UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN: PRESENTATION U · 2015-04-02 · 1Institution’s SACSCOC Liaison. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN: PRESENTATION U

1Institution’s SACSCOC Liaison

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN: PRESENTATION U

YOU are the ultimate presentation!

(Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum)

UK SACS Leadership Team:

Eli Capilouto, President

Tim Tracy, Interim Provost Heidi Anderson, Associate Provost, Institutional Effectiveness1

Tom Harris, Vice President, University Relations J. J. Jackson, Vice President, Institutional Diversity

Vince Kellen, Chief Information Officer Angie Martin, Vice President, Financial Operations, and Treasurer

Robert Mock, Vice President, Student Affairs Deanna Sellnow, QEP Co-Chair

Diane Snow, QEP Co-Chair Hollie Swanson, University Senate Past Chair

Sharon Turner, Dean, Dentistry

On-Site Visit April 9 - 11, 2013

University of Kentucky

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS 2

EXHIBITS 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Presentation U 5

CHAPTER 1: INSTITUTIONAL PROCESS FOR TOPIC IDENTIFICATION 7

CHAPTER 2: RATIONALE, HISTORY, AND BEST PRACTICES 21

CHAPTER 3: LEARNING AND PROGRAM OUTCOMES 34

CHAPTER 4: FIVE-YEAR ACTION PLAN 40

Administrative Structure 40

Student Tutoring 41

Faculty Fellows Program 41

Collaboration with Existing Units 43

Implementation Timeline 48

CHAPTER 5: ASSESSMENT PLAN 54

CHAPTER 6: ITEMIZED BUDGET 67

REFERENCES 72

APPENDICES 73

Appendix A: QEP Topic Selection and Development Plan/Timeline 73

Appendix B: Sample Campus QEP Update Slideshow 74

Appendix C: QEP Proposal Submission Form and Rubric 75

Appendix D: QEP White Paper Guidelines and Assessment Rubric 76

Appendix E: CRM to GCCR Proposal 77

Appendix F: CIS 300 Syllabus Draft 84

Appendix G: Assessment Measurement Tools 86

Appendix H: Assessment Plan Timeline 96


3

LIST OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1.1: TST Timeline 9

EXHIBIT 1.2: NSSE Benchmarks, UK Compared to Carnegie Peers 10

EXHIBIT 1.3: Student Satisfaction with Entire Educational Experience 10

EXHIBIT 1.4: CLA 2007-2009 Results 12

EXHIBIT 1.5: CAAP—Math Spring 2009 Summary Results 12

EXHIBIT 1.6: CAAP—Critical Thinking Spring 2010 Summary Results 12

EXHIBIT 1.7: Areas of Weakness Identified 13

EXHIBIT 1.8: Concept Mapping 14

EXHIBIT 1.9: Proposal Submission 16

EXHIBIT 1.10: QEP Themes Addressed 17

EXHIBIT 1.11: Constituent Groups Represented 17

EXHIBIT 1.12: Proposals Selected for White Papers 18

EXHIBIT 1.13: The QEP Brand 20

EXHIBIT 2.1: Graduating Senior Survey: Self-Report of Improvement 22

EXHIBIT 2.2: Graduating Senior Survey: Self-Report of Improvement over Six

Years 22

EXHIBIT 2.3: Performance Level over Three Phases of the CLA, 2007 Cohort 24

EXHIBIT 2.4: Wabash National Study Results, UK Student Growth Over Time 25

EXHIBIT 2.5: Percentage of Graduates completing an Oral Communication 25

Course

EXHIBIT 2.6: Related Programs 31

EXHIBIT 3.1: Learning Outcomes and their Operationalized Outcomes 36

EXHIBIT 3.2: Program Outcomes and their Operationalized Outcomes 38

EXHIBIT 4.1: Organizational Design of Presentation U 40

EXHIBIT 4.2: Five-Year Impact Potential 43

EXHIBIT 4.3: Tutoring Collaboration Opportunities 43

EXHIBIT 4.4: Faculty Development with CELT 44

EXHIBIT 4.5: Roles and Responsibilities 44

EXHIBIT 4.6: Timeline Overview 48

EXHIBIT 4.7: Pilot Project Part A Timeline 49

EXHIBIT 4.8: Pilot Project Part A Assessment Process 50

EXHIBIT 4.9: Presentation U Timeline 51


4

EXHIBITS Continued

EXHIBIT 4.10: Presentation U Implementation Plan 52

EXHIBIT 5.1: Learning Outcomes Mapped to Measures 57

EXHIBIT 5.2: Program Outcomes Mapped to Measures 61

EXHIBIT 5.3: Presentation U Assessment Plan 62

EXHIBIT 6.1: Itemized Presentation U Budget 69


5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The University of Kentucky (UK) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), Presentation U, is the result of a broad-based, campus-wide effort to develop a long-range strategy for improving student learning. The QEP builds on communication skills developed through the UK Core (general education) curriculum by targeting the development of multimodal communication skills in upper-division undergraduate students. The QEP vertically integrates instruction and assessment of three types of communication skills:

• Oral (sounds, speaking, and listening); • Written (words, reading, and writing); and • Visual (nonverbal symbols, images, and seeing).

