1 / 8

2012-2013 Assessment Report The Graduate School Department : Communication

2012-2013 Assessment Report The Graduate School Department : Communication. Chair : Monica Brasted Assessment Coordinator : Joe Chesebro Date of Presentation : October 1, 2013. What was assessed? Student learning outcomes list:.

colton
Télécharger la présentation

2012-2013 Assessment Report The Graduate School Department : Communication

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2012-2013 Assessment ReportThe Graduate SchoolDepartment: Communication Chair: Monica Brasted Assessment Coordinator: Joe Chesebro Date of Presentation: October 1, 2013

  2. What was assessed? Student learning outcomes list: • *****Present work effectively through an oral presentation (or another appropriate form) to an audience using the standards of the field • Synthesize and evaluate communication research • Create and execute a sound communication research plan • Write effectively for an audience of communication scholars

  3. How was the assessment accomplished? • Various assignments: • Present a training module (CMC 483) • Presentation on a major theorist (CMC 692) • Mid-term paper presentation (CMC 696) • Final graduate project presentation (CMC 797) • Assessed with rubrics • Sample size: 33 students (Total student enrollment in the above courses)

  4. Actual assessment data

  5. Actual assessment data

  6. What have the data told us? • There is a discrepancy in outcomes between our traditional courses and our final project presentations • Possible reasons: • Not a traditional course • Expectations are not shared with students • Different faculty rate different presentations (different faculty may be stressing different things when advising students prior to presentations)

  7. What came out of our closing-the-loop discussion in May? • Clarify expectations for final presentations • This process may lead to a revision of our rubric. • At least 3 people should evaluate each presentaiton (this year, typically 1-2 people evaluated each one) • We will consider adding more “gravity” or rigor to these presentations, so that students are less casual and more professional when presenting (this year a few students were too casual in their approach). • Provide more consistent and uniform speaking instruction across our graduate courses, and help them transfer principles to all presentations

  8. What resources were used or have been requested to close the loop? • The usual suspects (time, etc.)

More Related