center.
Outcomes have been developed and operationalized for students and for each of these programs
(Chapter 3), and assessment methods employing direct and indirect measures have been
delineated. Activities for this part of the program will be overseen by the Presentation U
Assessment Coordinator and evaluated by the Director with input from the Advisory Council. The
Presentation U leadership (Director, Coordinators, Implementation Team, and Advisory Board)
will monitor and assess the overall progress of the plan. They will create appropriate training
materials, monitor sufficiency of space and effectiveness of tutoring support, assess the degree to
96
University of Kentucky
which Faculty Fellows Program targets are being met, and track indicators of improvement in
student learning in multimodal communication. The leadership group will have authority to modify
any initiatives as warranted by assessment.
Presentation U student success will be determined by students demonstrating competence and
showing MCXC improvement based on the variety of assessment instruments detailed in the
Assessment Plan and by improving survey results on the Graduating Senior Survey, National
Survey of Student Engagement, and Undergraduate Alumni Survey. Faculty Fellows Program
success will be measured by surveys, portfolios, and assessment of MCXC products by students
who participate in Faculty Fellows-taught courses. Student tutoring will also be assessed based
on Student Experience Survey reports and the quality of student work produced in Faculty
Fellows-taught courses.
Presentation U will be implemented following the pilot study and SACS acceptance of the plan.
Each faculty member volunteering for Presentation U’s Faculty Fellows Program will participate in
the project for three semesters. During semester one, all Faculty Fellows participants will
complete a needs assessment surveying their impressions of their competencies. Faculty will
learn multimodal communication skills by attending workshops by Presentation Center staff
experts. Each faculty member will also complete an evaluation of workshop effectiveness. During
this first semester, a randomized collection of pre-MCXC assignments will be collected and
assessed for use as baseline data.
In the second semester, each Faculty Fellows participant will require a communication-intensive
assignment (the characteristics of which will be defined by the faculty member to accord with
what is typical for that discipline) from all students, or at least a subset of students if the class is
large. This work will be assessed using the standardized rubrics provided (see Appendix G for
written communication rubric). Standardized rubrics have been developed for each
communication mode (oral, written, and visual). Each rubric includes the dimensions of content,
structure, and delivery. Each dimension is described by several components and given one
overall score. Assessors will also use the rubric holistically and assign the artifact one overall
rating. Since the rubric is used as a means to evaluate a course rather than individual student
performance, data for overall and dimension-specific student learning is reported and examined
in the aggregate and in relation to the student learning achievement benchmarks set by the
course instructor. Student success or failure in meeting expected benchmarks will be used to
inform changes to course instruction or assignments, as indicated by assessment findings. Not all
works will necessarily be multimodal in nature; however, combinations of communication modes
will be assessed to evaluate multimodal accomplishments. Assessment of assignments collected
from the second semester will occur in semester three; this assessment will be conducted by the
Advisory Board in consultation with Presentation U staff. At this time, all Faculty Fellows
participants will reflect upon assessment findings and revise their courses beyond their threesemester commitment. Faculty Fellows will submit course revision plans to the Presentation U
Director based on this reflection-revision process. This process will not require departmental or
higher approval because course content will not be changed.
Who will be assessed?
Presentation U students will be assessed at the following time points:



MCXC Assignment in semester two of each Faculty Fellows cohort
Pre-Post Student Self-Efficacy Survey in semester two of each Faculty Fellows cohort
Collegiate Learning Assessment in senior year
55
University of Kentucky



Graduating Senior Survey (see note below) in senior year
National Survey of Student Engagement in senior year
Undergraduate Alumni Survey two years after graduation
Note: The Graduating Senior Survey, administered in the spring semester of each student’s final
year, will be revised to include questions directly related to improvement of multimodal
communication skills. Aggregate data will be compared between students who participated in
Presentation U and those who did not.
Faculty Fellows will be assessed at the following time points:

Faculty Fellows Portfolio Evaluations in semester three
In addition to using the above learning outcomes assessments to help document program
success, Presentation U will be assessed at the following time points:







Tally Sheet Analysis–every semester
Student Experience Survey–every semester
Faculty Fellows Recruitment Targets—Spring 2014 though Fall 2017
Faculty Fellows Implementation Analysis—Spring 2015 through Fall 2018
Faculty Fellows Workshop Evaluations—Spring 2014 through Fall 2017
Faculty Fellows Experience Survey—Spring 2015 through Fall 2018
Faculty Fellows Needs Assessment—Spring 2014 through Fall 2017
Who will NOT be assessed?
The Presentation Center will assist any UK student who would like help with a communicationintensive project, but students not affiliated with a course taught by a Faculty Fellows participant
will not be assessed during the five-year period unless assessment data supports this addition.
The Presentation Center, as a facility, will not be directly assessed within the QEP plan. However,
because of its location in the William T. Young Library “Hub,” library staff will perform routine
assessment of the workings of the facility, as is already done for other “Hub” activities.
Outcomes and Measures
As stated in Chapter 2 (Best Practices), thorough assessment is vital to the success of any
educational program, especially one as previously uncharted as Presentation U. To this end,
assessment measures for each learning outcome are outlined in detail in Exhibit 5.1. Program
outcomes and measures are outlined in Exhibit 5.2, laying the groundwork for ongoing program
assessment and improvement.
56
University of Kentucky
Exhibit 5.1: Learning Outcomes Mapped to Measures
Learning Outcome 1 (LO1): Students will demonstrate competent communication (written,
oral, and/or visual) as defined within individual disciplines as producers of information.
LO1 establishes the competencies that Presentation U students will be able to demonstrate; it is
comprised of 25 operationalized outcomes that will be assessed using direct and indirect
measures.
Operationalized Outcomes
Measures
Written communication competency as
demonstrated by:
Direct Measures:
• Improvement in demonstrated student
competency in written, oral, and visual
communication: the Pre-MCXC
baseline collection and assessment
data and the MCXC assignment
collection and assessment data will
provide a comparison of pre- and postMCXC implementation for student
performance on specific assignments
designed during the first semester and
executed during the second semester
using normed evaluators and facultydeveloped rubrics. Three rubrics (see
written communication in Appendix G)
for written, oral, and visual
communication reflect each of the
operationalized outcomes LO1-1
through LO1-25.
Content
• Effective, comprehensive, and accurate use of
evidence to explain and support ideas (LO1-1).
• Use of evidence-formed analysis that is both cogent
and connected to a clearly defined purpose (LO1-2).
• Submissions that fully meet assignment criteria (LO13).
Structure
• Clear organization of content with effective connection
among ideas and purpose, with transitions that enhance
readability (LO1-4).
• Language and tone that are appropriate for the
audience and occasion (LO1-5).
• Adherence to writing standards regarding style and
conventions (e.g., grammar, sentence structure, spelling,
use of citations) (LO1-6).
Delivery
• Presentation in a format appropriate for the audience
and occasion (LO1-7).
• Appropriate adaptation to the conventions of the genre
and medium (LO1-8).
Oral communication competency as demonstrated
by:
Content
• Appropriate use of evidence to support goal and main
ideas (LO1-9).
• Use of evidence-formed analysis that is both cogent
and connected to a clearly defined purpose (LO1-10).
• Presentation that fully meets assignment criteria (LO111).
Structure
• Clear organization of content with effective connection
57
• Improvement in CLA analytic writing
results: For the written communication
outcome only, Presentation U students
will complete the CLA in the senior
year, as part of the University’s ongoing
CLA participation, to assess their
performance relative to national norms
and to non-Presentation U students.
Over-sampling will ensure adequate
representation of Presentation U
students. Assessment will provide
feedback regarding the effectiveness of
Presentation U with respect to a key
finding that helped develop the
rationale for the QEP.
Indirect Measures:
Improvement in student confidence
ratings on written, oral, and visual
communication tasks based on results
University of Kentucky
among ideas and purpose, with transitions that enhance
understanding of the flow of ideas (LO1-12).
• Language and tone that are appropriate for the
audience and occasion (LO1-13).
• Adherence to the standards regarding style and
conventions (e.g., grammar, pronunciation and
enunciation, source citations) (LO1-14).
Delivery
• Effective use of voice that is intelligible, conversational,
and expressive (LO1-15).
• Effective body language that conveys confidence and
poise in ways that enhance the verbal message (LO116).
• Effectively constructed and integrated presentational
(visual, audio, audiovisual) aids (LO1-17).
Visual communication competency as demonstrated
by:
Content
• Choice of visual content that enhances understanding
of the message and contributes to a unified theme (LO118).
• Visual communication artifacts that fully meet
assignment criteria. (LO1-19).
• Visuals that are cited appropriately in the text and
references. (LO1-20).
Structure
• Document design that demonstrates a strategic
integration and lay-out of visual content that supports
impact, meaning, and/or appeal of the message (LO121).
• Visual conventions that are appropriate for the intended
audience and venue (e.g., color, font, placement, space)
(LO1-22).
• Visual features that are appropriate for the purpose,
audience, and occasion. (LO1-23).
Delivery
• Choice of visual medium that is appropriate for the
purpose, audience, and occasion (LO1-24).
• Professional quality and design that effectively engage
the audience and communicate the message and
purpose (LO1-25).
58
of the MCXC Student Self-efficacy
Survey administered pre and post in
second semester (see working draft in
Appendix G)
University of Kentucky
Learning Outcome 2 (LO2): Presentation U students are able to describe their development
of communication skills, job-related skills and knowledge, and preparation for job demands
at high levels indicative of excellence.
LO2 establishes the beliefs that Presentation U students will describe regarding their acquisition of
communication and work-related skills developed while at UK; it is comprised of three
operationalized outcomes that will be measured using self-reported survey data. These
assessments will provide feedback regarding the effectiveness of Presentation U with respect to
key findings that helped develop the rationale for the QEP.
Operationalized Outcomes
LO2-1. In their senior year Presentation U students will
describe their improvement on written, oral, and visual
communication skills at a level higher than nonPresentation U seniors.
Measures
Self-ratings of improvement on written,
oral, and visual communication skill will
use existing and newly developed
items on the UK Graduating Senior
Survey and will be compared to those
of non-Presentation U seniors.
LO2-2. In their senior year Presentation U students will
describe their UK experience as contributing very much
to their job-related skills and knowledge and at levels that
meet or exceed peers at benchmark institutions.
Presentation U senior ratings on the
contribution of their UK experience to
development of “job-related skills and
knowledge,” an item on the National
Survey of Student Engagement, will be
compared to peers at Carnegie
benchmark institutions.
LO2-3. As alumni, Presentation U students will describe
the quality of their major curriculum as preparing them for
job demands at a level exceeding non-Presentation U
alumni.
Presentation U alumni ratings on the
quality of their major curriculum in
preparing them for job demands, an
item on the UK Undergraduate Alumni
Survey, will be compared to those of
non-Presentation U alumni.
Learning Outcome 3 (LO3): Faculty Fellows will demonstrate the ability to implement
written, oral, and/or visual communication assignments and/or activities that reflect
disciplinary definitions of competent communication.
LO3 establishes the teaching competencies in multimodal communication within their disciplines
that Faculty Fellows Program participants will be able to demonstrate; it is comprised of four
operationalized outcomes that will be assessed using two kinds of measures: direct and indirect.
Direct measures of student learning outcomes are considered key indicators of faculty
effectiveness and are, therefore, categorized here as direct measures of faculty learning outcomes.
Operationalized Outcomes
• Faculty Fellows are able to define what constitutes
competent written, oral, and/or visual communication in
their fields (LO3-1)
• Faculty Fellows participants design activities that create
opportunities for students to enhance their major-specific
written, oral, and/or visual communication (LO3-2)
• Faculty Fellows participants effectively implement
59
Measures
• Leadership evaluation ratings on the
Faculty Fellow Portfolio: Presentation U
Leadership will assess revised course
syllabus (as found in portfolio) using
portfolio assessment rubric, item 1,
which addresses LO3-1.
•Peer evaluation ratings on the Faculty
University of Kentucky
activities and/or assignments that create opportunities for
students to develop their major-specific communication
proficiencies (LO3-3)
• Faculty Fellows participants use assessment rubrics to
evaluate students’ proficiency in major-specific written,
oral, and/or visual communication (LO3-4)
Fellow Portfolio: peer faculty will
assess revised assignments (as found
in portfolio) using portfolio assessment
rubric, item 2, which addresses LO3-2.
•Leadership evaluation ratings on the
Faculty Fellow Portfolio: Presentation U
Leadership will assess assignments/
activities in the revised course syllabus
(as found in portfolio) using portfolio
assessment rubric, item 3, which
addresses LO3-3.
•Peer evaluation ratings on the Faculty
Fellow Portfolio: peer faculty will
assess revised completed course
rubrics (as found in portfolio) using
portfolio assessment rubric, items 4
and 5, which address LO3-4.
• Improvement in student
demonstration of competency in
written, oral, and visual communication:
pre-MCXC baseline collection and
assessment data and MCXC
assignment collection and assessment
data will result in comparison of preand post-MCXC implementation for
student performance on specific
assignments designed during the first
semester and second semester using
normed evaluators and faculty
developed rubrics. Three rubrics (see
written communication in Appendix G)
for written, oral, and visual
communication reflect the
operationalized outcomes LO1-1
through LO1-25.
60
University of Kentucky
Exhibit 5.2: Program Outcomes Mapped to Measures
Program Outcome 1 (PO1): The Student Tutoring Program will support a sufficient number of
Presentation U students to achieve the goal of Presentation U.
PO1 establishes the expectation that the Student Tutoring Program will serve a critical mass of Presentation
U students in order to ensure the success of Presentation U and document the program’s effectiveness.
Operationalized Outcomes
Measures
PO1-1. The Student Tutoring Program will serve a high
percentage of Presentation U students each semester.
The percent of students enrolled in MCXC
designated classes in a given semester
and who complete at least one
Presentation U Tally Sheet will constitute
one measure.
PO1-2. A high percentage of students previously served by the
Student Tutoring Program will seek additional support.
The percent of students completing the
Presentation U Tally Sheet for the first time
and who return for additional consultation
and complete a second Presentation U
Tally Sheet will be tracked.
Program Outcome 2 (PO2): The Student Tutoring Program will provide courteous, responsive, and
effective academic support for Presentation U students.
PO2 establishes criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the Student Tutoring Program from the student
perspective.
Operationalized Outcomes
Measures
A high percentage of students served by the Student Tutoring
Program will:
Frequencies and mean ratings by students
on three items (helpful, responsive,
improvement) will be developed on the
Student Presentation U Experience Survey
(working draft in Appendix G).
PO2-1. Evaluate tutors as helpful and responsive to their
needs.
PO2-2. Report improved understanding of and performance on
MCXC projects as a result of tutoring participation.
Program Outcome 3 (PO3): The Faculty Fellows Program will support a sufficient number of faculty to
achieve the goal of Presentation U.
PO3 establishes the expectation that the Faculty Fellows Program will attract and develop a critical mass of
faculty who develop and implement teaching competencies in multimodal communication within their courses
in order to achieve the impact on student learning envisioned by the QEP.
Operationalized Outcomes
Measures
PO3-1. The Faculty Fellows Program will enroll the maximum
number of faculty that can be supported each year.
25 new Faculty Fellows Program
participants will be targeted per semester.
PO3-2. A high percentage of Faculty Fellows will implement
and sustain multimodal communication instruction, projects,
and assessment in their courses.
The percent of Faculty Fellows completing
the program who implement MCXC in their
courses will be determined; the percent of
Faculty Fellows completing the program
who continue to teach MCXC courses in
61
University of Kentucky
each subsequent semester will also be
determined.
Program Outcome 4 (PO4): The Faculty Fellows Program will provide useful information in
workshops, leading to effective implementation of MCXC courses in the major.
PO4 establishes criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the workshops comprising the Faculty Fellows
Program from the faculty perspective.
Operationalized Outcomes
Measures
A high percentage of Faculty Fellows who participate in
workshops will:
Frequencies and/or mean ratings by
Faculty Fellows on two items (content
useful and better understanding of rubrics)
included on the Faculty Fellows
Presentation U Workshop Evaluation
(working draft in Appendix G) will be
tracked.
PO4-1. Strongly agree that the content was useful for their
needs and interests.
PO4-2. Agree that they have a better understanding of how to
use rubrics for assessing communication assignments in their
courses.
PO4-3. Implement multimodal communication in their courses.
PO4-4. Report that students in their course demonstrated
achievement of the outcome: competent communication
(written, oral, and/or visual, across multiple modes) within the
discipline.
Response frequencies of Faculty Fellows
participants will be determined on two items
(course implementation and meeting
student outcome) included on the Faculty
Fellows Presentation U Experience Survey
(working draft in Appendix G).
Assessment Methods
Exhibit 5.3 provides a comprehensive assessment plan. It maps responsible parties, activities,
methods, and planned use of results related to learning and program outcomes within the QEP
time frame, which starts “Prior to Semester One” and continues to Fall 2018. Examples of
working draft versions of measurement instruments are provided in Appendix G. The assessment
plan timeline schedule is provided in Appendix H.
Exhibit 5.3: Presentation U Assessment Plan
Related
Responsible
Outcomes Party
Assessment
Method/Process
Activities
Use of Results
Prior to Semester One
QEP Co-Chairs
PO3, PO4
Presentation U
Leadership Team
Faculty Fellows
Program
Participants
 Hire Director and
Coordinators
 Appoint Advisory
Board members
(normed
evaluators)
 Submit Faculty
62

