Program Assessment Report
PROGRAM INFORMATION
Degree Program(s):
Department Chair:
Report Prepared by:
Department:
BA, BA Teacher Prep
Dennis Jaehne
Phone:
4-5360
Ge Gao
Phone:
4-5383
ge.gao@sjsu.edu
E-mail:
Next Program Review:
Communication Studies
2009/2010
Note: Schedule is posted at:
http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/programplanning/
ARCHIVAL INFORMATION
Location:
Person to Contact:
HGH 211
Ge Gao
(Bldg/Room #)
4-5383
(Name)
(Phone)
Does the information (e.g., Mission, Goals, and/or Learning Outcomes) posted on the web (see,
http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/assessment/programs/ ) for this program need to be updated?
Yes
If yes, please submit changes to jacqueline.snell@sjsu.edu
No
SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES*
Please complete the schedule of assessment activities below by listing all program Student Learning
Outcomes (SLOs) by number down the left column and indicating when data were/will be collected (C)
and when they were/will be discussed (D) by your faculty. You can also schedule/track program
changes resulting from your assessment activities by indicating an “I” (implemented changes) where
relevant. This schedule is meant to be fluid; providing a proposed schedule for future assessment while
at the same time, providing a record of your efforts as the program planning cycle progresses.
↓Semester after self-study
SLOs
1
2
3
F--
S--
Semester before next self-study↓
F--
S--
F--
S--
F--
S--
F08
C
C
C
S09
D/I
D/I
D/I
*Note: This template is based on a five-year program planning cycle. If your program planning follows another cycle
(e.g., based on accreditation), please feel free to add (or subtract) columns as necessary.
Page 1 of 7
Program Assessment Report
1. Ethical participation and competent communication [diversity
and democracy]
 Ethics: Demonstrate understanding of ethical responsibilities in
communicating with others.
 Social Responsibility: Understand the dimensions of social
responsibility and community engagement as obligations of
democratic citizens.
 Basic Skills: Demonstrate basic skills in oral and written
communication, and critical thinking.
 Argumentation: Demonstrate competence in understanding and
applying argumentation principles, conventions, strategies, and
tactics using an adversarial model.
 Criticism: Develop and apply analytical skills for evaluating
different forms of communication (oral, textual, visual,
performative).

Rhetorical Foundations: Understand the foundations of rhetoric
and the rhetorical role of the citizen in public life.
 Performance: Demonstrate performance as embodied practice
and understand how performance is a site for critical
communication within social, political, and cultural life.
1.1 Data Collection:
[Fall 2008] – For this assessment cycle, how were the data collected and what were the results?
As part of our program review and as we plan to make the transition from the current curriculum to the
revised one, we are collecting data from our senior capstone course (COMM199) where students reflect
and present their work in ALL three learning objective areas. The assessment coordinator has collected
students’ work representing three major learning objective areas by going through each student’s
ePortfolio completed respectively in two sections of COMM199 in Fall 2007 and in Spring 2008. The data
collection will continue during the winter break in the two current sections of COMM199. In the data
collection process, any identifiable information such as a student name or an instructor’s name was
removed for a blind review. Our goal is not to assess which students in which instructor’s course have
met or failed to meet the learning objectives. Rather, we seek to find out how our students in general are
Page 2 of 7
Program Assessment Report
meeting the learning objectives across all sections of courses in their academic studies in the major. We
hope that data from the capstone course will provide a holistic assessment of our program.
1.2 What have you learn about this Student Learning Outcome?
[Spring 2009] – Based on the results in part I., briefly summarize the discussion surrounding this
outcome, i.e., what does the faculty conclude about student learning for this SLO?
The assessment coordinator in consultation with the department chair will identify faculty teaching in each
of the learning objective areas and form three SLO committees. The assessment coordinator will
randomly sample students’ work and assign them to committee members for assessment. Committee
members will collectively assess one common learning objective area. An assessment rubric will be used
by all committee members.
We will hold assessment retreats to accomplish the following:
1. committee members meet and discuss their assessment results in each learning objective area
2. each committee reports back to the general faculty their discussion and findings
3. faculty discuss overall findings and suggest action items
1.3 Action Item(s) (if necessary):
[SEMESTER/YEAR] – Based on the discussion in part II., what actions will the department take to
improve student learning, e.g., program changes, changes in pedagogy, process changes, resources
requests, etc?
1.4 Results of Action Items
[SEMESTER/YEAR] – What does assessment of student learning show after
implementation of any action items? What, if anything, is planned next?
Page 3 of 7
Program Assessment Report
2. Cultural awareness and global contexts
 Cultural Literacy: Recognize and understand central features of a
culture that one encounters.
 Cultural Comparison: Appreciate how diverse communication
practices arise in response to recurrent and changing problem
situations encountered and defined by different cultures;
understand how different cultures have influenced each other’s
communication practices.
 Cultural Sensitivity: Demonstrate sensitivity to the communication
practices of diverse cultural groups (defined by concepts of race,
ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc.).
 Globalization Awareness: Identify and analyze the relationships
among globalization, worldviews, development, and change of
cultural patterns and discursive practices; understand the
dialectical relationships between global and local processes.
 Cultural Critique: Identify, analyze, and evaluate the decisive role
of power, as embedded in communication, in the socio-historical,
economic, and political formations of cultures; recognize the
potential for becoming an agent of positive change.
2.1 Data Collection:
[Fall 2008] – For this assessment cycle, how were the data collected and what were the results?
See description in section 1.1
2.2
What have you learn about this Student Learning Outcome?
[Spring 2009] – Based on the results in part I., briefly summarize the discussion surrounding this
outcome, i.e., what does the faculty conclude about student learning for this SLO?
See description in section 1.2
Page 4 of 7
Program Assessment Report
2.3
Action Item(s) (if necessary):
[SEMESTER/YEAR] – Based on the discussion in part II., what actions will the department take to
improve student learning, e.g., program changes, changes in pedagogy, process changes, resources
requests, etc?
2.4
Results of Action Items
[SEMESTER/YEAR] – What does assessment of student learning show after
implementation of any action items? What, if anything, is planned next?
Page 5 of 7
Program Assessment Report
3. Information literacy and scholarly practice [technology]

Information Literacy: Demonstrate competence in traditional and
emerging forms of communication technology as relevant to this
discipline.
 Communication Theories: Identify epistemological and ontological
assumptions underlying communication research, including the
conceptual, historical and practical dimensions of major theories
and methods.
 Research Methods: Demonstrate an understanding of the
procedures involved in the more common critical, interpretative,
performative and social scientific research methods used to study
communication.
 Research Argument: Conduct research systematically and
present it persuasively, organizing issues, claims and evidence in
a logical form.
3.1
Data Collection:
[Fall 2008] – For this assessment cycle, how were the data collected and what were the results?
See description in section 1.1
3.2
What have you learn about this Student Learning Outcome?
[Spring 2009] – Based on the results in part I., briefly summarize the discussion surrounding this
outcome, i.e., what does the faculty conclude about student learning for this SLO?
See description in section 1.2
3.3
Action Item(s) (if necessary):
[SEMESTER/YEAR] – Based on the discussion in part II., what actions will the department take to
improve student learning, e.g., program changes, changes in pedagogy, process changes, resources
requests, etc?
Page 6 of 7
Program Assessment Report
3.4
Results of Action Items
[SEMESTER/YEAR] – What does assessment of student learning show after
implementation of any action items? What, if anything, is planned next?
Page 7 of 7