Proposed Assessment Plan for GE Area A2

Description of GE Area A2

The GE Area A2 Committee was established at the beginning of Spring Quarter 2006 and includes four members: Rich Kallan (Chair), Tina Carroll McCorkindale, David Cooley, and Mariusz Ozminkowski. The Committee met several times from Spring Quarter 2006 through Winter Quarter 2007.

The Committee has agreed that its proposed assessment plan should include pretesting and post-testing of students in COM 100 (Public Speaking) and COM 204 (Advocacy and Argument) to determine how well the courses improve (a) critical thinking and argumentation skills and (b) reduce communication apprehension.

The committee gave itself three charges: (1) create a single set of learning outcomes for COM 100 and COM 204 (separate lists for each course existed); (2) develop three testing instruments—one that measures communication apprehension, another that measures critical thinking and argumentation skills, and a third that measures attitudes and predispositions relative to critical thinking and argumentation—to rate how effectively the desired learning outcomes for both courses are being met; and (3) determine the parameters of the sample (type and size) and the schedule of testing activities.

CHARGE #1: Expected Outcomes for Area A2

Cal Poly Pomona designated two courses that serve Area A2 (Communication and Critical Thinking) in the university’s general education program. The content of courses satisfying Area A include:

(A) The study of written and oral communication and critical thinking; (B) consid-erable written work, with emphasis on expository prose; (C) emphasis on clarity and lucidity of thought and its written expression; (D) exploration, development, under-standing, and use of visual communication media and skills; (E) instruction in analyzing, criticizing, and advocating ideas, reasoning deductively and inductively.

Students completing the COM 100 and COM 204 (Area A2) should have the knowledge and skills to:

  • Appreciate the nature and function of the basic components of oral discourse (sender, message, channel, receiver, and context)
  • Understand the impact of technology on oral discourse
  • Understand how their background and perceptions influence oral discourse
  • Recognize how language choices reflect racial, ethnic, cultural, gender and age bias
  • Recognize and practice ethical, humane, and open-minded oral discourse
  • Accept responsibility for their own oral discourse
  • Appreciate and critique oral discourse, including have the proficiency to distinguish between the speaker’s purpose, main points, subpoints, supporting evidence, and transitions; and to judge the quality of the speaker’s argument, organization, evidence, and style
  • Reduce oral comprehension apprehension

CHARGE #2: Evidence Collection

To rate how effectively the desired learning outcomes for both courses are being met, instructors will conduct a survey using three quantitative instruments at the start of the course, at the end of the course, and two years after completion of the course. The first instrument, the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24), is one of the most widely used to measure communication apprehension on a scale of 1 to 5 (McCroskey, 1982). According to McCroskey, prior research has found the 24-item instrument to be highly reliable with high predictive validity. For the PRCA-24, McCroskey’s rubric provides criteria to determine the level of communication apprehension.

The second testing instrument, a 50-item forced-choice critical thinking and argumentation skills assessment, will measure students’ ability to evaluate evidence, identify fallacies, judge whether arguments are valid versus invalid/weak versus strong, and cogently structure oral-based arguments that support a thesis. Both instruments will be given to COM 100 and COM 204 sections to measure completion of the objectives and outcomes for the course. A rubric will be used to determine the level of the students’ critical thinking and argumentation skills.

The third testing instrument, a 75-item Likert scale California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory, measures seven constructs: truthseeking, open-mindedness, analyticity, systematicity, critical thinking self-confidence, inquisitiveness, and cognitive maturity. Scale score interpret-

tations are provided with the instrument. Previous reliability scores have averaged .90 on the overall scale and .72−.80 on the subscales. This test will allow us to determine the extent to which we are achieving other course outcomes—in addition to enhanced critical thinking/ argumentation skills and reduced communication apprehension—listed above.

CHARGE #3: SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

To test the instruments, we propose to pretest 50 students drawn from two COM 100 sections in Fall Quarter 2007 and four in Winter Quarter 2008. Based on the results, the instruments will be revised and administered to two COM 204 courses in Fall Quarter 2008 (n = 50 students) and four COM 204 courses (n = 50 students) in Winter Quarter 2009.

To test their retention and application of Area A2 course information, students who completed COM 100 between Fall Quarter 2007 and Spring Quarter 2008 will be emailed a link to the three testing instruments two years after they complete the course. This process will be repeated for COM 204 from Fall Quarter 2008 through Spring Quarter 2009 using the same format. Below is the proposed schedule:

Term / Fall 2007 / Winter 2008
Classes / 100
100 / 100
100
100
100
N / 50 students / 100 students
Term / Fall 2008 / Winter 2009
Classes / 204
204 / 204
204
204
204
N / 50 students / 100 students

Statistical analyses will be conducted on the data, and means and differences among the time periods will be assessed. In addition, differences between native Cal Poly Pomona students and transfer students will be analyzed. After the second year, results will be assessed and the assessment schedule will be revised. After the department GE Area A2 Assessment Committee reviews the results, recommendations will be made to the department curriculum committee, which will then implement any necessary changes to course outlines in Area A2. If any substantial changes need to be made to the outline, the changes will be submitted to CLASS Curriculum Committee for approval. Annually, the GE Area A2 Assessment Committee will send a report to the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate.

Required Resources

Funds for the printing and implementation of the surveys will be required as well as a subscrip-tion to an online software survey program. The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory will also need to be purchased. Coders will be needed to enter and analyze the data. In addition to these services, we will need a student assistant to help the staff with day-to-day assessment operations.

1