HISTORY: The Speech & Debate Team was founded in 1976 by Tony Woods. Since its
inception, the program has helped hundreds of students develop communication, analytical and
critical thinking skills. Our students have won numerous awards over the past decades and
dozens of awards at the state and national level this year. CCSF is a full service team that offers
debate, interpretation, and public speaking events.
METHODS: We collected data from 10 percent of the student population. The data includes
video recorded speeches from our bi-annual showcase and the televised student success task
force. The video recordings were of interpretation (prose, drama and duo), platform (Speech to
Entertain), limited preparation (impromptu), and debate performances. Additional data included
quizzes and competition ballots.
DATA ANALYSIS:
SLO A:
Students from both the novice and senior levels integrate feedback from ballots, coaches
and peers to improve performances. All members showed confidence in their delivery. Nonnative English speakers take on the additional challenges of vocabulary, pronunciations, and
cultural nuances in nonverbal behavior. Some students have small memorization and fluency
issues that indicate a need for more practice time, but overall students were familiar with content
and made gestures, facial expressions and voices that compliment the content of the speeches.
SLO B:
In addition, other students challenge themselves to produce original works that are
sometimes semi-autobiographical, therein adding another aspect of purposeful risk-taking. There
were a few examples of powerless language and a need for more dramatic arc in two of the
interpretive selections. From what we’ve observed in all types of speeches, students are taking
risks in performances and have justifications for their choices.
SLO C:
After observing limited samples of quiz scores, ballots and observations of performance
preparation, one student showed clear mastery of the platform event, whereas the other student
had a basic understanding. The observed result was a satisfactory mastery of the SLO, but this
may be impacted by the limited available quiz scores and low student interest in the event type.
In the interpretation events the beginning of the semester quiz scores showed a below
average understanding of terms with a 57% success rate. The professors responded with an oral
review and upon a thorough assessment of end of semester presentations, it was clear that
students demonstrated an above average grasp of the material and delivery skills needed for a
successful performance.
In limited preparation events there was an 80% quiz score success rate. The sample
speech additionally revealed an ability to interpret and paraphrase the meaning of the quotation,
a strong grasp of the organization pattern of choice, and an ability to choose from a wide
sampling of diverse examples to support the thesis.
In debate events, there was a very limited sample of quiz scores, however the available
quiz score (100%) indicated the SLO was well met. Additionally, drawing from oral speech
observations and outlines, 8 debaters were observed in a Statewide televised debate and all well
met the SLO.
57 % of students well met the C SLO, 29 % satisfactorily achieved the C SLO, and 14%
need improvement. Combining the well met and satisfactorily met categories, 86 % of students
enrolled in SPCH 37/38 were meeting or exceeding the course expectations.
SLO D:
In the 2011-2012 year long season, the Speech team travelled students to 10 tournaments
in California and Illinois. Students are expected to compete in a minimum of two events
equaling a minimum of 4-6 rounds of speech giving at a single tournament if they do not
advance. Of the 28 students, only 3 missed rounds or did not attend a tournament despite the
given expectations by speech coaches. This number was minimal as these same students
continued to attend the majority of the other tournaments in a lengthy competitive season.
Students were also tested on the Guidelines for Giving and Receiving Feedback and 80%
scored a satisfactory or above average understanding. At this time there is not ample evidence to
measure whether this SLO has been satisfactorily achieved and is additionally addressed under
our recommendations.
SLO E:
82% of students enrolled in SPCH 37/38 well met this SLO, 4% satisfactorily met the
SLO, and 14% need improvement. Most students were ultimately completing a finished product
and presenting said product in a competitive and/or community environment. Considering that
our student body is composed of a highly urban audience who often works and has family
obligations, the challenges of competing in weekend tournaments is noteworthy. SPCH 37 in
particular, provides flexibility to students who want to compete but have limited time to do so.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE INSTRUCTION & ASSESSMENT:
Data Collection:
We believe assessment teams can improve sampling of student work to better represent
CCSF’s diversity with greater attention to aspects of students’ identities (English language
learners, students with disabilities, etc.).
This assessment team believes it might be beneficial to differentiate between SLOs for
Open (returning) vs. novice (1st year) competitors.
We also recommend that future assessment teams focus on 1-2 event areas at a time to
develop better tools for measuring students’ success in achieving SLOs in relation to their chosen
event specialty (interpretation, platform, limited preparation, or debate). This would allow
greater concentration on the specific skills and communication behaviors associated with each
event type.
SLO A:
Develop bookwork techniques that compliment the content of the interpretation selection.
The use of video recorded performances would allow for the instructor to pause and help
students distinguish between effective and ineffective bookwork.
SLO C/D:
Students should read comments by judges and summarize suggestions and/or criticism.
Students then write a ballot reflection and create goals for future performances, which could
serve as additional grading criteria. Furthermore, this student work will help coaches measure
and evaluate the progress students have made over the semester and competitive season.
Feedback forms should attend to specifics of verbal and nonverbal communication in
each event type (interpretation, platform, limited preparation, debate). These feedback forms or
flow charts should push students to consider the structural components and organizational
strategies of each speech type.
SUMMARY:
In sum, students largely meet the expectations set forth in the course outline, competently
presenting a variety of speech types that indicate mastery of research, organization and delivery
skills.