assessment: course four column - el camino college...course slos assessment method description...

El Camino: Course SLOs (FA) - Communication Studies

FALL 2016Assessment: Course Four Column

ECC: COMS 100 (formerly COMS 1):Public Speaking

Course SLOs Assessment MethodDescription Results Actions

SLO #1 Prepare and Deliver Speeches- Prepare and deliver speeches thatcontain informative and/orpersuasive components with a clearthesis, logical organization of mainpoints, credible sources,supplemental audience-based visualaids, and a citation page.

Inactive Date:

Course SLO Assessment Cycle: 2014-15 (Fall 2014)

Course SLO Status: Active

Input Date: 05/15/2014

Comments:: % of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Jason DavidsonFaculty Contributing to Assessment: All full- and part-timefaculty teaching COMS 1 in Fall 2014

Action:COMS-1 instructors shouldconsider meeting to discussassignments which stress thecredibility of sources and effectiveuse of visual aids. (08/20/2015)

Follow-Up: We have discussedthis action among ourselveswithin the department, offeredideas on how to share thisinformation with part time facultyand have not yet made a decisionon next steps to follow.(11/04/2015)

Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15 (Fall2014)Standard Met? : Standard Met17 faculty assessed 204 students on their preparation anddelivery of one speech.Results indicate that students scored higher on "Clearthesis" (102 students) and "Logical main points." (109students). This is clearly an area of strength.Results indicate that students scored lower on "Crediblesources" (82 students), "Visual aid" (86 students), and"Citation page" (71 students). This is an area of moderateweakness with potential for growth. (03/09/2015)

Performance - This narrative wasdistributed to the faculty assigned toconduct the assessment.Please pick an assignment in yourclass in the second half of thesemester in which students have theoption to use: 1. A Thesis 2.An Organizational Pattern 3.Credible Sources 4. Audience-based VA(s) 5. A Citation Page NOTE: The assignment need notREQUIRE a VA. However, studentsshould have the option to use one(or not use one) at their owndiscretion. You, as the evaluator,will judge whether "using or notusing a VA" was the correct, mosteffective choice. Randomly pick one of your speakingdays for the assignment, andcomplete the rubric, rating at least(but no more than) 12 studentpresentations. (Also, be sure tocomplete the page which totals theratings.) When finished, please givethe forms to Jason Davidson, no

01/23/2018 of 16Generated by TracDat® a product of Nuventive


later than 8am, Monday, December1, 2014.NOTE: You are to fill out the formsanonymously, but make sure to handthem to Jason in person, so he canmark you off the list. All data will be kept strictlyconfidential. So, please be asobjective as possible. Additionally,note that your ratings can never(and will never) be used in regards tosalary or hiring decisions. In fact,after the data have been collectedand totaled, your forms will bedestroyed.___________________________________________________________________________Rate each element for each studentpresentation with one of thefollowing:A = Exceptional (In the top 10% I’veencountered in this course) In otherwords, “This element would receivea 90% or higher in my course.”B = Above Average (In the top 20%I’ve encountered, but notextraordinary) In other words, “Thiselement would receive an 80-89% inmy course.”C = Average (Adequate. Not bad.Not great. It was done.) In otherwords, “This element would receivea 70-79% in my course.”D = Needed Work (Attempt wasmade, but neededrefinement/alterations.) In otherwords, “This element would receivea 60-69% in my course.”E = Non-Existent In other words,



Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that 65% of students willscore “Above Average” in each ofthe categories stipulated by the SLO.

Related Documents:COMS 1 SLO 1 Rubric.pdfCOMS 1 SLO 1 study data.pdf

Additional Information:

“This element would receive a 59%or lower in my course.”

SLO #2 Exhibit Basic Competency inVerbal and Non-verbal Delivery Skills- Exhibit basic competency in bothverbal and non-verbal delivery skills.

Inactive Date:




Comments::

Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that 65% of students willscore “Above Average” in each ofthe categories stipulated by the SLOrubric.