Presentation U
Advisory Board will
review submitted
portfolios

Faculty Fellows will
complete a needs
assessment
 Portfolio data will
be used to select
faculty and
appropriate MCXC
courses for
inclusion in
Presentation U
using a Portfolio
Assessment
Rubric
University of Kentucky
Fellow Portfolio

If 25 or fewer
applicants, all will
be accepted into
the program

If >25 applicants,
cross campus
diversity will be a
guiding selection
principle
 Select Faculty
Fellows Program
participants
 Needs
assessment data
will be used to
help design
workshops and
other training as
needed
Semester One (repeated for each cohort)
 Collect and assess
pre-MCXC

assignments for
baseline data
Faculty Fellows
Program
Participants
LO1, LO3,
PO4
Presentation U
Leadership Team
CELT Staff
 Faculty Fellows
attend workshops
and consultations
as they revise
syllabi and develop 
lesson plans,
assignments, and
rubrics for
evaluation and
assessment of the 
MCXC
assignments in
semester two
Randomized preMCXC
assignments as
selected by Faculty
Fellow will be used
as baseline data
Normed evaluators
will assess the data
using faculty
developed rubrics
Conduct workshop
evaluations
 Pre-MCXC
assignment baseline
data assessed in
semester one will be
used in comparison
with MCXC
assignments
assessed in semester
three
 Comparison data will
be used to evaluate
effectiveness of
MCXC courses and
content in meeting
stated outcomes
 Modifications will be
made to workshop
content and delivery
methods as needed
Semester One (and all subsequent semesters)
Presentation U
Leadership Team
Coordinator for
Student Services
PO1, PO2
Coordinator for
Assessment
Hire, train, and
supervise mentors
and tutors as they
help students with
their MCXC
projects
Mentors and
Tutors
Semester Two (repeated for each cohort)
63
 Maintain
Presentation Center
Usage Log
 Administer
Presentation
Center Student
Experience Surveys
 Coordinators will
use results to
improve student
tutoring process as
needed
 Coordinators will
provide report data
to the Presentation
U Leadership Team
and Faculty Fellows
participants to
consider in relation
to quality of student
work
University of Kentucky
STUDENTS
Presentation U
Leadership Team
LO1, LO3
Faculty Fellows
Program
Participants
Assessment
Coordinator
FACULTY
LO1, LO3
Faculty Fellows
Program
Participants
Presentation U
Leadership Team
Graduate Mentors
and Tutors
PO2, PO4
Presentation U
Leadership Team
 Implement the
MCXC integrated
courses/
assignments
 Collect MCXC
assignments for
assessment
 Implement MCXC
revised courses/
assignments
 Collect MCXC
Student Selfefficacy data for
assessment
 Graduate mentors
will provide tutoring
and support to
students through
Presentation U
 Faculty Fellows will
participate in
workshops and
consultations for
course revision
64
 Administer pre/post
MCXC Student Selfefficacy Survey via
Qualtrics
 Collect MCXC
assignments for
assessment using a
randomized sample
(Comparison of
student performance
on specific
assignments pre and
post multimodal
integration using
normed evaluators
and faculty
developed rubrics)
 Assignments will be
packaged in groups
(oral, written,
visual) and
assessed by
normed evaluators
using faculty
developed rubrics
 Results will be
used to measure
student
performance in
meeting outcomes
and to inform
curricular
improvement as
necessary
 At the start of the
semester, collect
 Portfolio data will be
Faculty Fellow
used to evaluate
Portfolio documents
success in meeting
consisting of
stated outcome and
redesigned syllabus,
to demonstrate use
lesson plans
of rubrics and other
showing MCXC,
materials
sample assignments
 At the end of the
 MCXC Student Selfsemester collect
efficacy data will be
sample of
used to evaluate
completed
success in meeting
evaluation rubrics
stated outcome and
inform curricular
 Administer pre/post
revision as
MCXC Student Selfnecessary
efficacy Surveys via
Qualtrics
 Administer Faculty
Fellow Program
Presentation U
workshop
evaluations
Results will be used
following each
to assess success of
workshop
Presentation Center
efforts through
 Administer Student
Presentation U
mentors and tutors to
experience surveys
support faculty in
at the end of each
professional
MCXC course and
development and to
visits to
support students
Presentation U
learning multimodal
communication skills
 Complete the
Presentation U
Utilization Tally each
semester
 Analyze data
University of Kentucky
Semester Three (repeated for each cohort)
Assessment
Coordinator
Advisory Board
members
LO1,LO3,
PO4
Faculty Fellows
Program
Participants
Score, analyze and
interpret assessment
data on stated
outcomes
Presentation U
Leadership Team
Assessment
Coordinator and
Assistants
LO2
Advisory Board
members
Analyze and interpret
student performance
on standardized
measures
Presentation U
Leadership Team
 Score randomly
collected MCXC
assessment
assignment artifacts
using normed
evaluators and
faculty developed
rubrics
 Review Faculty
Fellow portfolios
 Administer Faculty
Presentation U
Experience Survey
 Compile MCXC
Student Self-efficacy
Surveys
 Gather data from
UK’s standardized
assessments (CLA,
NSSE, and Senior
Surveys)
 Include analysis of
students who may
have participated in
Presentation U and
the standardized
testing
 Examine
assessment data
collected in
semester two
during semester
three
 Reflect upon
findings and apply
to inform curricular
revision
Assessment data will
be evaluated to
inform project revision
and evaluate student
success
Spring 2019 – Final semester
Students
Assessment
Coordinator and
Assistants
All
Presentation U
Leadership Team
Faculty
 Analyze, interpret,
discuss, and
disseminate data
 Prepare impact
report for SACS
Advisory Board
members
 Compile
assessment data
regarding all
outcomes
 Interpret
 Disseminate
 The impact of the
QEP project will be
examined and used
to improve the
project
 Prepare impact
report for SACS
Administration
Spring 2019 – 5-Year Impact Report Due in March 2019
Data Analysis Process and Reporting Cycle
Presentation U will undergo a five-year cycle (Spring 2014–Fall 2018). This period includes
annual measurement of all learning and program outcomes and development of a comprehensive
assessment report at the close of the five-year period. Details regarding the assessment
timeframe and subsequent activities are found in Exhibit 5.3 above, the Presentation U
Assessment Plan.
65
University of Kentucky
MCXC Assignment assessment data will be gathered through Blackboard Outcomes and
examined by the Presentation U Assessment Coordinator and Leadership. Every August
beginning in Fall 2014 and continuing throughout the assessment cycle, Presentation U will share
the results with the Presentation U Leadership Team, the Provost, Faculty Fellows participants,
and Advisory Board members for use in planning program improvements and budgetary
adjustments as needed (e.g., funding more tutors and/or mentors to meet demands at the
Presentation Center).
These data will be used for continuous quality improvement of the Faculty Fellows Program and
Student Tutoring services. In addition, a Presentation U Outcomes Assessment Report (template
currently under development) will be submitted by the Program Director to the Office of
Assessment annually, where it will be reviewed by the University Assessment Council. The report
will include information on 1) outcomes assessed, 2) methods and tools used, 3) results, 4)
interpretation of the results, 5) improvement action plan, and 6) reflection.
Exemplary samples of student products, lesson plans, assignments, and rubrics will be identified
by the Presentation U Leadership Team (i.e., Director, Coordinators, Implementation Team, and
Advisory Board) and featured in an annual showcase of best practices as well as archived on the
website. All comments generated as a result of constituent reviews will be communicated to the
Presentation U Director, Coordinators, Faculty Fellows, and the Advisory Board for future
refinement. The leadership team will modify the plan (student tutoring, faculty fellows) as
warranted by assessment data.
66
University of Kentucky
CHAPTER 6: ITEMIZED BUDGET
This chapter describes a detailed budget in terms of annual and total expenditures required
throughout the five-year implementation cycle and the recurring budget required to sustain the
program or a modified version of the program beyond 2018 should assessment results illustrate
that it is achieving the goal for improving student learning in multimodal communication across
the curriculum. As illustrated in the timeframe depicted in Exhibit 6.1, Presentation U will require
an estimated recurring financial commitment from the University of Kentucky of approximately
$1,059,785.
As the University has been developing its QEP, it has also been securing financial resources to
support the endeavor. For the last two budget cycles, the University has made the QEP one of its
top funding initiatives to ensure adequate recurring budget support for the program, as defined in
the proposal. As of the writing of this statement, all necessary recurring funds are available for full
implementation in 2013-2014. In addition, approximately $3 per student per semester of the
student technology fee from the Fall 2012 fee increase will be used to support the Media Center,
which complements the Presentation Center by supporting and enhancing the technology aspect
of the QEP. It is notable that these student fee increases were evaluated and endorsed by the UK
Student Government Association.
Presentation U Budget Item Summaries
Program Director and Coordinator Salaries. The proposed budget includes a nine-month salary of
$100,000 plus 3/9 summer salary for the program director. This is a new full-time faculty position
dedicated to Presentation U. Program success will require a dedicated director who can truly
focus attention on it. Each of the three coordinators (student services, faculty development, and
assessment) will devote a portion of the DOE (distribution of effort) to his or her Presentation U
responsibilities. The other part of each coordinator position’s DOE will reside in another campus
unit. The estimated recurring budget for these four positions is $348,178. Their offices will be
located in the Presentation Center. The plan is to fill these positions by Fall 2013.
Facilities and Equipment. The University of Kentucky believes in the importance of making the
Presentation Center widely accessible to students and faculty. Given the size of UK’s campus,
location becomes critically important. Therefore, space on the lower level of the William T. Young
Library, referred to as “The Hub,” will be reconfigured to house and support the Presentation
Center and a media development center. The Young Library is located in the heart of campus
and is heavily used by students and faculty alike, making it a prime location for serving the
campus.
The budget includes $400,000 to renovate space in “The Hub” of the William T. Young Library for
the Presentation Center. This estimate is based on costs incurred recently to renovate a similar
space in another UK campus lab (the eStudio in the College of Engineering). The budget also
includes an additional $133,750 for start-up and replacement equipment costs, including the
purchase of two whisper rooms for oral presentation rehearsal and refinement, three 40-inch
LED/LCD monitors, one poster printer, 20 computers, a computer server, and a networked
printer. Beyond 2018, a recurring budget of $50,000 has been allocated for replacement
equipment.
Student Tutoring Staff. The Presentation Center will be overseen by the Coordinator for Student
Services and staffed by four graduate student mentors at $20,000 each and undergraduate peer
tutors at $10/hour for 32 weeks. The proposed budget includes summer center staffing through
67
University of Kentucky
STEPS (Student and Temporary Employment Program). Ultimately, the estimated recurring
budget for graduate mentors and undergraduate tutors is $261,679.
Other Personnel. The proposed budget includes hiring an Information Technology Manager to
provide full-time support to Presentation U beginning in fiscal year 2014 at approximately $80,000
in annual salary and benefits. The total recurring budget required to sustain the position is
estimated at approximately $84,000. To assist the Coordinator of Assessment, the proposed
budget includes funding for one graduate assistant in the first year at $20,000 and two each year
thereafter. The estimated total recurring budget is about $43,795.
Faculty Fellows. Presentation U will support seven Faculty Fellows cohorts over the course of the
