Proposal to Remove Oral
Communication from USP
The importance of oral
communication




At this point, there is widespread agreement
on the importance of oral communication
skills
In principle, all UK students should have such
training
In fact, in principle, it would be better to have
more training – for example, both public
speaking and interpersonal communication
So why are we proposing to remove oral
communication from USP?
Three major reasons



With current resources, it is not possible to
meet course demand
Attempting to meet the demand for oral
communication drains resources from the
teaching and research missions of the
Department of Communication
Oral communication still will be offered for
programs that need it and demand will be
able to be met
A brief history


Oral communication skills requirement has
been a part of USP since its inception in 1988
Five options



COM 181, 252, 281, 287
TA 225
Rule change in 1997 permitted alternate
paths


Approximately 16 identified
Nine of these include COM 199
Baselines and assumptions


Originally, planning was based on a first year
class of 2,600-2,700 students
Curricula were designed to provide oral
communication skills





COM 181 – basic public speaking
COM 252 – interpersonal communication
COM 281 – small group communication
COM 287 – persuasive speaking
Class size was set at 22
Changing times

First year class size began increasing in 2000-01




We began scheduling more classes




1999-2000, approximately 2,700
2000-01 and 2001-02, approximately 3,000
2002-03 and 2003-04, approximately 3,700
1995-96 through 1999-00 average sections: 89/year
2000-01: 126/year
2003-04: 138/year
We also increased class size, from 22 to 25, then to
28-30
Impact on resources

New lecturer lines (S.I. #18)

Initial request


Current status



5.5 lines requested, 3 approved, less than 1 funded
Have received recurring funds for 4.2 lecturers
Devoting TA and other dept. resources
Evening/Weekend Growth, Distance Learning
How many students do we serve now?

2003-04, with present resources:

77 sections funded with recurring dollars






Lecturers
Teaching Assistants
32 funded by EWC and Distance Learning
19 sections funded by Provost with non-recurring
10 sections funded by COM
Total of 138 sections; 3,587 students
How many can we serve next year?

2004-05, with projected resources:

55 sections funded with recurring dollars






Lecturers
Teaching Assistants
32 funded by EWC and Distance Learning
19 sections funded by Provost with non-recurring
8 sections funded by COM
Total: 114 sections; ~2,964 students
The difference?


24 fewer sections offered/year
~600 fewer students served/year
Demand for oral communication
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
Demand for 181, 252,
281 and 287
800
600
400
200
0
S00
F 00
S 01
F 01
S 02
F 02
S 03
Projections for backlog
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
Demand for 181, 252,
281 and 287
800
600
400
200
0
S00
S01
S02
S03
S04
S05
S06
What would it take to serve 4,000?

Assume a need to serve 90% of student body



TA 225
Alternate paths
Would need 144 sections/year
Implications for lecturer lines





SACS is opposed to reliance on PTI’s
They also take issue with over-reliance on
TA’s
We would need 18 lecturers to cover the
courses
Recurring dollars for lecturer salary and
benefits would total ~$596,700.00
Also need funds for equipment, materials
What if we had the money?

There is a lack of qualified personnel


Local pool is fully tapped
Extremely difficult to attract qualified applicants




Low salary
Year-to-year contracts
Insufficient classroom space
No office space
Can’t we revise the curriculum?

What about large lecture?


We tried that
It simply did not work



Still required extensive instructional support for
“recitation” sections
Classroom climate negatively impacted
What about COM 199 for everybody?



We developed COM 199 for a subset of programs
Due to demand, sequencing fails
Students tell us they do not get enough practice
Can’t each program teach its own?




Presentational assignments certainly are
appropriate in classes across programs
However, skills are not being taught
Further, instructors lack training in teaching
skills, and they understandably wish to focus
on their own discipline
SACS assessment issues cannot be ignored
Additional considerations



The four year graduation contract will require
students’ home departments to pay tuition for
unavailable classes
Of UK’s benchmarks, only 3 of 17 responding
to a survey required oral communication
There is a negative impact on the
Department of Communication’s teaching
and research missions
Competing demands

The Department of
Communication has
three instructional
missions



Oral communication
Undergraduate majors
(numbers are increasing
again)
Graduate students
(doubled this year)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1994
2003
PCOM & COM Majors

The Department of Communication has a
strong research mission

One of the top funded social science units



$4.5 million in FY 03
More than $35 million over past 20 years
Health behavior research



HIV/AIDS prevention
Substance abuse prevention
Physician-patient communication
Reallocation of resources

Funds we currently are spending to support
oral communication could be reallocated





Additional courses for majors could be offered
Various research initiatives could be sponsored
Graduate students could be better supported
Wethington awards (new to “Lexington” campus)
must be covered (~$26K this year)
TAs could be reassigned to support faculty
So what are we to do?

It is time to remove the oral communication
requirement from USP



There will be no “leftover” resources; rather, we
will have the resources needed to meet demand
for programs that will continue to require oral
communication
We will be able to maintain curricular integrity
We will be able to better serve our teaching and
research missions
Concluding thoughts

In a perfect world, every student would have
easy access to all required classes


Those classes would including training in all oral
communication skills – public speaking,
interpersonal, small group
Boundless resources – money, space, and
personnel – would make this possible

In a perfect world, faculty would have
boundless time and energy



To teach and advise
To write grant proposals, conduct research and
publish
To engage in endless service




Unfortunately, our resources are limited and it
is a zero-sum game
We all have been doing more with less for
several years now
We are at the point now that it is impossible
to complete the oral communication mission
for the entire University
We ask for your help to face this reality