Related Documents:SLO 2 Rubric.pdf

% of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Jason DavidsonFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Gary Robertson, KatieBarone, Joseph Evans, Kelly Janke, Anthony Cuomo, JuliaMattews, Larry Leach, Lucretia Wright, Helene Wagner,Katrina Taylor, Minodora Moldoveanu, Elyse Peterson,Fariba Sadeghi-Tabrizi, Daryle NaganoRelated Documents:SLO2study.pdf

Action: COMS-1 instructors shouldconsider meeting to discussassignments which stress thecredibility of sources and effectiveuse of visual aids. (08/22/2016)

Follow-Up: Action was discussedin department meeting and willbe shared with instructors.(11/13/2017)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16 (Fall2015)Standard Met? : Standard MetResults attached. Standard was met. Students scoredhigher on “Variety in Vocal Pitch & Rate” and “SufficientVolume & Articulation”, but scored lower overall in“Sustained Eye Contact” and “Effective Gestures & PhysicalControl”. (02/05/2016)


Performance - Instrument Attached– Given to faculty teaching (12 total)teaching COMS-1 in Fall 2015.120 students were assessed.

SLO #3 Reasoning and Evidence -Evaluate speeches for organization,sound reasoning, and verbal and non-verbal delivery skills.

Inactive Date:




Standard and Target for Success: 75percent of the students will be ableto effectively utilize the providedrubric to evaluate the speaker.

% of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Jason DavidsonFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Fariba Sadeghi-TabriziRelated Documents:

Action: This SLO needs to bechanged. The assessment methodwas not particularly useful, normeaningful. The only interestingitem from this assessment was thedifferences between studentsfrom Adjunct Faculty sections vs.students from full-time facultysections.---While students fromfull-time faculty sections closely

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17 (Fall2016)Standard Met? : Standard Met248 of potentially 320 students were able to effectivelyevaluate the speaker. Therefore, 77.5% of the studentswere able to evaluate the speaker. (03/02/2017)

Survey/Focus Group - Students in 10sections of COMS-100 were asked toattend "Phantasms 3", a lecture oncampus, and to rate the speaker in12 categories regarding content,verbal and nonverbal delivery.


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=N21VCoZFelfk

https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=8uR4u9HyAff7

https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=JWKR2IHuOZ3l

https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=WjiYyfN8Hil5


Comments:: COMS100SLO3.xlsxagreed on their ratings of thespeaker, the students fromAdjunct Faculty sections eitherrated much higher or much lowerthan the average students fromfull-time faculty sections. Ifanything, this assessment revealedless about how well we're helpingstudents achieve this outcome andrevealed more regarding the lackof standardization among AdjunctFaculty sections. This SLOstatement needs to be revised,preferably with a more effectivemethod of assessment in mind.(03/02/2018)

Follow-Up: SLO has beenchanged. (11/13/2017)

Action Category: SLO/PLOAssessment Process



https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=QZqQgId1a44p

ECC: COMS 120 (formerly COMS 4):Argumentation and Debate


SLO #1 Fundamental Concepts ofCommunication Theories - Uponcompletion of the course, studentswill be able to understand andidentify fundamental concepts ofcommunication theories that governargumentation and debate.

Inactive Date:




Comments::

Standard and Target for Success:Since the method I selected was amultiple choice exam, the standardto determine success was prettystraight forward. Each question hadfour possible answers. While therewas one correct answer for eachquestion, the "wrong" answers hadvarying bits of truth regarding theargumentation theory. Thus, I wasable to get a 1-4 level grasp on howwell the student understood theconcept.

My goal was for no student to scorebelow a 70% on any of the

Action: Since question #4demonstrated student weaknessesin ancient argumentation theory, Isuggest that teachers spend a bitmore time explaining not only theconcepts but also how the ancienttheories tie into modern theoriesof argumentation. I personallyplan to spend a full week (not justa class) on this concept the nexttime I teach Comm 4. Additionally,I suggest referencing the ancientargumentation theory whenmodern theory is discussed orlectured. Thus, students canunderstand the concepts withinthe proper contexts. (01/25/2016)

Follow-Up: Recommended actionwas suggested to faculty whoteach the course. (03/03/2017)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15 (Fall2014)Standard Met? : Standard MetAll students scored 70% or better thus meeting theminimum requirement for SLO success.

