STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
SUMMARY FORM AY 2009-2010
Degree and
Program Name:
M.A. in Communication Studies
Submitted By:
Olaf Hoerschelmann
Please complete a separate worksheet for each academic program
(major, minor) at each level (undergraduate, graduate) in your
department. Worksheets are due to CASA this year by June
15, 2010. Worksheets should be sent electronically to
kjsanders@eiu.edu and should also be submitted to your college
dean. For information about assessment or help with your
assessment plans, visit the Assessment webpage at
http://www.eiu.edu/~assess/ or contact Karla Sanders in CASA at
581-6056.
PART ONE
What are the learning
objectives?
How, where, and when are they
assessed?
What are the expectations?
What are the results?
1. Students will have a strong
theoretical knowledge of
communication.
Core comprehensive exams are
required of all students. Students
take core comprehensive exams
after they complete their final
core class.
In their comprehensive exams,
students are evaluated on:
Results from the core
comprehensive exam rubric
(total of 41 rubrics scored):
All graduate faculty are expected
to participate in the evaluation
process. Exams are evaluated as
pass or fail. Additionally, an
assessment rubric is used to
evaluate the quality of student
work.
-Understanding of scholarship
-Ability to provide an original
answer
-Ability to analyze and
synthesize information
-Organization and
development of argument
-Writing style and mechanics
of writing
It is expected that the mean of
all core comprehensive exams
will equate to a ranking of
‘competent’.
This translates to mean scores
between 10 and 15 on our
comprehensive exam
grading/assessment rubric in
the areas of scholarship,
originality, and
analysis/synthesis.
-Scholarship:
12.34 (competent)
-Originality:
12.19 (competent)
-Analysis/synthesis:
11.87 (competent)
Students’ theoretical
knowledge of
communication met our
expectations.
Committee/ person
responsible? How are
results shared?
Graduate coordinator
administers
comprehensive exams; all
graduate faculty
participate in the grading
of exams and in the
scoring of rubrics.
Results are shared with
course instructors and the
graduate committee.
2. Students will be able to
apply communication theory
in a broad range of situations
and contexts.
Core and elective comprehensive
exams, creative projects, and
creative theses.
Elective comprehensive exams
are evaluated by faculty with
expertise in elective areas. An
assessment rubric is used to
evaluate the quality of student
work.
Theses are evaluated by theses
committees. Thesis topics and
committee structure is approved
by the graduate committee, the
graduate coordinator, and the
department chair. Students
defend their thesis in front of
their thesis committee. Thesis
committees typically consist of
three members of EIU’s graduate
faculty.
In their comprehensive exams,
students are evaluated on:
-Understanding of scholarship
-Ability to provide an original
answer
-Ability to analyze and
synthesize information
It is expected that the mean of
all core and elective
comprehensive exams will
equate to a ranking of
‘competent’.
This translates to mean scores
between 10 and 15 on our
comprehensive exam
grading/assessment rubric in
the areas of scholarship,
originality, and
analysis/synthesis.
All students who write theses
are expected to pass their
thesis defense.
3. Students are able to
communicate effectively in
written and spoken form.
The comprehensive exam
grading/assessment rubric is
used to evaluate student work.
Rubric is used for both core and
elective comprehensive exams.
The speech evaluation rubric is
In their comprehensive exams,
students are evaluated on:
-Organization and
development of argument
-Writing style and mechanics
of writing
Results from the core
comprehensive exam rubric
(total of 41 rubrics scored):
-Scholarship:
12.34 (competent)
-Originality:
12.19 (competent)
-Analysis/synthesis:
11.87 (competent)
Students’ ability to apply
communication theory met
our expectations.
Graduate coordinator
administers
comprehensive exams; all
graduate faculty
participate in the grading
of exams and in the
scoring of rubrics.
Results are shared with
course instructors and the
graduate committee.
Results from the elective
comprehensive exam rubric
(total of 9 rubrics scored):
-Scholarship:
14.67 (competent)
-Originality:
15.00 (highly competent)
-Analysis/synthesis:
14.67 (competent)
Students’ ability to apply
communication theory met
our expectations.
Graduate students completed
7 theses in the 2009/10
academic year. This includes
3 creative theses and 4
traditional theses. All
students passed their theses
defense. This result meets
expectations.
Results from the core
comprehensive exam rubric
(total of 41 rubrics scored):
-Organization/development:
7.15 (competent)
-Style and mechanics:
Graduate coordinator
administers
comprehensive exams; all
graduate faculty
participate in the grading
of exams and in the
scoring of rubrics.
used to evaluate student
presentation skills.
Rubric is used in core and
elective classes.
It is expected that the mean of
all comprehensive exams will
equate to a ranking of
‘competent’.
This translates to mean scores
between 5 and 7.5 on our
comprehensive exam
grading/assessment rubric in
the areas of
organization/development and
style and mechanics.
In the speech evaluation rubric,
student presentations are
evaluated on organization,
language, material, delivery,
analysis, and voice.
