Valencia College
Voter Eligibility List for Curriculum Changes
2011 - 2012
DISCIPLINE OR PROGRAM: SPEECH
Curriculum Committee No. ________
(to be assigned by Committee Assistant)
Name of Program or Course: General Education for AA/AS/AAS Degree(s)
Type of Change
Program:
Course:
___Addition
___Addition
X Modification
___Modification
___Deletion
___Deletion
ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED CHANGE
Listed below are the names of each full-time faculty member, dean and director associated with the specified
discipline or program for the current academic year. It is the responsibility of the initiator to request a response
from each eligible voter (Yes, No, Abstain).
NAME
VOTE
NAME
VOTE
1. Michele McArdle
Yes
19. Lisa Schellpfeffer
Yes
2. Jenni Campbell
20. John Creighton
Yes
3. Della Paul
21. Tina Tan
Yes*
4. Elizabeth Renn
Yes
22.
Patrick Bartee
5. Kim Long
Yes*
23.
Courtney Lewis
6. Linda Anthon
Yes
24.
April Raneri
7. Katie Shephard
Yes*
25.
8. Ron Colburn
26.
9. Oscar Cuan
27.
10. Suzette Dohany
Yes
28.
11. Donna French
29.
12. William Gombash
30.
13. Mayra Holzer
Yes*
31.
14. Deidre Holmes DuBois
No*
32.
15. Michele Lima
33.
16. Beth Perrell
Yes
17. Kathleen Perri
Abstain 35.
18. Edie Gaythwaite
Yes
*Indicates comment (see below)
34.
36.
Comments
Mayra Holzer (Yes)
I believe that this course offers a practical option for a variety of majors that require strong
interpersonal communication skills, such as Nursing. The course contributes significantly to the
General Education Outcome: Communication Skills: Engage in effective interpersonal, oral,
written communication. It not only focuses on interpersonal communication skills, but on oral
communication skills as well (including presentation of speeches). In fact, SPC1608 significantly
contributes to the oral portion, but SPC1017 contributes to both: interpersonal and oral.
Therefore, I think it contributes to General Education Outcome in a more comprehensive manner
than SPC1608 does.
Also, many other departments offer students options to satisfy the Gen Ed Requirement (Science,
Humanities, etc). in a variety of courses, yet speech currently offers no option- students can only
take SPC1608.
The common course outline recently approved for SPC1017 is strategically planned to equip
students with valuable communication skills in a variety of contexts, including speeches.
Therefore, I strongly recommend the adoption of this course as an option to SPC1608.
Katie Tagye Shephard (Yes)
As in many other areas of the Gen Ed program, there are multiple ways of learning about
Communication (such as the option between Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc. are all valid ways
of learning about Science), and I think that it is short-sighted to suggest that one type of study is
better or worse than another. (Is Biology a more legitimate way to study Science than Earth
Science?) Interpersonal Communication is a credible study of communication (many of us have
MA degrees in the study of Interpersonal Communication). It is not a field devoted just to
understanding relationships, it is much richer and diverse than that. In addition, I believe that
many instructors are passionate about the study of Interpersonal Communication and that this
will not become, as it has been suggested, a simpler version of SPC16008. Nor, do I believe that
anyone is pushing this course merely to be able to teach “something different”. Taking SPC1017
may benefit some students more than SPC1608 and vice versa. That decision should be left to
student as it is in the other areas of the Gen Ed program. Students are smart enough to choose,
with guidance, the option that best fits their personal, educational, and career goals.
Kim Long (Yes)
As I am reading over the comments again, I think we need to really make it clear to the
curriculum committee that we know Interpersonal and Public speaking are not the same course.
But most of us agree each skill is equally important, so students should have a choice. They are
different courses, just like Chemistry and Biology are different courses but still in the FIELD of
Science. Students get to select in science, social science, humanities, etc. that is what we are
doing, giving them a choice, as adults.
Tina Tan (Yes)
I'm voting yes because I understand SPC 1017 will still have a public speaking component in it.
Deidre Holmes DuBois (No)
I am strongly against this proposal, and my vote is a firm “no.”
I would like to address several of the arguments that have been posted on the Qualtrics survey or
mentioned previously.
1. A while ago (12 months? 18 months?), quite a few speech faculty had a discussion about
possibly requiring a prerequisite or corequisite in developmental reading and/or writing
for SPC 1608 because we were concerned that our students were not equipped with the
critical reading and writing skills they needed to analyze sources, create outlines, etc.
Now we’ve approved an outline for SPC 1017 that also requires skills that students who
have not completed their developmental classes may not have, and no one has mentioned
this. I’m not sure we should be presenting students with more choices they may not be
prepared for.
2. Speaking of choice, many of my colleagues have mentioned that students deserve
choices. While I agree with this idea, certainly we do not give students choice in some
matters when we know that they will choose the path of least resistance or a course that
they know they can get an easy A in. I just completed work with the LifeMap Faculty
Group, where we discussed the Big A to the Big S advising model. Given that many
students enroll in SPC 1608 relatively early in their college path, I don’t think they have
the long-term perspective they need in order to determine which class will better serve
their needs in future college courses and in the workplace. We need to serve as the Big A
and require students to take SPC 1608. They can take SPC 1017 as an elective if they
later determine the course is one they also need.
3. Another argument posits that some of us are basically stating that public speaking is more
important than interpersonal communication. That is what I’m saying, at least in this
context. Again, if students want to take interpersonal as an additional class, they can take
SPC 1017 as an elective. (And of course, some of my colleagues are saying that
interpersonal is more important, right?)
4. SPC 1608 is important because most students take SPC 1608 relatively early in their
college career, so it will have the almost immediate benefit of helping them with
presentations in classes they take concurrently and after they take SPC 1608. Can anyone
provide me with an example of a class where a student would receive an interpersonal
communication grade? Probably not, but I can name several dozen classes that require
oral presentations.
5. The observation that because SPC 1017 requires one presentation it fulfills the oral
communication component of our General Education requirements is specious at best. In
SPC 1608, students get multiple opportunities for presentations so they can practice what
they have learned and learn from their mistakes. What’s the point of a single
presentation, when it might be terrible? The student will have no additional opportunities
to work on those skills. In fact, if we really think one speech will do it, why do we even
have speech class? The Humanities folks require speeches, and students can satisfy the
oral communication component there. And what if students are absent on their
presentation day? Will they be required to make up the speech in order to be able to pass
the class? If not, why not?
6. Why don’t we just add a single interpersonal outcome to SPC 1608 for students to satisfy
the interpersonal component of the General Education requirement?
7. Meanwhile, I have not found a single colleague in another discipline who, when
presented with the question at hand, thinks students should be allowed to take either SPC
1608 or SPC 1017. Some of the English folks make the analogy of ENC 1102 vs.
creative writing. We want students to take a second writing class to learn certain
conventions of academic writing, so they take ENC 1102. If they would like to pursue
creative writing, they can—as an elective.
8. Someone stated that he or she finds it hard to believe that some people are supporting this
proposal just because they want to teach another class. In fact, I have heard other faculty
members state (in a tone of great enthusiasm) that it would be terrific to be able to teach
something other than SPC 1608 before we even had an inkling of what the interpersonal
course might cover. I don’t imagine that’s the only reason these folks want to see SPC
1017 offered, but it certainly is a compelling reason in the minds of some.
9. I am disturbed by the apparent push for this decision from outside the speech faculty.
10. I also shudder to think about this course eventually being taught online. We are doing a
great disservice to our students by not requiring that communication classes be at least in
a hybrid format rather than entirely online.