Question Breakdown:

1) POOR <60% CORRECT: 0%, FAIR 60-70% CORRECT: 1%,GOOD 70-80% CORRECT: 9%, EXCELLENT 80-90% CORRECT:11%, AND EXCEPTIONAL 90-100% CORRECT: 79%




5) POOR <60% CORRECT: 0%, FAIR 60-70% CORRECT: 0%,GOOD 70-80% CORRECT: 12%, EXCELLENT 80-90%CORRECT: 10%, AND EXCEPTIONAL 90-100% CORRECT: 84%

6) POOR <60% CORRECT: 0%, FAIR 60-70% CORRECT: 0%,GOOD 70-80% CORRECT: 14%, EXCELLENT 80-90%CORRECT: 6%, AND EXCEPTIONAL 90-100% CORRECT: 80%

Explanation of the data: The scale from poor to exceptionalrelates to each possible answer for individual questions."Poor" means that the student left the question blank,"Fair" means that the student's answer contained very littlecorrect information, "Good" means that the student's

Exam/Test/Quiz - Four sections ofthe Comm 4 course was tested usinga multiple choice exam. 116 studentswere surveyed. They consented tothe exam and were not given anypreparation or notes. The examconsisted of six questions: Each ofthe six questions related to one ofthe four major theories ofargumentation covered in the coursematerial. The first two questionscorresponded to "Toulmin's theoryof argumentation", the thirdcorresponded with "Aristotle'sproofs", the fourth correspondedwith Hagel's "Dialectic theory", andthe fifth and sixth corresponded withthe theory behind "trichotomy"(Fact, Value, and Policy debate).

Students were given ten minutes tocomplete the exam.



questions.

I expected that 80% of studentswould score a 70% or higher

The results exceeded myexpectations. All students scored a70% or higher on all six questions.The results demonstrate that thestudents have a very good grasp ofthe fundamental conceptssurrounding the majorargumentation theories. With thelarge test group, it appears that thestudents are retaining the correctinformation pertaining to theircourse.

% of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Joseph EvansFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Francesca BishopRelated Documents:SLO data breakdown

answer was partially correct and missing detail, "Excellent"means that the student's answer was mostly correct butmissed minor details, and "Exceptional" means that thestudent answered the question completely correct.

As demonstrated by the statistics, no student in all foursections left a question blank. This means that 100% of thestudents surveyed had a foundational understanding ofargumentation. Additionally, the fact that each questionhad at least 70% of students answer correctly is a positiveindicator that this SLO has been satisfied.

Strengths and weaknesses: The data suggests that studentshad a strong foundation in the area of public debate theory.The last two questions (5-6) ask students to delineatebetween two debate theories. The fact that students scoredthe highest on these questions indicate that instruction inthe area of debate theory appears to be adequate. In termsof weaknesses, question #4 had the lowest scoring data. Itappears that students need a bit more instruction andexplanation in older argumentation concepts since thequestion tested the students on an ancient Greekargumentation theory. (02/04/2015)


SLO #2 Basic Ability to ArgueLogically - Upon completion of thecourse, students should be able todemonstrate basic ability to arguelogically using sound reasoning andcredible evidence that support anddefend claims.




Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that 70% of students willcomplete the exercise with a scoreof 70% or above.

Action: Add course prerequisite toComms 4 to increase studentreadiness to take the course.Eligibility for English 1A has beensuggested by the department inthe past. (01/29/2017)

Follow-Up: Recommended actionhas been discussed again andsuggested to the Dean.

Action Category: CurriculumChanges

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16 (Fall2015)Standard Met? : Standard Met60 students were evaluated at the completion of the FallSemester of 2015. Students were provided a partner, atopic, and were obligated to research both sides of thattopic. The day of the assessment, students presentedeither the affirmative or negative side of the topic in adebate. Scores revealed that 48 out of 60 students receiveda score of 70% or better-or 80 percent of the 60 studentsreceived a score of 70 percent or better. The analysis of the


Performance - Students argued inteam debate formats. Each studentwas evaluated based on delivery,logic/reasoning, organization, andrefutation.


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=7dDOXgyhR1l8


Inactive Date:Comments::

% of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Mark CrossmanFaculty Contributing to Assessment:

(03/03/2017)data reveals that we are meeting the goal, but couldcontinue to improve to reach those students who have notmet the goal. (01/29/2016)

SLO #3 Basic Competency in Verbaland Non-verbal Delivery Skills - Uponcompletion of the course, studentsshould be able to exhibit basiccompetency in both verbal and non-verbal delivery skills.

