A Multi-method Approach: Assessment of Basic Communication Cheryl E Drout, Ph.D. SUNY-Fredonia

GCP V. CCC Writing & Speaking Requirements CCC Basic Written Communication course Speaking Intensive Infused coverage of critical literacy in all areas critical thinking critical writing critical reading critical speaking GCP Freshman Comp Second Writing Course Across the curriculum

Basic Communication: Written SUNY LEARNING OUTCOMES Produce coherent texts within common college-level written forms Demonstrate the ability to revise and improve such texts Research a topic, develop an argument, and organize supporting details

Written Communication: Local Learning Outcomes Research a topic, develop an argument, and organize supporting details create focus organize content develop support generalize from evidence & abstract from observations

Written Communication: Local Learning Outcomes Demonstrate the ability to revise and improve such texts local global

Planned Methodology & Collaboration Written Communication: Longitudinal FIPSE Writing Test Frosh Orientation Upper Level Title III Committee Frosh Comp Research Paper Ass’t SubCommittee

Implemented Methodology Written Communication: Freshman Composition First Draft Final Draft F’02 FIPSE Writing Test Cross-sectional Entering Frosh ‘00 Upperclass ‘02

Future Methodology Written Communication: Freshman Composition First & Final draft First paper & First & final draft Final paper CCC Juniors FIPSE Essay

Learning Outcomes & Measures Research Topic & Develop Argument Final Draft create focus organize content develop support generalize from evidence & abstract from observations Ability to revise First & Final Draft Local Global FIPSE ESSAY create focus organize content develop support generalize from evidence & abstract from observations

FIPSE Essay Write an essay in which you describe and analyze what you have found to be a major problem or success with your high school/college education.

Training & Inter-rater reliability All English faculty Mostly writing faculty All had previous training and/or experience Several hours of practice preceded actual scoring of protocols

Results: Comparison of Frosh and Juniors Entry level Frosh 18% Not meeting standards Juniors 0% Not meeting standards All other percentages Juniors > Frosh approaching meeting exceeding

Greatest Weakness Overall Ability to generalize from evidence abstract from observations synthesize global revisions involving the same issues

Ability to employ standard usage college level writing Fredonia was fairly comparable to aggregate SUNY data Fewer who didn’t meet standards and fewer who exceeded standards Majority met or approached standards Guideline for standards 80+ exceeding70-74 approaching meeting<70 not meeting

Summary Observations Students are competent in their ability to employ standard usage, syntax, mechanics, and grammar. They are less proficient in their ability to generalize from evidence and abstract from observations.

Recommendations Faculty teaching the basic communication course will provide more guidance in the abilities to generalize from evidence and abstract from observations during class time more feedback about these skills on paper drafts.

Other responses English department Request to consider reinstituting second writing course rather than infused writing Survey planned

Basic Communication: Oral SUNY LEARNING OUTCOMES Develop proficiency in oral discourse Evaluate an oral presentation according to established criteria

Oral Communication: Local Learning Outcomes Delivery Articulate Speech Suitable Voice Quality Adequate Eye Contact Other Appropriate Nonverbal Behavior

Oral Communication: Local Learning Outcomes Content Thesis clear Ideas/issues relevant Organization easy to follow Arguments supported by evidence & explanation Visual aids integrated

Planned Methodology & Collaboration Oral Communication: One time measure of attainment Upper Level Speaking Intensive courses standardized ratings final speaking assignment faculty feedback Ass’t SubCommittee

Future Methodology Oral Communication: Upper Level Speaking Intensive courses Ability to judge others’ presentations

Collaborating Parties Campus Assessment Co-Directors Monitored data collection Coordinated Report Writing Assessment Subcommittees Collected most data & Scored Protocols Title III Committee provided FIPSE essay data Gen Ed Director/Committee generated input re: recommendations

Unexpected benefits of collaboration Consistent pattern of findings from two different approaches English faculty & Gen Ed Faculty composing joint survey regarding writing across the curriculum to assist in resolving different recommendations of English department & G E Committee Multi-unit involvement in survey will promote participation in responding All photos copyright Robert Siedentop 2003