five-year implementation cycle. Each cohort will be comprised of no more than 25 participants.
Each Faculty Fellow will earn a $3,000 incentive paid in three installments as course materials
are produced, implemented, and assessed. The maximum total non-recurring cost over five years
is about $565,163 (presuming each cohort achieves the full 25-person maximum). The estimated
recurring cost for continuing the program beyond 2018 is $161,475.
Operating and Professional Development Expenses. The proposed budget includes $5,000
annually for operating expenses, $10,000 annually for workshop expenses, and another $50,000
annually for professional development opportunities.
Assessment. As part of the proposed Operating Budget and in addition to the graduate assistants
described above in “Other Personnel” to assist the Coordinator of Assessment, this proposed
budget includes a total of $57,200 through 2017-2018 to support the administration of the
Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) and National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to a
sample of Presentation U students. Although the University currently supports these
administrations, this funding will ensure that an over-sampling of Presentation U students
provides adequate data for analysis and reflection; additionally, it will ensure that these
assessment programs will continue if university-wide budget cuts impact the ability of the
institution to continue CLA and NSSE participation.
Program Sustainability
Since the initial development of the University’s QEP concept Presentation U, the University has
reorganized its administrative team to focus on “student success” and supporting analytics. Under
the leadership of the Senior Vice Provost for Student Success, student support units such as
Undergraduate Education, the Center for Internationalization, and Student Affairs and Enrollment
Management are more closely aligned to the student’s full “life-cycle.” This alignment allows the
University to create synergies among these departments and assist colleges in ensuring students
in their programs succeed by improving retention, graduation rates, and the overall student
experience. Presentation U is a core piece of the “student success” initiative. By providing
students the tools to acquire the communication skill sets necessary to succeed in the workplace,
the University can impact the student experience in a positive way. Of course, the success of the
student is dependent upon the success of the faculty. For Presentation U to be successful for the
student, faculty must implement multi-modal communication as part of its core curriculum. The
UK QEP uses an incentive-based approach to encourage faculty to incorporate multi-modal
communication as part of their courses. This incentive-based model has proved successful in
prior initiatives, such as the innovative UK Core program, which replaced the previous University
Studies Program. By encouraging peer interactions while providing university leadership, the
success of the program on a long-term basis becomes more likely as the incorporation of multimodal communication becomes a core basis for course development and delivery. Other
68
University of Kentucky
University programs such as The Study (student tutoring center), The Writing Center, and the
Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching (CELT) will contribute to the success of
Presentation U by complementing its efforts. All of these units report to the Senior Vice Provost
for Student Success, again allowing synergy and shared vision. CELT, which is specifically
designed to assist faculty in developing new course delivery modalities, will be critical in assisting
Presentation U’s efforts in imbedding multi-modal communication in course development and
delivery.
For any initiative, data from assessment is imperative to allow potential course correction and
continuous improvement. The University recognizes this, and as part of the reorganization
mentioned above, recently realigned Information Technology and Institutional Planning,
Research, and Effectiveness under the Senior Vice Provost for Advanced Analytics, Planning,
and Technologies. This reorganization allows these units to work collectively to develop better
data structures and analysis tools to support the University’s ability to assess its efforts in
quantitative and qualitative ways. The QEP proposal includes assessment as a core part of
Presentation U, which will be an extension of the University of Kentucky’s efforts to support
student success and the success of University academic programs.
Exhibit 6.1: Itemized Presentation U Budget
Personnel
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
Total Cost
over 5 years
Presentation U
Program
Director Salary
/Benefits
171,495.57
174,925.48
178,423.99
181,992.47
185,632.32
892,469.84
Total
Recurring
Needed to
Sustain
185,632.32
Full Professor 9 month faculty position (base pay $100K) with 3/9 summer salary; projected 2% salary increase each year.
Benefits projected at 28.622% budgeted rate. However, this rate fluctuates from year to year.
Coordinator of
Faculty Services
Salary and
Benefits
Coordinator of
Faculty Services
Time-buyout
dept release
time
Coordinator
of
Student
Services Salary
and Benefits
Coordinator of
Student
Services Timebuyout dept
release time
Coordinator
Summer
Stipend - Salary
/ Benefits
25,724.40
25,724.40
25,724.40
25,724.40
25,724.40
128,622.00
25,724.40
5,000.00
5,000.00
25,000.00
5,000.00
25,724.40
25,724.40
128,622.00
25,724.40
5,000.00
5,000.00
25,000.00
5,000.00
15,389.14
73,986.83
15,389.14
$10K time buyout to selected faculty member
5,000.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
Transfer to dept for time buy-out to back-fill teaching needs.
25,724.40
25,724.40
25,724.40
$10K time buyout to selected faculty member
5,000.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
Transfer to dept for time buy-out to back-fill teaching needs.
14,217.19
14,501.53
14,791.57
15,087.40
2/9ths worth of summer salary for student services coordinator to keep the center open during the 8 week session
Coordinator for
Assessment
Salary /
Benefits
79,180.80
80,764.42
82,379.70
84,027.30
69
85,707.84
412,060.06
85,707.84
University of Kentucky
50% of New Assessment Position ($60K plus benefits); Assumes 2% salary increase per year.
Assessment
Graduate
Assistants
Salary /
Benefits
20,430.00
41,268.60
42,093.97
42,935.85
43,794.57
190,522.99
43,794.57
Graduate Stipends at $20,000; 1 in year 1; 2 in each year thereafter; 2% inflationary increase included; Benefits projected at
2.150% budgeted rate. However, this rate fluctuates from year to year.
Information
Technology
Manager Salary /
Benefits
N/A
79,180.80
80,764.42
82,379.70
84,027.30
326,352.22
84,027.30
FT Support beginning in FY14; Assumes 2% salary increase per year.
Center Summer
Staffing
10,880.00
16,320.00
16,320.00
16,320.00
16,320.00
76,160.00
16,320.00
161,475.00
134,562.50
26,912.50
565,162.50
161,475.00
STEPS Summer Staffing
Faculty Fellows
80,737.50
161,475.00
$3,000 incentive is given out in 3 installments as course materials are produced. 1st installment for each cohort expected in
semester 1; 2nd installment in semester 2; 3rd installment in semester 3. Includes FICA expense.
Graduate
Mentors,
includes
Stipend,
Benefits
81,720.00
83,354.40
85,021.49
86,721.92
88,456.36
425,274.16
88,456.36
4 graduate student assistants to train and supervise tutors as well as to tutor. Stipends are $20,000 per student; 2%
inflationary rate included; 12 projected to serve 3 centers by year 3. Benefits projected at 2.150% budgeted rate. However,
this rate fluctuates from year to year.
Undergraduate
Peer
Mentors/Tutor
s
Salary/Benefits
Total
Personnel
Budget
52,300.80
130,752.00
156,902.40
156,902.40
156,902.40
653,760.00
156,902.40
Interns hired at $10/hour; 40 hour workweek coverage expected for 32 weeks per yea; 4 in year 1, 10 in year 2; 12 in year
three and thereafter
572,410.66
843,991.03
879,621.3
4
862,378.34
764,591.23
3,922,992.61
899,153.73
112,096.98
25,105.11
STUDENT TUITION/FEES/HEALTH INSURANCE
Graduate
Student Tuition
19,885.60
21,078.74
22,343.46
23,684.07
25,105.11
4 GA Mentors, 1 GA for Assessment in year 1, 2 GAs for assessment in the years thereafter. Assumes 6% tuition increase for all
out-years
Graduate
Student Health
Insurance
6,880.00
8,256.00
8,526.00
8,526.00
8,526.00
40,984.00
8,526.00
4 GA Mentors, 1 GA for Assessment in year 1, 2 GAs for assessment in the years thereafter. Student Health Insurance Premium
is $1,376 per year - Budget assumes constant rate but unlikely to hold steady.
TOTAL
STUDENT /
TUITION / FEES
/ HEALTH
INSURANCE
25,981.60
27,174.74
28,439.46
29,780.07
31,201.11
142,576.98
EQUIPMENT AND CURRENT EXPENSES
Equipment:
Whisper Rooms
2 @ $4,375;
4x6 basic room
40 inch
LED/LCD
monitors
8,750.00
8,750.00
4,500.00
4,500.00
70
31,201.11
University of Kentucky
3 @ $1,500
Poster Printer
Desktop
stations
(Macs/PCs)
20 @ $2,500
Computer
Server
Networked
Printer
Replacement
budget
Total
Equipment
Operating:
Workshop
Expenses
(meals, etc.)
Professional
Development
($2,000 travel
allotment for
one domestic
conference per
fellow)
CLA and NSSE
Participation
Other
Operating
Expenses
Total
Operating
TOTAL
EQUIPMENT /
OPERATING
EXPENSES
1,500.00
1,500.00
50,000.00
50,000.00
15,000.00
15,000.00
4,000.00
4,000.00
25,000.00
25,000.00
50,000.00
50,000.00
83,750.00
-
25,000.00
-
25,000.00
133,750.00
50,000.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
50,000.00
10,000.00
50,000.00
50,000.00
50,000.00
50,000.00
200,000.00
50,000.00
20,150
9,800.00
57,200
12,000
27,250
5,000.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
25,000.00
5,000.00
15,000
92,250
65,000
85,150
74,800
332,200
77,000
98,750.00
92,250.00
90,000.00
85,150.00
99,800.00
465,950.00
127,000.00
RENOVATION
Nonrecurring
TOTAL
RENOVATION
TOTAL ALL
CATEGORIES
400,000.00
400,000.00
400,000.00
400,000.00
1,097,142.26
963415.77
998,060.80
977,308.41
71
895,592.35
4,931519.59
1,059,784.80
University of Kentucky
REFERENCES
Cronin, M., & Glenn, P. (1991). Oral communication across the curriculum in higher education:
The state of the art. Communication Education, 40, 356-367.
Dannels, D. P., & Housley-Gaffney, A. L. (2009). Communication across the curriculum and in the
disciplines: A call for scholarly cross-curricular advocacy. Communication Education, 58,
124–153.
Finley, A. (2012). Making progress? What we know about the achievement of liberal education
outcomes. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Hart Research Associates. (2010, January 10). Raising the bar: Employers’ views on college
learning in the wake of the economic downturn. Washington, D.C.: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
Hart Research Associates. (2006, December 28). How should colleges prepare students to
succeed in today’s global economy? Washington, D. C.: Association of American
Colleges and Universities.
Lave, J., & Wenger, W. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
MA: University of Cambridge Press.
Reiss, D., Selfe, D., & Young, A. (Eds.). (1998). Electronic communication across the curriculum.
Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Schiavone, K. (2012, October 25). College classes that will make you a better job candidate.
Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-0825/classified/chi-jobseekers-college-courses-20120825_1_college-courses-collegeclasses-science-and-technology
Sellnow, D. D., & Martin, J. (2010). The basic course in communication: Where do we go
from here? In D. L. Fassett & J. T. Warren (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of
communication and instruction (pp. 33-53). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sheridan, D. & Inman, J.A. (Eds.). (2010). Multiliteracy Centers: Writing Center Work, New Media
and Multimodal Rhetoric. Hampton Press.
UK (n.d.). UK Core website: Design principles tab. Retrieved on November 22, 2011 at
http://www.uky.edu/UKCore/principles.html.
UK (n.d.). UK Core website: Learning outcomes tab. Retrieved on November 22, 2011 at
http://www.uky.edu/UKCore/outcomes.html.
UK (n.d.). UK Strategic plan. Retrieved on November 22, 2011 at
http://www.uky.edu/Provost/strategic_planning/mission.htm.
UK (n.d.). SACS Website: QEP tab. Retrieved on November 22, 2011 at http://www.uky.edu/SACS.
Weiss, R. O. (1998, November). Sustaining speaking across the curriculum programs. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, New
York.
72
University of Kentucky
APPENDICES
Appendix A: QEP TOPIC SELECTION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN/TIMELINE
Summer 2008