Inactive Date:




Comments::

% of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Joseph EvansFaculty Contributing to Assessment:

Action: More opportunities topractice nonverbal delivery skills inForensics and Argumentationcourses. (03/30/2018)Action Category: TeachingStrategies

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17 (Fall2016)Standard Met? : Standard Met____27________ of students scored 2 or 3 ( Target orabove) on this assessment_____3_______ of students scored 1 or 0 ( Below Target) onthis assessment

Data indicates that students were more proficient in Eyecontact in terms of nonverbal communication delivery skills.Data indicates that students were generally more proficientin verbal delivery skills.Overall, students' scores in nonverbal delivery skills incourses related to Argumentation and Forensics were lowerthan other courses.

(02/01/2017)

Presentation/Skill Demonstration -Students in Comms 120(Argumentation) in theCommunication Department wereassessed for their verbal andnonverbal delivery skills. At least onesection from each of the abovecourses was selected and students ineach class were evaluated whilegiving a speech or presentation usinga common rubric (below).Rubric - students were evalutatedfor proficiency in the following 6categories:I - Vocal expressiveness > varyingvolume, pitch, tone, rateII - Fluency > without vocal fillers(Uhs, ums, like, etc.)III - Facial expressiveness > varying tomatch contentIV - Posture > firm without adaptors(unnecessary/unconciousmovements)V - Eye contact > encompassingentire audienceVI - Gestures > emblems, illustrators,signposts

Grading Rubric0 = Not assessed/non-existent1 = Below expectation > 79 or less2 = Met expectation > 80 - 89% >Target



Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that 80% of students willscore 80% or higher on thisassessment.

Related Documents:FALL 2016 COMS 4 SLO 3.docx


3 = Above expectation > 90 - 100%


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=zdQFHliAaWlF

ECC: COMS 140 (formerly COMS 3):Small Group Communication


SLO #1 Understanding BasicCommunication - Upon completion ofthe course, students should be ableto understand and explain basiccommunication theories related togroup membership.

Inactive Date:




Comments::Standard and Target for Success:A score of 50-59% is consideredBelow FairA score of 60-69% is considered FairA score of 70-79% is consideredAverageA score of 80-89% is consideredAbove AverageA score of 90- 95% is consideredExcellentA score of 95% or higher isconsidered Exceptional

Related Documents:SLOforCommunicationsStudies3.pdf

% of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Rosemary SwadeFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Full- and part-timefaculty teaching COMS 3Related Documents:COMS 3 SLO TEMPLATE.doc

Action: Recommend that allinstructors to teach at least oneunit on critical thinking and groupdecision making. (12/08/2014)

Follow-Up: We have discussedthis action among ourselveswithin the department, offeredideas on how to share thisinformation with part time facultyand have not yet made a decisionon next steps to follow.

(10/22/2015)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15 (Fall2014)Standard Met? : Standard Not MetOut of 12 classes that were assessed, three classes met the70% Average goal for passing the SLO assessment. 9 classesfell short of the expected goal. 3 of the 9 that fell shortwere in the high 60% range. 5 others were in the low 60%range. One class was at 47%.Data analyses show that students scored in the 80% rangeon questions regarding group membership theory. Thisresult is well above department norm.Data analyses show that on average students scored in the50% range for questions regarding critical thinking andgroup decision making.It is important to note that each faculty used their choice oftextbook which may account for the lack of critical thinkingtaught in class. Students in classes that do focus on criticalthinking generally passed or were close to passing the SLOgoal.

(12/08/2014)


Exam/Test/Quiz - Students, inmultiple sections of COMS 3,answered a quiz containing 10questions on the basiccommunication theories related togroup membership. 5 questionsrelated to theories of groupmembership and 5 questions werecritical thinking questions related tologic and group-decision making.

SLO #2 Audience-based GroupProjects - Upon completion of thecourse, students should be able toprepare and participate in delivery ofaudience-based group projects thatinclude credible research, logicalorganization, supplemental visualaid/s, and a citation page.Course SLO Status: Active

Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that 80% of students will

Action: Also suggested is thatinstructors lecture and showexamples of appropriate powerpoint slide etiquette and usage.(04/04/2016)

Follow-Up: Faculty teaching thiscourse were advised to provide


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16 (Fall2015)Standard Met? : Standard Met199 students in multiple courses that related to this SLOwere assessed.Students’ strengths - Data analyses show that all students inall classes either met or exceeded departmental standardsand goals (ratings of 4 = Excellent) for preparing anaudience-based presentation and were able to find and

Presentation/Skill Demonstration -All, but one, COMS 3 courses wereassessed. Faculty graded students’group-presentations using astandard rubric.