Since most of our graduate
students have a background in
communication, we expect that
scores on the speech
evaluation rubric are at least 3
(competent) or 4 (highly
competent) for all students.
4. Students will complete
advanced research in
communication.
Two core classes and two core
comprehensive exams are
focused on research skills.
We expect that at least 65% of
comprehensive exams receive
a faculty evaluation of ‘pass’.
7.00 (competent)
Students’ ability to
communicate effectively in
written form met our
expectations.
Results from the elective
comprehensive exam rubric
(total of 9 rubrics scored):
-Organization/development:
7.11 (competent)
-Style and mechanics:
7.22 (competent)
Core comprehensive exams
met our expectations.
Results are shared with
course instructors and the
graduate committee.
All faculty teaching
graduate courses are
expected to complete
speech evaluation rubrics.
Results are shared with
the graduate committee.
Results from the speech
evaluation rubric (total of
19 rubrics scored):
-Organization:
3.58 (competent-highly
competent)
-Language:
3.79 (highly competent)
-Material:
3.68 (highly competent)
-Delivery:
3.68 (highly competent)
-Analysis:
3.68 (highly competent)\
-Voice:
-3.68 (highly competent)
Students’ ability to
communicate effectively in
spoken form met our
expectations.
Graduate students wrote
comprehensive exams on 41
questions. A total of 12
questions were evaluated as
Graduate coordinator
administers
comprehensive exams; all
graduate faculty
Theses projects are expected to
display develop original,
advanced research.
Students are encouraged to
submit research for presentation
on campus and to regional and
national outlets.
We expect that at least half of
all graduating master’s
students complete a thesis or
creative thesis.
‘fail’, 29 were evaluated as
‘pass’. This represents a
70% pass rate, which meets
our initial expectations.
We expect that graduate
students will make at least 10
research presentation on
campus and at least 10
research presentations at
regional, national, or
international conferences.
Out of 13 graduating
students, 7 completed a
thesis, two theses are still in
progress over the summer.
This exceeds our initial
expectations.
Graduate students made 11
research presentations on
campus. This number meets
our expectations.
Graduate students made 22
research presentations at
regional, national, or
international conferences.
This exceeds our
expectations.
Additionally, three of our
students received research
awards from the Graduate
School and from a
professional organization
and 13 students received
Williams travel awards.
5. Students will be adequately
prepared to pursue a Ph.D. if
desired.
Data is collected on graduates of
our program applying and
completing doctoral degrees.
We expect that all graduate
students who desire to gain
admission to doctoral
programs will be able to do so.
Several of our 2010
graduates plan to apply to
Ph.D. in the near future, but
have not yet done so.
One 2010 graduate has
applied to one university, but
failed to be accepted. This
student will apply to a wider
range of Ph.D. programs
participate in the grading
of exams and in the
scoring of rubrics.
Results are shared with
course instructors and the
graduate committee.
Theses are approved by
the graduate committee.
Theses completions are
announced to the graduate
committee and the
graduate faculty.
Graduate coordinator
collects data on student
research productivity.
Results are shared with
graduate committee and
graduate faculty. Student
awards and grants are
announced in the
departmental newsletter,
and displayed on the
departmental website.
The Graduate
coordinator’s annual
report on graduate
research, creative activity,
awards, and grants is also
posted on the
departmental website.
Students’ acceptance to
doctoral programs is
shared with graduate
committee and graduate
faculty.
next academic year.
Graduates of our program
from the last 6 years are
currently enrolled in the
following Ph.D. programs:
Koeli Goel (2008):
University of Illinois,
Institute for Communication
Research
Brent Yergensen (2006):
University of NebraskaLincoln, Dept. of
Communication
John Dowd (2006):
Purdue University, Dept. of
Communication
Philipp Semenov (2005):
Stanford University, Dept. of
Communication
Kane Click (2004):
University of NebraskaLincoln, Dept. of
Communication
Abdissa Zerai (2005):
University of New Mexico,
Dept. of Communication and
Journalism
Jessica Nodulman (2006):
University of New Mexico,
Dept. of Communication and
Journalism
Overall, our graduates have
been very successful at
obtaining admission to Ph.D.
6. Students will learn how to
obtain employment consistent
with their career goals and
objectives.
Graduates are encouraged to stay
in contact with the program to
allow us to track their careers.
Students in the pedagogy option
are evaluated in their practicum
(by a faculty member) and in
their internship (by an on-site
internship coordinator) using our
internship assessment form .
Students are advised and
trained to find a career that fits
their academic preparation.
We expect that all of our
students will ultimately be able
to do so.
Due to the diversity of careers
that our students engage in, no
specific expectations can be
articulated. The longer term
careers of our alumni will be
tracked and evaluated once
sufficient data is available.
We expect that all students in
our pedagogy option will
receive ratings of ‘good’ and
‘excellent’ on our internship
assessment form.
programs. Our recent
success at placing graduate
students in doctoral
programs meets our
expectations.