Summer 2009

October 2009
November 2009
November 20, 2009



December 4, 2009

December
2009

17-18,
January 2010

February 2010



February - April 2010
February 2010
February - April 2010





Summer 2010




August 16, 2010



September 2010
October 1, 2010



April 2010
Several UK faculty, staff, and administrators attended a QEP Workshop
hosted by SACS (Heidi Anderson, Connie Ray and Kaveh Tagavi; Orlando,
FL).
Several additional faculty, staff, and administrators attended a QEP
Workshop hosted by SACS in Houston, TX (Mike Mullen, Deanna Sellnow,
Marsha Watson, and Rena Murphy).
Brief presentations on SACS and QEP Background
Establishment of the QEP Pre-Planning Team; members appointed
Members of the Pre-Planning Team met with QEP officials from three
Kentucky universities that had completed their QEPs: Northern Kentucky
University, Eastern Kentucky University, and the University of Louisville
(presentations; Q&A)
Pre-planning Team met to develop a plan for the topic selection process and
to create documentation for review by an outside consultant
Retreat: Pre-planning Team met with external reviewer, Dr. Robert
Armacost, University of Florida, for advice on the topic selection process and
timeline; members drafted a Topic Selection and Development Process
proposal
Topic Selection Team identified, draft of plan (including timeline) formalized
and presented to Senate Council to ensure consistency with Senate rules
and curricular procedures. Provost appointed Co-Chairs Drs. Sellnow and
Snow to be a “continuous presence” throughout the process from PPT to
Implementation phase.
Began budget allocation discussions
$$$ Payroll: Chair, Coordinator, and a Staff Assistant
Members of Topic Selection Team chosen to attend SACS Institute (July
2010)
Collected and reviewed assessment data (set up weekly meetings)
$ Operational expenses
Sign up for April unit meetings, etc., across campus
UNIVERSITY SENATE UPDATE
Ongoing process - Involve campus; get ideas (suggestion box); form focus
groups
$ Operational expenses; facilitators; assessment; food and beverage
Inform campus community of assessment data results
$$ Materials; printing; advertising
Synthesis: Analyze results of storming using assessment data of themes that
emerge from data; choose those consistent with QEP criteria (funnel nonselected themes to appropriate campus units for further attention)
Develop pre-proposal and white paper rubrics (refer to UCF)
$$ Stipends for summer employment costs
“Roll out” themes (reflect assessment data and storming from Spring);
request pre-proposals
$$ materials, PR, advertising
UNIVERSITY SENATE UPDATE
Pre-proposals due
73
University of Kentucky
October 2010
October-November,
2010
November 2010
November 2010
December 1, 2010
January 2011
January 2011
February 2011
February-March
2011
March 2011
April 2011

