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=ctHyeCzOoS7q

https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=Kkd56nbzmjzr


Inactive Date:

Course SLO Assessment Cycle: 2015-16 (Fall 2015)Input Date: 12/02/2013

Comments::

score 80 or higher on thisassessment.

% of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Rosemary SwadeFaculty Contributing to Assessment: All part- and full-timefaculty teaching the courseRelated Documents:COMS 3 SLO #2 RESULTS.docxCOMS 3 SLO #2 STANDARD RUBRIC.docxTracDat COMS 3 SLO #2 Template_FORM.doc

examples for students.(03/03/2017)

Action: It is recommended that allinstructors lecture APA as a way tointroduce it to students as it willbe useful for them to becomeproficient in APA as their academiccareer continues. It isrecommended that this isdiscussed at a COMS departmentmeeting and if the departmentagrees we need to share this withour part time instructors.(04/04/2016)

Follow-Up: Recommended actionwas discussed in Departmentmeeting and with faculty teachingthe course. (03/03/2017)


effectively use credible research, as well as, logicallyorganize their material.Students weaknesses – although students scored AboveAverage (rating 3 = Above Average) for creating andeffectively using visual aids and effectively preparing acitation page in APA format, there is room for improvementin these areas.

(12/01/2015)


SLO #3 Basic Competency - Uponcompletion of the course, studentsshould be able to demonstrate basiccompetency in both verbal and non-verbal delivery skills.

Inactive Date:




Comments::

Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that 80% of students willscore 80% or higher on thisassessment

Action: Eligibility for English 1A aspre-requisite. (09/14/2017)

Follow-Up: Recommendation wasdiscussed in Departmentmeetings and the Dean.(03/03/2017)

Action Category:Program/College Support

Action: Continue with currentteaching methods (which areworking for the majority ofstudents). Possible discussion indepartment meeting in regards totutoring for students who needextra help. (12/13/2016)

Follow-Up: Providing tutoring has


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17 (Fall2016)Standard Met? : Standard Met104 Students, 87% received a 2 (Target) or a 3 (Higher thanTarget) on their verbal delivery skills.105 Students, 88% received a 2 (Target) or a 3 (Higher thanTarget) on their nonverbal delivery skills.11 Students, 9% received a 1 (Below Target) on both verbaland nonverbal delivery skills.3 Students, 2.5% received a 0 (Not Assessed) on both verbaland nonverbal delivery skills.

The data indicates that the majority of students areperforming at a basic competency level for both verbal andnonverbal delivery skills.

The data also indicates that students who did not meet theTarget scored low on both verbal and nonverbal deliveryAdditional Information:

Presentation/Skill Demonstration -120 Students (from 5 out of 8 sectiosof COMS140 - 63%) were assessedfor this SLO.Students gave a presentation andwere assessed for their verbal andnonverbal delivery skills using therubric below.Rubric:0 = Not assessed1 = 79% or less2 = 80 - 89% > Target3 = 90% or higher


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=jaMKqsFBKaYs

https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=UIMmig6o5wrn

https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=sykYJDC8GZut


% of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Rosemary SwadeFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Julia MathewsRelated Documents:COMS 140 SLO 3 FALL 2016.docx

been discussed in Departmentmeetings, but lack of funding isdelaying implementation.(03/03/2017)

skills. Important to note that the students with lower gradeswere non-native English speakers. These students may havebenefited from taking English A prior to taking this class.Non-proficiency may lead to high CommunicationApprehension or poor understanding of assignments andlower scores.The low percentage does not necessitate a change inteaching methods. (12/13/2016)


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=ts2D7nbg8Xat

ECC: COMS 250 (formerly COMS 8):Oral Interpretation of Literature


SLO #1 Interpret Literary Devices -Upon completion of the course,students will be able to interpret andexplain genres of literature includingpoetry, prose, short-story, anddrama.

Inactive Date:




Comments::

Standard and Target for Success:70% competency is the goal of thedepartment.

