Program: Communicology (BA)
Date: Tue Dec 07, 2010 - 3:46:04 pm
1) Below are the program student learning outcomes submitted last year. Please add/delete/modify as needed.
- To demonstrate understanding of key concepts and theories of message processing
- To demonstrate understanding of key concepts and theories of social influence
- To demonstrate understanding of key concepts and theories of relational communication
- To demonstrate understanding of the relationship between culture and communication
- To demonstrate the ability to apply the understanding of key concepts and theories of message processing
- To demonstrate the ability to apply the understanding of key concepts and theories of social influence
- To demonstrate the ability to apply the understanding of key concepts and theories of relational communication
- To demonstrate the ability to apply the understanding of the relationship between culture and communication
- The ethics involved in conducting human subjects research
- Basic library and Internet research
- Basic research design, data collection, and analysis
- Structure of basic research reports
2) As of last year, your program's SLOs were published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: http://www.hawaii.edu/speech/c_description.php
3) Below is the link to your program's curriculum map (if submitted in 2009). If it has changed or if we do not have your program's curriculum map, please upload it as a PDF.
- File (03/16/2020)
4) The percentage of courses in 2009 that had course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is indicated below. Please update as needed.
5) State the assessment question(s) and/or goals of the assessment activity. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.
The department wanted to demonstrate that our graduating seniors knew more about human communication than non-majors. An instrument was used that assessed students on multiple items reflecting content peculiar to each of the SLOs.
6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered.
We assess Speech majors' acquisition of fundamental content in human communication as presented in our required classes: SP301, Theories in Speech Communication; Sp 251, Public Speaking; SP302, Introduction to Inquiry; Sp364, Persuasion; SP370/470 (students choose between Verbal or Nonverbal Communication); and SP381, Interpersonal Communication. Specifically, an instrument was developed that uses a multiple choice format to assess students' knowledge of the content areas covered by our core courses. At the end of each semester, all graduating majors are required to complete the assessment instrument online, and the results are compared to data from a control group (students who have taken no, or very few, Speech Classes).
7) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected?
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
8) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence?
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
Compiled survey results
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)
9) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated.
If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
The most recent data set included 60 recent (2008-2010) graduating seniors. Graduating seniors are contacted directly via email during their final semester at UHM. They are directed toward the URL that holds the assessment instrument and asked to complete the assessment during their final semester.
10) Summarize the actual results.
A series of oneway ANOVAs were conducted, comparing Speech-naive students' mean scores to graduating seniors' mean scores on items reflecting content from each of the core classes (i.e., SP251, SP301, SP302, SP364, SP370, SP381, SP470). Graduating seniors' mean scores were significantly higher than Speech-naive students on all courses except SP251 and SP370, with effect sizes ranging from a low of 5% to a high of 40%.
11) How did your program use the results? --or-- Explain planned use of results.
Please be specific.
Results are consistent with analyses dating back to 2000 and are thus not particularly informative. The past year we have been working on a comprehensive change in our assessment plan, as this method of assessing SL is beginning to outlive its usefulness.
12) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.
The variance in effect size has been surprisingly consistent over the past few years. It suggests some materials get reinforced better across classes, i.e., some materials -- such as persuasion or nonverbal communication -- get reinforced across multiple classes. Other materials -- e.g., research methods -- still need reinforcing across classes.
13) Other important information:
We have rewritten our SLOs for about 1/2 of our core classes. This required significant faculty discussion as multiple faculty members teach these courses, and we had to agree on the content that would be considered "core," i.e., the content that would be covered no matter who taught the course. Then this content had to be articulated as SLOs. The next step will be to develop a pool of individual items that will form the basis of test/exam questions. This will allow assessment to be conducted in the classroom as well as upon graduation, providing evidence of retention as well as learning.