June 2011

July 2011
January 2013







April 2013
April 2013
2013-2017
December 2017





August 2012
Fall 2012
Review pre-proposals; select 8-10 from which to invite white papers
Share with and get input from Deans Council, UCAPP, Senate, Provost
Staff, Student Affairs, etc.
Request white papers
$$ Awards at $1,500 ea. x approx. 8-10
UNIVERSITY SENATE UPDATE
White papers due to topic selection committee
Topic selection committee selects 3-4 white papers (topics)
Announce to campus community for comment (team decides how to
announce)
$ Materials, advertising, PR, operational costs
UNIVERSITY SENATE UPDATE; request feedback
Topic(s) Submitted to UK SACS Leadership Team (includes President,
Provost, and Board of Trustees)
Announce final topic to UK community
$$ Materials, PR, advertising, operational costs
QEP Topic Development Team identified
Members of QEP-TDT chosen to attend SACS Institute in July 2011
Begin on-going preparation of final QEP document (budget finalized and
approved)
$ Materials; $$ summer stipend expenses possible for eligible faculty and
staff
Reaffirmation Orientation Meeting in Atlanta (Pres and Leadership Team;
max = 5 people, one from QEP group)
Selected Members of QEP Planning Committee go to SACS Institute
$$$ Travel expenses
Final QEP Approval Process (Senate, Leadership Team, BOT)
Run pilots and begin concentrated marketing and PR campaign
$$$ Staff, PR, advertising, materials
Engage students in contests to develop a name, a logo, etc.
Submit QEP document to SACS Review Team (75 p. text + 25 p.
appendices)
Collect and examine pilot assessment data; revise plan as needed
On-site SACS Review
SACS Response submitted to UK; we respond
Implement QEP
Prepare 5-yr Impact Report (Due January 2018- reporting on cohorts 1-6)
Appendix B: Sample Campus QEP Update Slideshow
The Campus QEP Update Slideshow will be available for on-site examination.
74
University of Kentucky
Appendix C: QEP Proposal Submission Form and Rubric
C.1: Submission Form
An icon appeared on numerous campus websites (e.g., home, libraries, colleges, student affairs).
Proposal items included:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Submitter’s name and contact information
Proposal (project) title
Identification of the theme(s) addressed
Description of how the proposal would improve UK student learning (300 words or less)
Who would be involved (e.g., undergraduates, graduate students, professional, nontraditional, faculty, alumni, community members) and how (brief description of the key
activities)
Whether the proposal would enhance an existing program or be entirely new
A list of any existing models related to, or similar to, the proposed idea (if any)
Whether the submitter would be willing and available to help develop a white paper
during the fall 2010 semester if the proposal was selected
Names of others who might be interested in helping with the project
Caption: To encourage proposal
submission, individuals merely clicked
on this icon, which linked them to a brief
survey of questions
(www.uky.edu/SACS/qep_submit.html)
C.2: Rubric
1.
2.
3.
4.
Clearly addresses one or more themes
Focused on improving student learning or the environment for student learning
Potential for broad-based involvement
Implementation feasibility
APPENDIX D: QEP WHITE PAPER GUIDELINES AND ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
White Paper guidelines (Pt. F.1) instructed writers to flesh out the proposal into no more than ten
pages. Evaluation rubrics (Pt. F.2) were created to rate and rank them using SACS criteria for an
effective QEP.
D.1: White Paper Submission Guidelines
Please prepare an evidence-based paper (maximum 10 double-spaced pages, Times New
Roman or Arial 12 point font) describing your QEP idea that is reflective of best practices. Submit
your paper as a PDF. Format your paper as follows:
1. Title page (1 page) Include a tentative title for your QEP, as well as the names and
contact information of all contributing authors.
75
University of Kentucky
2. Abstract (1 page) Describe the goals of your QEP in no more than 100 words.
3. Outline the major components of your plan
Introduction (1-2 pages)
Briefly describe the issue your QEP addresses. Include any pertinent background
information, as well as its significance to student learning at UK. It is critical to articulate
its potential for long term impact on student learning and its direct relationship to the
University’s strategic plan.
Plan (3-5 pages)
Describe your QEP. This is essentially the work plan. Please educate us as to who will
be involved (individuals, groups, units, etc.), what will be done (what are the major
components or activities of the plan), where will the activities take place, when (e.g., a
one-time event, repeated, involve a succession of experiences), how (step-by-step
process and cost/benefit relationship), and why you believe this approach is valuable to
and appropriate for implementing at UK. Be sure to explain the scope of your QEP
(sufficiently broad enough to significantly impact student learning yet focused enough to
be managed effectively).
In addition, identify your approach to overcoming any potential obstacles for
successful implementation. Include a detailed assessment plan.
4. References and Appendices (1-2 pages).
D.2: White Paper Rubric
Directions: On a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), rate each QEP white paper.
1. Potential for Long-term Impact on Student Learning
2. Quality of the Suggested Work Plan
3. Relationship to Strategic Plan
4. Careful Consideration of the Value and Appropriateness to UK
5. Evidence-Based and Reflective of Best Practices
6. Feasibility (obstacles to overcome and how)
7. Scope of Project Sufficiently Broad To Significantly Impact Student Learning
8. Scope of Project Sufficiently Focused To Be Managed Effectively
9. Assess-ability of Plan (Measurable Outcomes and Observable Results)
10. Cost/Benefit Relationship
76
University of Kentucky
APPENDIX E: CRM to GCCR PROPOSAL
E.1: Proposal
Revised Proposal for a Graduation Composition and Communication Requirement (GCCR)*
*Graduation Writing Requirement ad hoc Committee Report and Recommendation.
Originally submitted January 2011
Members: Deanna Sellnow (Chair), Karen Badger, Anna Bosch, Janet Eldred, David
Hulse, Scott Kelley, Richard Sweigard, and Scott Yost
Revised Proposal – April 2012 to reflect discussions with Senate Council, Mark Kornbluh
(Dean, A&S), and Roxanne Mountford (Director, Writing, Rhetoric, and Digital Media).
Background for Modifying the Current GWR
Because adoption of the UK Core has changed the nature of writing instruction in general
education at UK, the Graduation Writing Requirement (GWR) needs to be modified. The current
GWR requires both a Tier-I and Tier-II writing course; the Tier-I course under USP was English
104, which is no longer taught. This course has been replaced with Composition and
Communication I and II, a two-course sequence integrating instruction and practice in writing, oral
communication, and visual/digital design.
The Tier-II courses were managed under the Writing Initiative, which has been dissolved.
Transfer and equivalency questions have since been managed on an ad-hoc basis by the ViceProvost for Undergraduate Education and the Division of Writing, Rhetoric, and Digital Media,
which is the consolidated unit on campus for writing (including the old Writing Program and the
current Writing Center). New courses for the Tier-II GWR courses are no longer being proposed.
Finally, there are reasons to reconsider some aspects of the old GWR. A primary goal of the
GWR was for students to have the option of taking a Tier-II writing course within their own major.
That goal has not been met. For example, in the 2008-2009 academic year, 4515 students
enrolled in Tier-II writing classes, and the English Department, through the Writing Program,
Literature and Film courses provided 3326 of those enrollments (73.7%).
The 12 courses originally tasked with meeting GWR and providing the vast bulk of enrollments
are:
 ENG 203 (now WRD 203) Business Writing
 ENG 230 Introduction to Literature
 ENG 231 Literature and Genre
 ENG 232 Literature and Place
 ENG 233 Literature and Identities
 ENG 234 Introduction to Women’s Literature
 ENG 261 Survey of Western Literature from the Greeks Through the Renaissance
 ENG 262 Survey of Western Literature from 1660 to the Present
 ENG 264 Major Black Writers
 ENG 270 The Old Testament as Literature
 ENG 271 The New Testament as Literature
 ENG 281 Introduction to Film
Since that time, the following 11 courses have been added on a permanent basis. Note that these
courses are all for majors only except ENG/WRD 204 and ENG/WRD 205.
 Architecture: ARC 314 (Approved Spring 06- Present)
 Communication and Leadership Development: CLD 250 (Fall 05- Spring 2010)
77
University of Kentucky