% of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Rosemary SwadeFaculty Contributing to Assessment: Diana Crossman

Action: Next semester I plan toincorporate more detail into thediscussion of genre. I believe Ineed more time for examples andI also assumed they already had abasic knowledge of literature. Ithink I overestimated this.(01/20/2015)

Follow-Up: I have incorporatedmore details into the discussionof genre. (10/25/2015)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15 (Fall2014)Standard Met? : Standard Not Met19 students took the exam and half of the studentssurveyed either met the department norm or exceeded it.Students did well on 3 questions, moderately well on 2questions, moderately poorly on 1 question, and poorly on2 questions. The question they did poorest on concernedpoetry and being able to determine the genre. The secondto worst question concerned duo and if the nature of duointerpretation is prose, poetry, drama or none in particular.(12/11/2014)


Exam/Test/Quiz - Eight multiplechoice questions were given to aclass of 19 students.

SLO #2 Prepare and DeliverPerformances - Upon completion ofthe course, students will be able toprepare and deliver performancesthat clear organization, and audienceadaptation.

Inactive Date:




Comments::

Standard and Target for Success: Itwas expected that 75% percent ofstudent would receive a score of 20or higher. In other words, 75% ofstudents would achieve a grade of Bor higher on the assessment.

% of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Diana CrossmanFaculty Contributing to Assessment:

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16 (Fall2015)Standard Met? : Standard Met23 students achieved a score of 20 or higher. Therefore,85% percent of students completed the assessment with a Bor higher. The data reveals that the vast majority ofstudents in Communication Studies 8 are meeting orexceeding the standard expected for this SLO.(01/31/2016)

% of Success for this SLO:

Action: While 80 percent ofstudents did meet the standard forslo 2, 20 percent of students didnot. As a consequence, I wouldrecommend that the departmentprovide more opportunities tohelp remediate lesser achievingstudents. There has beendiscussion about the

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16 (Fall2015)Standard Met? : Standard MetData analysis revealed that 80% percent of studentsachieved 75% or higher on the assessment. This standardexceeds the expected outcome and suggests that studentsare competent on the second slo standard for the course.(12/07/2015)


Performance - In their finalmonologue 28 students performedtheir choice of prose, poetry, ordrama. The monologue wasevaluated, in part, on the criteria oforganization and audienceadaptation. Using a 25 point scale,student mastery of organization andaudience adaptation was assessed.



Faculty Assessment Leader: Diana CrossmanFaculty Contributing to Assessment:

development of a tutorial lab forthe comm department. I wouldsupport the development of thislab. (01/31/2016)

Follow-Up: Tutorial lab to assiststudents is still being discussedand recommended. (03/03/2017)

Action Category:Program/College Support

SLO #3 Exhibit Basic PerformanceCompetency - Upon completion ofthe course, students will be able toexhibit basic performancecompetency in both verbal and non-verbal delivery skills.

Inactive Date:




Comments::

Standard and Target for Success: Itwas expected that 80 percent ofstudents would compete theassessment with a score of 8 orhigher.

% of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Diana Davenport CrossmanFaculty Contributing to Assessment:

Action: This class did not include astudent aid. The current section(Spring of 2017) is utilizing astudent aid. Our facultydevelopment emphasis has beenin the area of equity development.We have been told that one onone, peer coaching, facilitatesequity. I would stronglyrecommend that we fund andfacilitate the utilization of studentaids in this course. (03/08/2018)Action Category:Program/College Support

Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17 (Fall2016)Standard Met? : Standard Met30 students participated in the assessment. Data gleanedrevealed that 26 out of 30 students received a score of 8 orhigher on the assessment. This would indicate that roughly88 percent of all students assessed demonstrated verbaland nonvebal competency. The standard, therefore, wasachieved. (12/05/2016)


Performance - Student's finalperformance of a comedy duo wasassessed. Students were evaluatedboth on verbal elements (scriptselection and edits) as well as nonverbal elements (eye contact, vocalvariety, facial expressions, gestures).Students were evaluated on a tenpoint scale. Competency wasreflected in a score of 8 or higher(effectively a b grade). Nonverbalelements were weighted heavierthan verbal elements, though bothcombined to create the averagescore out of ten.


ECC: COMS 270 (formerly COMS 11):Organizational Communications


SLO #1 Theories of OrganizationalCommunication - Upon completion ofthe course, students should be ableto understand and explain theories oforganizational communication.

Inactive Date:




Comments::

Standard and Target for Success: Ascore of 50-59% is considered BelowFairA score of 60-69% is considered FairA score of 70-79% is consideredGoodA score of 80-89% is consideredExcellentA score of 90-100% is consideredExceptionalIt is expected that 80% of studentswill score 80% or above on this SLOwhich is considered an Excellentunderstanding of theories inorganizational communication.