Thirteen students graduated
this academic year or will
graduate over the summer.
Below is our job placement
record:
-4 students were already
employed
-4 students were placed in
appropriate jobs. 2 of these
students obtained faculty
positions at Parkland
College and the College of
Du Page.
-1 student obtained an
internship position
-1 student is currently
interviewing for jobs
-2 students are currently
looking for employment
Although we are not able to
articulate specific
expectations for placement, I
believe that our students
have been extremely
successful in the job market
this year.
Student Internship
Assessment rubric scores
(2 rubrics submitted):
Excellent: 72%
Good: 26%
Satisfactory: 1.6%
These scores meet our
expectations.
Job placement success is
shared with graduate
committee and graduate
faculty, is announced in
the departmental
newsletter, and displayed
on the departmental
website.
PART TWO
Describe what your program’s assessment accomplishments since your last report was submitted. Discuss ways in which you have responded to
the CASA Director’s comments on last year’s report or simply describe what assessment work was initiated, continued, or completed.
After reviewing the assessment program for the MA in Communication Studies and after reviewing the comments by Dr. Sanders and Dean
Augustine, I initiated a number of additions and improvements to our assessment plan.
The main changes to assessment of our graduate program are: (1) Definition of expectations for student performance in most areas. (2) Addition
of the learning objective Students are able to communicate effectively in written and spoken form to our assessment program. (3) Addition of two
assessment rubrics to our assessment program (Comprehensive Exam Grading Rubric and Speech Evaluation Form). The Comprehensive Exam
Grading Rubric was designed by Dr. Gronnvoll, a member of the graduate committee, specifically for assessment purposes. It is now used to
assess learning objectives 1, 2, and 3. The Speech Evaluation Form is already commonly used in departmental assessment and in assessment
across the university. It is used to assess part of learning objective 3.
I have also made efforts to document student research, Ph.D. placement, job placement, and student achievement in general in more detail. I am
planning to collect and incorporate longitudinal data in future assessment reports. The areas of placement in doctoral programs and job placement
are particularly difficult to document with short-term, one year data. Many of our students do not apply for doctoral programs for several years and
the careers of our graduates will likewise develop over a longer time period.
Another assessment effort that does not directly relate to the learning objectives documented in part one of this report are the exit interviews that I
regularly conduct with our graduating students. Based on these interviews, I conclude that the changes we instituted in our core classes and our
comprehensive exam process over the last 3 years have not had a negative impact on the program. Specifically, exit interviews indicate that a vast
majority (90%) of students are satisfied with the program in general and our revised comprehensive exam process in particular. The main
suggestions for improvements I received from students relate to the content of one of our core classes, which 30% of our students perceived as too
narrow. Adjustments have been made to the content covered in this class. Several students also commented that they would like to have an
opportunity for more specialization in their course of study. This is an observation that is currently under consideration in the graduate committee.
The graduate committee has surveyed faculty and graduate students regarding vision and focus of the graduate program. Based on these surveys,
the graduate committee is exploring the viability of several tracks within the program to allow students to engage in a more focused program of
study. Members of the graduate committee will continue this process in the summer. We hope to have a revised vision statement and suggestions
for program development in place by August 2010.
Finally, I reviewed student performance in course work as well as in comprehensive exams in relation to student GPA at the time of admission.
While I have only had a very small sample to review so far, it appears that there might be a correlation between low undergraduate GPA and
success in our program.
PART THREE
Summarize changes and improvements in curriculum, instruction, and learning that have resulted from the implementation of your assessment
program. How have you used the data? What have you learned? In light of what you have learned through your assessment efforts this year and
in past years, what are your plans for the future?
Due to the vague nature of last year’s report, it has been difficult to implement specific changes or improvements. This is my first year as graduate
coordinator, and I have implemented the following changes so far:
-Based on some of my observations discussed in part two, the graduate committee has decided to be more restrictive in admitting students with
GPAs below 3.0 and in admitting probationary students with a GPA below 2.75. We hope that this will further improve success rates in
comprehensive exams as well as degree completion rates.
-As pointed out in part two of this report, several students commented on the course content of one of our core classes. This issue has been
addressed through changes in this particular class.
-A self-study that was initiated in the previous academic year was left incomplete when I took over as graduate coordinator. The graduate
committee has continued work on this self study and will make recommendations for curricular revision for the fall 2010.
-One of the results from the last two assessment reports is that one of our departmental strengths is fostering graduate research. All graduate
faculty encourage research activity in their classes and students are further encouraged and supported in their efforts to present their work in
various settings. For example, students regularly receive financial support for trips to conferences and the graduate coordinator assists students
with finding appropriate outlets for their work on campus and in professional organizations.
-A final strength of our program is the creation of highly successful thesis projects. Our students have received multiple awards and grants for their
thesis work over the last years. It is one of our goals to increase the number of students who write theses.