ENG 204 (now WRD 204) (Spring 2010- Present)
ENG 205 (soon to be WRD 205) (Spring 2009- Present)
History: HIS 471, 490, or 499 (Spring 06- Present)
Interior Design: ID 234 (Spring 2012 to Present)
Physics: PHY 435 or 535 (Spring 07- Present)
Russian: RUS 499 (Fall 06- Present)
Sustainable Agriculture: SAG 201 (Fall 07- Present)
Social Work: SW 470W (Spring 06- Present)
In addition, a number of other courses are approved on a semester-by-semester basis or were
approved for a short time and no longer available. Note that these courses are all for majors only.
 Arts and Science: A&S 300 (Fall 08 Only)
 Agricultural Biotechnology: ABT 201 AND 301 (Approved Fall 06 to Present)
 Agricultural Economics: AEC 580 (Approved Spring 08 ONLY)
 Anthropology: ANT 582 (Approved Spring 07-Spring 08 Only)
 Biology: Bio 425/VS 395 (Approved Fall 06 Only)
 Chemical and Materials Engineering: MSE 403G (Fall 2010 to Present)
 Civil Engineering: CE 599 (Approved Spring 07- Fall 08)
 Civil Engineering: CE 507 (Fall 08 only section 001; Fall 09 only section 003)
 Clinical Leadership and Management: CLM 595 (Fall 07 to Present)
 Communications: COM 351 (Summer 08 to Present) Communication Disorders: CD
410/482/483 (Spring 06- Spring 2009)
 Electrical Engineering: EE 490 (Fall 2010- Present)
 Geography: GEO 300 (Spring 06-Fall 08 Only)
 Special Education and Rehabilitation: EDS 530 (Fall 06 to Present)
 Educational Policies Studies: EPE 301W (Spring 08 to Present)
 Forestry: FOR 460 (Starting Fall 09)
 Forestry: FOR 400 (Starting Fall 2012)
 Math: MA 330 (Spring 09 only section 002; Spring 2010 only section 002)
 Mining: MNG 371 (Starting Fall 08)
 Chemical and Materials Engineering: MSE 403G (Spring 2009 only section 001; Spring
2010 only section 002)
 Natural Resource Conservation and Management: NRC 301(Fall 05 to Present)
 Nursing: NUR 854 (Fall 2004 to Present)
 Nutrition and Food Science: NFS 591 (Spring 07-Spring 09 Only)
 Nutrition and Food Science: NFS 474/475 (Fall 2009 to Present)
 Political Science: PS 490 (Spring 08 to Present)
What do our Benchmarks Do?
An inspection of our benchmarks reveals that most require a Tier II writing course in the major. A
brief summary of most of our benchmark requirements follows:
University of Arizona (http://catalog.arizona.edu/2010-11/policies/writing.htm)
The University of Arizona requires that every undergraduate degree program include at least one
required writing emphasis course. Writing emphasis courses are junior- or senior-level courses
that emphasize writing in the discipline. At least 50% of the grade in the course must be awarded
based on the writing component.
Michigan State University
(http://www.reg.msu.edu/ucc/policies.asp#Tier%20I%20and%20Tier%20II%20Writing)
Michigan State has a Tier II writing requirement. These Tier II writing courses are generally
required courses in the degree programs. These courses are 3 credit (minimum) 300 or 400 level
courses identified with a W. They also allow more than one course, for example, a cluster of
78
University of Kentucky
courses in the discipline with 1 or 2 credits per course to count. One outcome is that students are
expected “to produce well written, edited, revised and proofread papers which communicate
effectively in their fields.” The writing requirements are primarily developed within the degree
programs, but must include at least one major assignment that includes submitting a draft that is
evaluated and returned for revision prior to the final grade.
University of Iowa
Iowa requires a two-course sequence in Rhetoric (which includes writing, speaking, and reading)
but does not require a Tier II course in writing and communication.
University of Missouri (http://cwp.missouri.edu/)
Missouri has a writing requirement largely in the disciplines. At least 20 pages of writing, with
drafts and revisions as part of the assignments, are required. As described at the Missouri
Campus Writing Program website: “WI assignments may be traditional individually-written printedpage papers, or may take the form of group-work, oral, multi-media and/or electronic
communications.” There should be multiple assignments, and hopefully, peer evaluations in
addition to professor evaluations.
University of Minnesota (http://onestop.umn.edu/degree_planning/lib_eds/index.html)
All students must take four writing-intensive courses beyond freshman writing. At least one of
these must be in the major.
University of California at Davis (http://writing.ucdavis.edu/about-uwp/about/)
All students complete a two-course sequence, to include an introductory requirement and then
either intermediate or advanced courses as designated by each college. The second courses are
typically in the discipline but not exclusively so.
Ohio State University (http://asccas.osu.edu/resources/gecguidelines#1)
OSU has a “required third course in writing and related skills (e.g., oral communication) to assure
that junior or senior year students are provided an upper-level course in their major that contains
a significant writing component. Departments may choose to accept 1) one or more courses each
of which meets this requirement, 2) writing sections of single courses each of which meets this
requirement, 3) a group of courses, each containing a writing component, which together meet
this requirement, or 4) a course which counts for the major but is outside of the major department.
In addition to requiring students to apply writing skills to their major, this third course should also
develop students’ skills in the oral articulation of ideas as well as their critical and analytical
abilities in reading demanding texts and synthesizing ideas. Course work might also include a
research project that exposes students to scholarly literature in their majors and requires them to
improve library skills or to access information through computer systems.”
University of Wisconsin (http://pubs.wisc.edu/ug/geninfo_study_ger.htm#comm)
Students at UW take a freshman course in Literacy Proficiency and then must take a second
course prior to graduation. This can be a course in the discipline, or one from outside the
department.
University of Florida (http://www.registrar.ufl.edu/soc/201201/gord.html)
Students must complete enough courses to meet a 24,000-word writing requirement prior to
graduation. Writing intensive courses provide 2,000, 4,000 or up to 6,000 words, depending on
the course. Freshman Composition provides 6,000 of the 24,000 word total. The additional
courses are offered across most disciplines. Students must get a C in the course AND get a C in
the writing portion of the course for it to count.
What has Prevented UK from Moving Writing into the Disciplines?
When college Academic Associate Deans were asked why their Colleges have not created more
Tier-II writing courses in the majors, they typically responded that the format of the requirement
does not work for their discipline. Members of Undergraduate Council, who are often heavily
involved in the curriculum in their departments, made similar comments. One faculty member
indicated that the requirement seems to be based on the type of writing assigned in literature
79
University of Kentucky
classes (e.g., a minimum of 5 pages per assignment), but the writing in his department’s natural
science curriculum is incompatible with it. There was not enough flexibility in the current
guidelines to facilitate science writing in the major (e.g., lab reports, scientific papers and
presentations).
The Graduation Composition and Communication Requirement (GCCR) is a viable alternative to
the GWR and is also timely given a number of converging initiatives, as outlined below.
First, our UK Core has replaced disconnected writing and communications classes with the
Composition and Communications I and II course series, which integrates writing, oral
presentation, information literacy, and use of digital media. Courses in the disciplines could build
on this platform. The student-learning outcomes in place for C&C could inform the outcomebased assessment of student proficiency in upper-level courses.
Second, all degree programs are to be assessed by the program faculty. Each program should
have developed a set of program learning outcomes, and in nearly all cases, one learning
outcome of most programs is related to written and oral communications.
For example, this is from Mechanical Engineering:
Our students will have the ability to communicate effectively. Students will be able to
demonstrate
 Technical writing skills
 Formal presentations skills
 Interpersonal skills
 Visual communication
A second example is from the College of Social Work:
Students will demonstrate
 Professional demeanor in behavior, appearance and communication
 Effective oral and written communication in professional settings.
 Collaboration with colleagues and clients for effective policy action
 Separate fact from opinion in data presentation
Departments now must regularly assess artifacts from courses that relate to this learning
outcome. They would use results of assessment to fine-tune their curriculum to ensure that
students can indeed meet these outcomes when they graduate.
Third, faculties in the disciplines are best suited to determine the types of writing and
communication skills their students should have upon graduation. The type of writing and
communication skills required of a journalism or marketing major are likely to be very different
from that required for a physics or animal science graduate.
Fourth, the University of Kentucky’s Quality Enhancement Plan for SACS, “Presentation U,”
addresses the absence of support on campus for faculty who wish to incorporate more writing
and communication instruction and assignments in their courses. In addition, this plan will better
organize and enhance resources like The Writing Center and the Study to support students’
writing, oral communications, and use of visual media in the majors.
80
University of Kentucky
Proposal for a Graduation Composition and Communication Requirement (GCCR)
The ad hoc committee discussed options ranging from (a) eliminating any kind of graduation
writing or communication requirement altogether to (b) retaining the existing requirement to (c)
proposing a variety of options in between. Ultimately, the group concluded that the best approach
is in line with the trend among UK benchmark universities, most of which require writing in the
major, but enhancing this practice by adding either oral communication or visual/digital design.
The new requirement would bring vertical integration of the UK Core C&C requirement into the
major.
Philosophy & Rationale: Effective composition and communication (C&C) skills are acquired
and developed over time through the processes of instruction, practice, assessment, and
revision. Moreover, students’ understanding of what constitutes effective writing and
communication skills increase with further education and training. Employer surveys conducted
annually by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) report strong writing and
other communication skills (listening, speaking, interpersonal, and teamwork) consistently among
their top 10 criteria for hiring college graduates. Thus, college graduates ought to leave the
university having attained the C&C skills necessary to succeed in the professions their academic
majors represent. Although the fundamental principles of effective C&C are being taught as part
of UK Core, many additional skills are discipline or profession specific. In some fields, for
instance, being able to communicate orally using visuals such as models or posters, or in public
or online forums using electronic slideshows, or in interpersonal or small group settings is as
crucial to success as being able to write essays, articles, or reports. A discipline-specific C&C
requirement will help convey to students that such skills are not just a box to be checked in order
to graduate, but are important skills for success in their major and chosen profession. Thus, the
committee proposes the following recommendation.
Recommendation: Transform the current graduation-writing requirement (GWR) into a
graduation composition and communication requirement (GCCR) that is appropriate for the
academic discipline and profession(s) a given major represents. The committee recommends that
each GCCR address writing in the discipline and at least one other modality of communication—
oral or visual. The choice of the second form of communication is based on what is most
appropriate for the major. The GCCR may be satisfied via either a specific C&C intensive course
or a series of C&C-intensive assignments in a series of courses. The GCCR will be articulated in
one or more specific degree program learning outcomes and will be assessed regularly as
required by program accreditation standards and university standards for SACS reaffirmation of
accreditation that are already in place.
Implementation Timeline and Parameters:
The GCCR Advisory Committee and the Undergraduate Council will conduct GCCR certification
and oversight jointly. Disciplinary courses that currently satisfy the GWR will be grandfathered in
as certified for the new GCCR but will be subject to review.
The GCCR will replace the GWR the academic year following approval by the University Senate.
The current GWR requirement will continue to be required until the GCCR is implemented. During
the interim, a program may design and submit new courses for satisfaction of proposed GCCR;
these courses may be used to fulfill the GWR. These courses should be evaluated by the Division
of Writing, Rhetoric, and Digital Media and Undergraduate Council until the GCCR is established.
Current writing-intensive courses offered by English and WRD (e.g., ENG 230, 261, 262, 264,
271, 281 and WRD 203, 204, 205) as well as all other approved GWR courses will continue to be
offered as options under the GCCR as long as they offer evidence that oral or visual
communication skills have been added.
81
University of Kentucky
Degree programs will be asked to identify their GCCR program learning outcome(s), course(s)
and assignment(s) to fulfill it, as well as their assessment plan. The assessment plan will include
(a) clear goals for successful achievement of the GCCR, (b) specific criteria and rubrics for
systematically assessing student work, and (c) a cogent description of how assessment results
will be utilized to revise GCCR instruction and/or curriculum if the goals are not met. In cases in
which another unit is offering the courses for the degree program (e.g., WRD 203: Business
Writing for majors in the College of B&E), the degree program will conduct the review and make
recommendations to the unit offering the course to help implement any needed revisions.
The new requirement is for students to complete written assignment(s) of at least 4,500 words
(the equivalent of 15 pages of double-spaced, typewritten text). In addition, students must present
at least 10 minutes of presentation OR create at least one significant visual/electronic artifact
(e.g., a web site or video presentation). These requirements do not have to be completed in a
single course and can be completed over multiple assignments. Significant instruction and
feedback on the assignments is required in the course in which this work is assigned.
Degree programs will propose courses to meet the GCCR to the Senate’s GCCR Advisory
Committee for review and a vote. The proposal must include the assignment(s) and a daily
syllabus that clearly shows days in which C&C instruction is offered. In cases in which programs
wish to designate multiple courses, clear information for students and advisers on how the
courses fulfill the GCCR must be offered. For example, degree program A may decide that one
course will meet all of the GCCR (marked “fulfills the GCCR” in the University Bulletin). Degree
program B may decide that students will fulfill the writing portion in course 1 (marked “fulfills the
written component of the GCCR”) and the oral portion in course 2 (marked “fulfills the oral
component of the GCCR”). Degree program C may decide that students will fulfill the writing
portion in two courses and a visual component in a third course (in the latter case, “fulfills the
visual component of the GCCR”). The courses fulfilling the writing portion would be designated by
word count (e.g., “fulfills 2500 words of the written portion of the GCCR”). The University of
Florida details word counts per writing-intensive course and so could be used as a model.
It must be emphasized that it will not be adequate to require an assignment without linking it to
clearly articulated objectives, providing significant instruction in support of those objectives, and
identifying a draft/feedback/revision process. These details must be provided in course proposals
to the GCCR Advisory Committee.
To satisfy the GCCR, students must earn an average grade of “C” or better on the designated
C&C-intensive assignments produced in any given course designated as fulfilling some or all of
the GCCR.
GCCR Certification Guidelines
GCCR certification will be granted by identifying:
(1)
Program learning outcome or outcomes focused directly on skill mastery in writing
(required) and at least one other communication component (oral or visual
communication);
(2)
a course (or series of courses) that identify major assignment(s) focused on
meeting that outcome;
(3)
an explicitly stated instruction/draft/feedback/revision/evaluation process;
(4)
a discipline-specific information literacy component;
(5)
a grading plan (in some cases, a rubric) that identifies the significant elements that
will be evaluated in the assignment; and
(6)
a cogent plan for assessing the GCCR at the program level.
E.2: Program Certification Application
82
University of Kentucky
Graduation Composition and Communication Requirement (GCCR)
Program Certification Application
Degree/Major:
Contact Name:
Email:
Phone:
Program Learning Outcomes (e.g., On graduation, the student will be able to…)
C&C-intensive course or series of courses used to satisfy the GCCR*:
* Include a syllabus for each course identified.
Assignment(s) (include a description and grading plan, as well as an explanation of
the weight of the assignment in the overall course grade):
Describe briefly the instruction plan for teaching the C&C skill(s):
Describe briefly the draft/feedback/revision plan:
Describe briefly the GCCR assessment plan:
Signatures:
Department:
Date:
College:
Date:
83
University of Kentucky
APPENDIX F: CIS 300 SYLLABUS DRAFT
Course Description:
This communication intensive course prepares B&E majors for their careers by developing
effective communication skills (integrated written, oral, and visual) applied specifically to today’s
technology-driven and global business environment. The course will focus on developing strong
communication skills in interpersonal settings, on small group teams, and when delivering public
presentations. Students will prepare cover letters, resumes, websites, and portfolios; develop
effective interviewing skills in face-to-face and online environments; communicate effectively
based on audience analysis in face-to-face and online settings; deliver effective formal public
business presentations (informative and persuasive) based on audience analysis and using a
variety of presentational aids that enhance the message; and learn to manage data, graphics,
and a positive on-line presence (e.g., websites blogs, social media outlets, email messages, and
webinars).
Prerequisites:
Upper-division status in accounting, analytics, economics, finance, management, marketing, or
permission from instructor
Learning Outcomes:
Upon completion of the course, students will be able to:






Write, revise, and proofread effective audience-centered business documents in a variety
of formats (e.g., cover letter, resume, press release, memoranda, e-mail correspondence,
formal speech outlines, meeting agendas and minutes, websites).
Prepare and deliver effective formal oral business presentations (informative and
persuasive) using appropriate presentational aids based on the rhetorical situation
(purpose, audience, occasion, constraints).
Practice effective interpersonal and intercultural communication skills (speaking, listening,
responding, interviewing, conflict management) appropriate to the rhetorical situation
(purpose, audience, occasion, constraints).
Practice effective small group communication skills (teamwork, leadership, conflict
management) in informal settings and as part of formal presentations (face-to-face and
on-line).
Respond effectively to media and stakeholder inquiries during crisis events and during
question and answer sessions.
Use strong evidence (locate, analyze, evaluate) to support ideas, arguments, and
positions, as well as to solve workplace problems.
Required Materials:
Lehman, C., & Dufrene, D. (2011). Business Communication (16th ed.). Mason, Ohio: SouthWestern, Cengage Learning.
Perrin, R. (2012). Pocket guide to APA style (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage.
Microsoft Office (PowerPoint, Word, Publisher)
Other readings as assigned by the instructor
Course Activities and Assignments:
Each student will compile an electronic portfolio of materials that will include, for example, a cover
letter, resume, and reflective essay for a job in his or her chosen field, sample business
documents, formal outlines and presentational aid printouts of formal oral presentations, and
recordings of mock interviews and speeches.
84
University of Kentucky
1.
Cover letter, resume, and reflective essay (60 points)
Each student will conduct research to locate a job posting for a position he or she might like to
hold one day. Each student will prepare a cover letter and resume applying for that position.
Documents are to reflect research about the mission of the organization, required and preferred
credentials, and the expertise the student would bring to the organization if hired. Students will
prepare a 400-500 word self-reflection articulating how and why they prepared the cover letter
and resume as they did, citing at least three credible sources using proper APA style. These
documents will be revised at the end of the semester to reflect what the student learned
throughout the term. In the revised 400-500 word self-reflection, students will explain what they
changed (or did not change) and why.
2.
Business documents (100 points)
Students will prepare an interoffice memo, e-mail message, and press release that reflect ethical
and effective responses to case study scenarios provided by the instructor. Students will also
prepare a sample brochure, flyer, newsletter, or website for an organization.
3.
Interview and critiques (60 points)
Each student will prepare a 400-500 word self-critique of his or her mock job interview as well as
a 400-500 word peer critique of a classmate’s interview, as assigned by the instructor.
4.
Job Talk Public Speech (50 points)
Each student will deliver a 5-7 minute “job talk” answering the question: “Why should you hire
me?” for the position selected by the student. Points will be earned for the formal and speaking
outlines, the construction and integration of presentational aids (e.g., PPT slideshow), self and
peer review critiques of documents and rehearsals, as well as the content, structure, and delivery
of the actual speech (including a question and answer session).
5.
Team Project (150 points)
Students will work together in teams (4-6 students each) to examine a workplace crisis situation
and formulate potential solutions for it as well as for addressing various stakeholder groups. Each
group will produce a 500-700 word written report describing what and how they would
communicate to the various groups and why, a formal 16-20 minute actuation persuasive
presentation delivered as a group symposium, and a digital product communicating to one of the
groups described in the written report.
6.
Exams (150 points)
There will be two examinations to evaluate comprehension of theories and concepts addressed in
the assigned readings and class discussions.
7.
In-Cass Activities (30 points)
Grading:
90-100% = A 80-89% = B 70-79% = C 60-69% = D 0-59% = E
85
University of Kentucky
APPENDIX G: ASSESSMENT MEASUREMENT TOOLS
G.1: Presentation U Written Communication Rubric (draft)
Category
Content
Evidence
Analysis
Focus and
Coverage
Accomplished
(3)
Competent
(2)
Needs
Improvement (1)
Insufficient
(0)
Integrates credible,
evidence effectively
with accuracy and
depth to thoroughly
explain and support
ideas while considering
alternate perspectives
Uses
appropriate and
credible
evidence
effectively with
accuracy to
explain and
support ideas
Evidence to
support ideas
is lacking, is
not credible, is
inaccurate or
irrelevant to
the thesis
Writing reflects
analysis, synthesis,
assessment, and/or
interpretation of ideas
and evidence; analysis
draws from the
evidence and clearly
assists readers in
understanding
meaning; connects to
purpose of the paper,
reflects original thought
and creativity
Thoroughly fulfills all
assignment
requirements
Uses evidenceformed analysis
to assist
readers in
understanding
meaning and
connects to
purpose of the
paper; writing
reflects original
thought
Evidence is used
to explain and
support ideas
but the evidence
may not be
credible, and/or
presented with
depth or
effectiveness
Evidence-formed
analysis is used
but may have
minor flaws or
be incomplete;
connection to
meaning and
purpose is not
completely clear
Structure
Macrostructure
Clearly organized
content that
reflects purpose
and focus of
paper, ideas are
clearly
connected,
information
included is
important and tied
to purpose,
Fulfills
assignment
requirements
(but some
superficially or
without
addressing one
or two minor
parts)
Content is
organized and
effectively
connects ideas
and purpose of
the paper;
transitions
enhance
readability
86
Many
requirements
fulfilled but
assignment
incomplete,
missing or under
exploring major
or significant
portions
An attempt is
made to
organize content
but is at times
not logically
organized;
material strays
from focus and
purpose of
paper; contains
somewhat weak
Evidenceformed
analysis is
lacking,
inaccurate,
disorganized,
or otherwise
unable to
assist readers
in
understanding
meaning and
purpose
Does not
address
and/or fulfill
assignment
requirements
Content is not
organized in a
logical way;
transitions are
lacking or
ineffective;
material does not
reflect purpose
or focus of
paper.
University of Kentucky
Microstructure
Style and
Conventions
Delivery
Presentation
assists the reader
in developing
insight; transitions
enhance
readability
Tone and
language use
clearly
appropriate for
audience and
medium and
enhances
readability
Adheres to writing
standards
regarding style
and conventions;
no errors (e.g.,
spelling,
grammar,
sentence
structure, use of
citations, etc.)
Presented in a
clear format
appropriate for
purpose and
audience and/or
professional
standards
transitions.
Tone and
language
mostly
appropriate for
audience and
medium, with a
few minor gaps.
Tone and
language
somewhat
appropriate for
audience and
medium, but
inconsistent
Tone and
language are not
appropriate for
audience and
medium
Generally
adheres to
writing
standards;
there are some
errors
regarding
writing
standards and
conventions but
they do not
reflect
readability
There are
noticeable errors
regarding writing
standards and
conventions;
detracts from
message and
impacts
readability
There are
numerous errors
regarding writing
standards and
conventions;
consistently
detract and/or
confuse the
reader, obscure
points and/or
message
Presented in a
format
appropriate for
purpose and
audience and/or
professional
standards with
only very minor
variances
Presented in a
format somewhat
appropriate for
purpose and
audience and/or
professional
standards with
some major
requirements
missing or
incorrect
Presented in a
format not
appropriate for
purpose and
audience and
inconsistent with
professional
standards; format
appears
disorganized or
absent
G.2: Pre/Post MCXC Student Self-efficacy Survey (draft) – To be developed in Qualtrics
Directions: For each of the items below, please rate how confident you are that you can complete
the task described using the following scale:
1 (Low)
2
3
Written Communication
1. I can clearly express my ideas in writing.
2. I can organize my ideas effectively in writing.
87
4
5 (High)
University of Kentucky
3.
4.
5.
6.
I can adapt the words I use (e.g., jargon) based on my audience.
I can clearly define any technical terms so that my audience can understand what I mean.
I can consistently us language that is inclusive of people (firefighter instead of fireman.)
I have a good command of the elements of writing (e.g., grammar, punctuation, sentence
construction, etc.)
7. I am able to read, interpret, and evaluate information from multiple sources to use in my
writing.
8. I am able to integrate material from outside sources into my writing to connect ideas.
9. I can paraphrase information accurately without relying on the original author’s writing.
10. I can properly cite sources in my writing.
11. I can proof read my own writing.
12. I can provide feedback to my peers that help them to improve their writing.
13. I can choose the appropriate written medium with which to convey a message (e.g., email,
formal paper, newspaper, website, etc.)
14. I can adapt my writing style appropriately for the medium (e.g., professional email,
newspaper, essay, research paper)
15. I am able to format my writing appropriately for the expectations of the profession and the
mode of delivery.
Oral Communication (Public Speaking)
1. I can fully support my main ideas with evidence.
2. I am able to read, interpret, and evaluate information from multiple sources to use in
constructing my presentation.
3. I am able to integrate material from outside sources into my presentations in a way that
connects ideas.
4. I can paraphrase information accurately without relying on the original author’s writing.
5. I can properly cite sources utilized in my presentation.
6. I can use concrete, precise language.
7. I can adapt the words I use (e.g., jargon) based on my audience.
8. I can clearly define any technical terms so that my audience can understand what I mean.
9. I can create an introduction that draws in my audience and sets up what I will cover.
10. I can construct an organized speech.
11. I can speak effectively and meet professional communication standards expected in
studio and/or field formats.
12. I can effectively deliver an individual or team-based persuasive presentation.
13. I can prepare for and organize an effective interview.
14. I can stop myself from fidgeting during my speech.
15. I can correctly interpret other people’s nonverbal behaviors.
16. I can maintain good posture during my speech.
17. I can use gestures effectively to reinforce important points, clarify structure, or reference
visual aids.
18. I can use eye contact to engage with the audience and facial expressions to convey
attitude/emotions and establish sincerity.
19. I can make it clear that I am a credible speaker during my speech.
20. I can effectively utilize voice tone, volume, pacing to enhance the effectiveness of my
presentation.
21. I can deliver an organized speech.
22. I can conduct or participate in an effective interview.
Team Oral Communication
1. I can protect another person’s feelings through my communication.
2. I can find common ground when dealing with a conflict
88
University of Kentucky
I can use “I” language in order to own my feelings.
I can recognize when it is appropriate to share personal information with another person.
I can recognize my cultural assumptions and expectations at play in my interactions.
I can correctly interpret other people’s nonverbal behaviors.
I can communicate with a variety of people without letting prejudices interfered.
I can engage in perception checking to be certain I understand what someone is trying to
communicate to me.
9. I can help ensure that members of a group that I am working with are all allowed to offer
opinions during a discussion.
10. I can avoid putting pressure on group members to conform to ideas.
11. I can provide productive feedback to group members about their roles in a group.
12. I can speak so that others can understand me.
13. I can recognize when I should take a leadership role and when I should step back.
14. I can stay on task when working in a group.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Visual Communication
1. I am able to brainstorm different ways to visually communicate my message and choose
the one most effective to convey the message to the intended audience.
2. I can choose the appropriate visuals to convey a message and/or explain a concept.
3. I have the skills to be able to select and apply layout and design elements that are
appropriate for static or print media that meets standards of my profession.
4. I have the skills to select and apply layout and design elements that are appropriate for
on-line media that meets standards of my profession.
5. I am able to identify means through which complex ideas can be communicated in a visual
format.
6. I can explain the rationale for my choice of visual aid(s).
7. I am able to correctly cite visual aids that I utilize from other sources
8. I can use diagrams, charts, and other visual aids effectively to express my ideas.
9. I am able to select a visual presentation style appropriate for purpose, audience, and
venue.
10. I can employ professional-looking visual aids.
11. I am able to effectively use verbal messages to enhance a visual message and vice versa
(avoiding simply repeating the messages in two different forms.)
12. I am able to identify and incorporate effective design elements in print, video, web, and
oral presentation materials.
13. I am able to understand the visual communication of others.
14. I have the skills to structure a visual message that meets standards in my profession.
15. I have developed the technical skills required to design visual communication deliverables
required by my profession.
16. I can respond to questions about my visual representations without being defensive.
17. I am able to create and edit video footage that meets standards of my profession.
18. I am able to effectively use visual communication to convey the meaning and impact of
the information or message.
G.3: Presentation U Tally Sheet (draft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Time arrived: __________
Please list your name: _____________________________________________
Please list your major: ______________________________________________
In which course (s) are you here to receive consultation for? ____________________
What best describes your classification?
89
University of Kentucky
(
(
(
(
) Freshman
) Sophomore
) Junior
) Senior
6. Describe the type of communication mode you would like to receive assistance for: (mark all
that apply)
( ) Written Communication (i.e., words/reading),
( ) Oral Communication (i.e., sounds/hearing)
( ) Visual Communication (i.e., nonverbal symbols/seeing)
( ) Other (please specify): _________________________
7. While visiting Presentation U, did you:
( ) Use a Computer
( ) Use specific software
( ) Visit the sound room
( ) Work with a tutor
( ) Work with a mentor
( ) Other (please specify): _________________________
8. Time out: __________
G.4: Faculty Fellows Needs Assessment (draft)
1. Please list your name and title: _______________________________________
2. Which College/Department do you represent? ___________________
3. Are you interested in providing multimodal communication skills in your course (s) to increase
student performance in this area? ( ) Yes ( ) No
4. In which courses do you plan to embed multimodal communication instruction and projects?