It is expected that 85% of studentswill score 75% or above on this SLOassessment

% of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Chris WellsFaculty Contributing to Assessment:

Action: In the future more timewill be spent on constitutive,critical, and feminist approachesto enhance student knowledgeand understanding. (12/01/2015)

Follow-Up: More lecture time asbeen spent on constitutive,critical, and feminist approachesto enhance student knowledgeand understanding. Futureassessments will yield data foreffectiveness of this strategy.(11/19/2015)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2014-15 (Fall2014)Standard Met? : Standard MetFor the pre-test the average was 51.5% and for the post-test the average was 79.3%.The score for 4 students did not change significantly fromthe pre- to the post-test. This can possibly be attributed tothem doing really well on the pre-test and therefore notstudying for the post-test.Students were most knowledgeable on classicalapproaches, human relations approaches and systemsapproaches.Students were least knowledgeable about constitutiveapproaches and critical and feminist approaches.Since 90% or more of students were communication studiesmajors who have completed at least 45 units, I anticipatelower scores in future classes that may not have as manycommunication studies majors or lower class standing.(12/01/2014)


Exam/Test/Quiz - Students took apre-test and a post-test of 50questions regarding theories oforganizational communication.

SLO #2 Demonstrate LeadershipTechniques - Upon completion of thecourse, students should be able todemonstrate leadership techniquesand group processes applicable toorganizational contexts.

Inactive Date:




Comments::

Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that 80% of students will

Action: Lecture more onorganizational theories(05/02/2016)

Follow-Up: More emphasis onorganizational theories is beingimplemented this semester.Future assessments willdetermine effectiveness.(03/03/2017)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2015-16 (Fall2015)Standard Met? : Standard Not Met4 students scored 100%2 students scored 90%3 students scored 85%2 students scored 80%2 students scored 75%5 students scored 70%2 students scored 65%1 student scored 60%

Presentation/Skill Demonstration -24 Students were assessed. Studentsworked as dyad teams andpresented a strenghts, weaknesses,opportunities, and threats (SWOT)analysis comparing 2 similarorganizations.



score 80% or above.

% of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Chris WellsFaculty Contributing to Assessment:Related Documents:Copy of COMS 11 SLO 2 RUBRIC.xlsxCOMS 11 SLO 2 TracDat Template.docx

3 students scored below 60%

Based on the standard and target set for this SLO, 11students (45%) met the standard and target and 13students (55%) did not meet the standard and target.

Data analysis indicates students strengths were in deliveryand presentation while comparing and contrasting the twoorganizations.Data analysis indicates students weaknesses were inknowledge of leadership theories – specifically in terms ofdepth

(11/19/2015)


SLO #3 Explain Effective LeadershipTechniques - Upon completion of thecourse, students should be able toexplain effective leadershiptechniques in professional and non-profit organizations.

Inactive Date:




Comments:: Standard and Target for Success: Itis expected that 80% of students willscore 80% or higher on thisassessment.

% of Success for this SLO:Faculty Assessment Leader: Rex WellsFaculty Contributing to Assessment:Related Documents:

Action: Have class activities ordiscussions that foster applicationof the terminology .Provide in-class study-groupopportunities so students worktogether to learn the coursematerial and theoretical terms. (11/30/2017)

Follow-Up: More in-classactivities have beenimplemented. (11/13/2017)


Semester and Year Assessment Conducted: 2016-17 (Fall2016)Standard Met? : Standard Not Met44% of students scored 2 (Target) or above on the exams.96% of students scored 2 (Target) or above on thepresentation.42% of students scored 2 (Target ) or above on both examand presentation section of the assessment.

Analysis of the data indicates that students excelled atpresenting the course material but did not do as well on theexams relating to the same material. These results may bedue to the fact that the questions on the exams areapplication questions that use theoretical terminology. (11/30/2016)


Multiple Assessments - 27 Studentstook the exams and 26 studentsdelivered a presentation.Students took exams that coveredleadership techniques inprofessional and non-profitorganizations. They also preparedand delivered individualpresentations on the same material.


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=HcilSOwrhHyj

https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=twbmRdrZzKv9


COMS 270 SLO 3 RESULTS.docx


https://elcamino.tracdat.com:443/tracdat/viewDocument?y=LTiPA17n8DQt