__________________________________________________________
5. What classification are your students? (mark all that apply)
( ) Freshman
( ) Sophomore
( ) Junior
( ) Senior
6. Which of the following best describes how your course is administered?
( ) Traditional On-Campus
( ) Traditional Off-Campus
( ) Distance Learning
( ) Both traditional and distance learning (hybrid model)
( ) Other (please specify): _________________________
7. Describe the type of communication mode utilized in your courses: (mark all that apply)
( ) Written Communication (i.e., words/reading),
( ) Oral Communication (i.e., sounds/hearing)
( ) Visual Communication (i.e., nonverbal symbols/seeing)
( ) Other (please specify): _________________________
8. Describe how the above multimodal messages are communicated: (mark all that apply)
( ) Flat print (e.g., academic papers, research reports, brochures, newsletters)
( ) Face-to-face (e.g., conversations, consultations, public speeches
90
University of Kentucky
(
(
) Digital (e.g., television, cell phone, computer, internet)
) Other (please specify): _________________________
9. Describe how communication occurs in your course (s): (mark all that apply)
( ) Interpersonal (settings are between two people, serves the purpose of forming and
maintaining relationships among, for example, acquaintances, friends, colleagues, and
intimates)
( ) Intrapersonal (settings are private to the self, might serve purposes such as reflection,
comprehension, analysis, or evaluation)
( ) Small Groups (settings are among a few people who come together to interact and
collaborate for the purpose of achieving a common goal. Some examples include family
groups, social groups, support groups, service groups, and workplace teams
( ) Public Communication settings (settings are among large audiences whether coming
from one-to-many or a few-to many, serves the purpose of publishing, distributing, or
broadcasting a unified message and may come in the form of, for instance, a news report, a
public speech, a newsletter, or a website.
( ) Other (please specify): _________________________
10. Please indicate whether you will or will not need training in each of the following areas: (Please
place an X in the appropriate box)
Not
Will Not
Will
Unsure at this
applicable
Need
Need
time, but would
for my
Training Training
like more
courses
information
a. Implementing appropriate
instruction related to Written
Communication
b. Creating assignments for
Written Communication
c. Creating rubrics for
Written Communication
d. Implementing appropriate
instruction related to Oral
Communication
e. Creating assignments for
Oral Communication
f. Creating rubrics for Oral
Communication
g. Implementing appropriate
instruction related to Visual
Communication
h. Creating assignments for
Visual Communication
i. Creating assignments that
integrate two or three of the
above communication
modes
j. Other - Please Specify:
k. Other - Please Specify:
91
University of Kentucky
l. Other - Please Specify:
11. In your opinion, what is the greatest need for training related to implementing multimodal
communication in your course (s)? List in order of importance, and feel free to list training
other than what is listed in the table above.
1. _____________________________________________
2. _____________________________________________
3. _____________________________________________
12. Multimodal communication training can be delivered in different ways. Please indicate your
preferences in regard to the following training options. (Please place an X in the appropriate
box in each row.)
Highly
Preferred
Preferred
Not
Preferred
a. Individual training (one-on-one)
b. Group training across disciplines (one-to-many)
c. Group training within same discipline (one-to-many)
d. Live training through video conferencing/web
casting
e. Exercises, simulations, and other hands-on training
f. Other (please specify):
G.5: Faculty Fellows Presentation U Workshop Evaluation (draft)
1. Having completed this workshop, I understand what I need to do to integrate multimodal
communication skills (Written, Oral, and/or Visual) into my course(s).
( ) Strongly Agree
( ) Agree
( ) Neither Agree/Disagree
( ) Disagree
( ) Strongly Disagree
2. The content presented was useful for the needs and interests of my Course(s).
( ) Strongly Agree
( ) Agree
( ) Neither Agree/Disagree
( ) Disagree
( ) Strongly Disagree
3. After attending this workshop I plan to implement each of the following modes in my course:
( ) Written Communication (i.e., words/reading),
( ) Oral Communication (i.e., sounds/hearing)
( ) Visual Communication (i.e., nonverbal symbols/seeing)
( ) Other (please specify): _________________________
4. After attending this workshop I have a better idea of how to develop rubrics for
communication type assignments.
( ) Yes
( ) No
5. After attending this workshop I have a better idea of how to better articulate my syllabus.
92
University of Kentucky
( ) Yes
( ) No
6. Please contact me at: ______________________________________________. I would like
more additional training in the following areas:
( ) Written Communication assignments, rubrics or syllabi creation
( ) Oral Communication assignments, rubrics or syllabi creation
( ) Visual Communication assignments, rubrics or syllabi creation
( ) Other, Please specify: ___________________________________
G.6: Faculty Fellow Presentation U Experience Survey (draft)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Please list your name and title: _____________________________________________
Which College/Department do you represent? ___________________
Please provide reason(s) why you decided to participate in the faculty fellows program.
In which course(s) did you embed multimodal communication instruction and projects?
______________________________________________________________________
5. Which mode of communication did you implement?
6. Do you think this integration (Q5) was beneficial to student learning? Why or why not?
7. If only one or two modes of communication, would you consider implementing all three modes
in the future?
If yes, what support would you need to do so?
8. Did you attend workshops offered by the Presentation U Office?
9. Did you request extra assistance from the Presentation U Office to guide you with
assignments, rubrics, or syllabi? Please explain?
10. Do you feel you the workshops provided you adequate training on the mode of
communication you chose to implement? Please explain.
11. Please describe key changes you made in your course(s) after participating in the Faculty
Fellows Program.
12. Would you encourage your colleagues to participate in the Faculty Fellows Program?
13. Would you encourage your colleagues to implement multimodal communication
assignments/projects in their classrooms?
14. Do you feel your students have achieved the outcome: Students will demonstrate competent
communication (written, oral, and/or visual across multiple modes) as defined within individual
disciplines, both as producers and consumers of information? Please Explain.
15. Do you feel more confident in assigning different types of communication assignments in your
classroom after participating in the faculty fellows program?
G.7: Faculty Fellows Portfolio Assessment Rubric (draft)
Course Number __________ Date of Evaluation: ___________________
Title & Instructor: ____________________________________________________
Instructions for peer evaluator: In addition to a numerical value use examples to describe your
perceptions of how observed teaching meets each of the following broad questions.
1 2 3
4
1. Instructor communicates clearly which types of communication modes will
be utilized in the classroom and provides an overview and description of
the type of communication in the course syllabus.
2. Instructor requires assignments that are connected to at least one type of
93
University of Kentucky
communication skill (written, oral, visual).
3. MCXC designated assignments and activities are clearly linked to course,
program, and Presentation U student learning outcomes.
4. Instructor provides students with a rubric related to the assignment given.
5. Instructor clearly articulates the purpose of the assignment including
MCXC terms and the use of rubric is described within the syllabus.
Total each column then divide by 5 for average.
What are your suggestions and/or recommendations for this instructor?
Overall Comments by Peer Evaluator:____________________________________________
G.8: Student Presentation U Experience Survey (draft)
To continue to meet your needs, we are asking students for help. Please complete the survey
below as specifically as possible. You responses will help us improve Presentation U and all
responses are anonymous. Thank you!
Section I:
1. Please tell us your name (first, last): ________________________________________
2. What is your major? _____________________________________________________
3. In which course(s) did your instructor embed multimodal communication instruction and
projects?
Course 1: ________________
Course 2: ________________
Course 3: ________________
Other Courses: _____________________________________________________
( ) Not applicable
( ) Don’t Know
4. Please list the instructor’s name for each course you listed above in question three.
Instructor 1: ________________
Instructor 2: ________________
Instructor 3: ________________
Other Instructors: _____________________________________________________
( ) Not applicable
5. Which mode of communication was implemented in your course(s):
( ) Written
( ) Oral
( ) Visual
( ) Two modes
( ) All of the above
6. Was focusing on these communication modes beneficial to you in this course?
( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Somewhat
Section II:
7. Have you visited the Presentation Center before?
( ) Yes ( ) No
8. If you answered yes to question six, approximately how many times did you visit the
Presentation Center?
( ) 1-4 times
( ) 5-8 times
94
University of Kentucky
( ) 9-12 times
( ) More than 12 times
9. How did you learn about the Presentation Center? (check all that apply)
( ) From an instructor
( ) From another student
( ) From a classroom visit by a Presentation Center representative
( ) From the website
( ) From a resource fair
( ) Other ____________________________________________
10. Which types of communication did you come to learn about? (check all that apply)
( ) Written
( ) Oral
( ) Visual
( ) Digital
( ) Face-to-face
( ) Print
( ) Online
( ) Explain: __________________________________________
11. Why did you decide to come to the Presentation Center for help with your project(s)? (check
all that apply)
( ) My instructor recommended it
( ) A colleague recommended it
( ) A friend recommended it
( ) It’s a particularly challenging assignment
( ) I want to get a better grade
( ) I want to be more adept at using technology in the classroom
( ) I want to improve how I teach, e.g. rubrics, instruction, communication,
assessment
( ) Visiting the center is a regular part of my routine
( ) Other: ____________________________________________
12. At what stage were you in the project when you decided to visit the Presentation Center?
( ) Planning
( ) Beginning
( ) Middle
( ) Final stages
( ) No particular project
13. Which Presentation Center staff did you work with? __________________________ How
helpful was the staff person you worked with? (1= most helpful; 5= not at all helpful)
1
2
3
4
5
14. Do you feel you the guidance provided by Presentation U staff provided you with the
knowledge that you were seeking? Please explain.
15. How likely are you to return to the Presentation Center? (1= very likely; 5= will not return)
1
2
3
4
5
16. How likely are you to recommend other students to visit the Presentation Center? (1= very
likely; 5= not likely)
1
2
3
4
5
17. Do you feel you have met the learning outcome: You are able to demonstrate competent
communication (written, oral, and/or visual across multiple modes) as defined within your
discipline? Please Explain.
18. Do you have suggestions for improving the Center?
19. Other Comments: __________________________________
95
Appendix J: Assessment Plan Timeline for Learning and Program Outcomes
Based on Faculty Fellows Cohort Scheduling
Outcomes
Measures
Faculty Fellows Cohort #1
LO1
Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Collection
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Assessment
LO1
Student Self-Efficacy Survey
LO1-1 to LO1-8
CLA Senior Assessment
LO3
FF Portfolio Evaluations
Faculty Fellows Cohort #2
LO1
Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Collection
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Assessment
LO1
Student Self-Efficacy Survey
LO1-1 to LO1-8
CLA Senior Assessment
LO3
FF Portfolio Evaluations
Faculty Fellows Cohort #3
LO1
Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Collection
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Assessment
LO1
Student Self-Efficacy Survey
LO1-1 to LO1-8
CLA Senior Assessment
LO3
FF Portfolio Evaluations
Faculty Fellows Cohort #4
LO1
Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Collection
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Assessment
LO1
Student Self-Efficacy Survey
LO1-1 to LO1-8
CLA Senior Assessment
LO3
FF Portfolio Evaluations
Faculty Fellows Cohort #5
LO1
Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Collection
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Assessment
LO1
Student Self-Efficacy Survey
LO1-1 to LO1-8
CLA Senior Assessment
LO3
FF Portfolio Evaluations
2013-14
Fall
Spring
2014-15
Fall
Spring
Data Collection Timeline
2015-16
2016-17
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
2017-18
Spring
Fall
2018-19
Spring
X
X
X
Pre&Post
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pre&Post
X
X
X
X
X
Pre&Post
X
X
X
X
X
Pre&Post
X
X
X
X
X
Pre&Post
X
96
X
X
X
University of Kentucky
Faculty Fellows Cohort #6
LO1
Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Collection
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Assessment
LO1
Student Self-Efficacy Survey
LO1-1 to LO1-8
CLA Senior Assessment
LO3
FF Portfolio Evaluations
LO1
Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Collection
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Assessment
LO1
Student Self-Efficacy Survey
LO1-1 to LO1-8
CLA Senior Assessment
LO3
FF Portfolio Evaluations
Faculty Fellows Cohort #8
LO1
Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Collection
LO1, LO3
MCXC Assignment Assessment
LO1
Student Self-Efficacy Survey
LO1-1 to LO1-8
CLA Senior Assessment
LO3
FF Portfolio Evaluations
Outcomes
Measures
X
X
X
Pre&Post
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pre&Post
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pre&Post
X
X
X
X
2013-14
Fall
Spring
2014-15
Fall
Spring
Data Collection Timeline
2015-16
2016-17
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
2017-18
Spring
Fall
2018-19
Spring
UK Survey Schedule
LO2-1
Graduating Senior Survey
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
LO2-2
Natl Survey of Student Engagement
X-UK
X
X-UK
X
LO2-3
Undergraduate Alumni
X
X
Note: Student records will be used for each survey administration to identify Presentation U students who will be asked to participate in the survey; followup will help ensure sufficient participation for analyses
which will include, when appropriate, comparing Presentation U students to non-Presentation U students. X-UK denotes administration as part of the university-wide CLA administration.
Outcomes
PO1
PO2
PO3-1
PO3-2
PO4-1, PO4-2
PO4-3, PO4-4
PO4
Measures
Tally Sheet Analysis
Student Experience Survey
FF Recruitment Targets
FF Implementation Analysis
FF Workshop Evaluations
FF Experience Survey
FF Needs Assessment
2013-14
Fall
Spring
X
X
2014-15
Fall
Spring
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
97
Data Collection Timeline
2015-16
2016-17
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fall
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2017-18
Spring
Fall
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2018-19
Spring
X
X