UK faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders were instrumental in conceptualizing the QEP. They relied on the 2009-2014 UK Strategic Plan, which sets forth the expectation that “graduates at all levels are able to demonstrate expertise in their disciplines and are prepared to succeed in professional and community settings.” Developing strong communication skills—a goal with which employers wholeheartedly agree (Hart 2009)—aligns well with the Strategic Plan. Review of stakeholder input, assessment report data, internal program review reports, national and in-house surveys, and a wide variety of institutional research documents identified: 1) a deficiency in students’ written communication skills (described briefly below); 2) perceived shortcomings in developing job-related skills and knowledge; 3) the absence of consistent development in and assessment of oral communication skills; 4) little emphasis on visual communication skills; and, most importantly, 5) little emphasis on oral, written, and visual communication competencies within disciplines. Initial longitudinal research using the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) suggests that UK students trail behind in written communication competencies. Study of CLA scores indicates that UK student improvement on analytic writing tasks from the freshman to senior year falls “below” expected levels; moreover, this result occurs between the rising junior and senior years, during which time improvement is “well below” expected levels. This key finding, coupled with the facts that oral and visual communication skills have not been emphasized adequately and that multimodal communication is a new and challenging need for today’s graduates, led the University to select “multimodal communication across the curriculum” as its QEP topic. Thus, the overarching goal of the resulting program—Presentation U—is to: Prepare students to employ effective, state-of-the-art, multimodal communication skills as expected of professionals in their chosen fields. To further define the overarching goal, this document analyzes the rationale, history, and best practices in this area (Chapter 2) and describes the learning and program outcomes to be achieved (Chapter 3). From these efforts, the University created Presentation U—a campus-wide initiative branded by UK students—which consists of two distinct components (Chapter 4):

• A Student Tutoring Program • A Faculty Fellows Program

The two programs will be housed in the Presentation Center (see below) and staffed by a full-time Program Director who reports to the Provost, three part-time Coordinators (Student Services, Faculty Development, and Assessment), an IT Manager, and an Implementation Team/Advisory Council, as well as professionally trained undergraduate student tutors, graduate student


6

mentors, and trained faculty. For the Student Tutoring component, Presentation Center staff will assist students in creating and refining multimodal communication projects and products. The Faculty Fellows Program will involve incentive-based cohorts of 25 volunteer faculty members per semester, with each faculty member revising a selected course in one semester, delivering the new multimodal-rich course in a subsequent semester, and assessing and further revising during the following semester. Faculty will continue to apply these principles in future courses to impact additional students. To inform this plan, the University engaged in a pilot program (Fall 2012) that focused on developing multimodal communication skills across nine sections of the same course (approximately 200 upper-division students majoring in accounting, analytics, economics, finance, marketing, or management). The Office of the Provost funded four faculty members ($176,000) to develop, teach, and assess the program and student learning outcomes. Results of the pilot will inform continuous improvement in the design, processes, and success of Presentation U. (Chapter 5 fully details all assessment plans,) The University of Kentucky has made a substantial commitment to the QEP (Chapter 6), nearly $1,000,000 per year in support of faculty staffing (46%), student mentors and tutors (30%), stipends for Faculty Fellows (17%), and operating expenses (7%). UK has also committed $535,000 for renovations of “The Hub” (in the William T. Young Library), which will serve as the site for Presentation U. The program will report directly to the Provost to emphasize high-level administration support and ensure resource adequacy. UK students have also expressed great enthusiasm for this program: a self-imposed student fee restricted to student-selected preparations for the Center ($10 software; $4 equipment; $3 mobile application development) will generate more than $950,000 annually. In summary, the University of Kentucky has developed Presentation U, a Quality Enhancement Plan that demonstrates institutional capability for initiating, implementing, completing, and assessing enhanced student learning of multimodal communication across the curriculum. Broad-based involvement of institutional constituencies has resulted in Presentation U, which identifies clear goals and a detailed plan for assessing achievement of those goals. Overall, Presentation U will improve upper-division student multimodal communication across the curriculum through skill-building beyond the general curriculum communication pedagogies using a two-prong best-practices-based approach to educate faculty to be better teachers, mentors and role models and to prepare students to be capable producers of information.


7

CHAPTER 1: INSTITUTIONAL PROCESS FOR TOPIC IDENTIFICATION This chapter describes: 1) the deliberate institutional process the University used to identify the QEP topic and 2) the broad-based involvement of institutional constituencies in the identification and development of the topic. Therefore, the focus of this chapter is process. Subsequent chapters provide the assessment-driven rationale for the topic; history and best practices related to the topic; a statement of student learning and program outcomes; a comprehensive assessment plan; and evidence for the existence of sufficient resources to initiate, implement, complete, and sustain (if successful) the proposed QEP.

Topic Identification: A Team-based Approach

The University of Kentucky Quality Enhancement Plan—Presentation U—was developed using a team-based approach, relying on three teams: the Pre-Planning Team (PPT), the Topic Selection Team (TST), and the Topic Development Team (TDT). Once accepted by SACSCOC, the QEP will be guided by a fourth team, the QEP Implementation Team (IT). Pre-Planning Team (PPT). The PPT created an overarching plan and timeline for identifying the QEP topic and developing the plan based on best practices. Throughout its work, the PPT consulted and informed the University Senate and the SACS Leadership Team regularly. The PPT consisted of seventeen members, listed below, appointed by the Provost. A major goal in identifying team members was to form a broad-based constituency to ensure widespread campus representation and input. The Co-Chairs for all teams were Dr. Deanna Sellnow (Communication and Information Studies) and Dr. Diane Snow (Medical Center/Spinal Cord and Brain Injury Research Center). These two individuals had prior leadership experience and expertise and together represented both UK’s academic and professional campuses. Dr. Sellnow attended the SACS Institute in summer 2009 (Houston, TX) and was well versed on SACS reaffirmation of accreditation regulations. Attending with Dr. Sellnow were Dr. Marsha Watson (University Assessment), Dr. Mike Mullen (Agriculture), and Dr. Rena Murphy (Health Sciences), three individuals who were also members of the PPT. Continuity. To ensure accurate historical perspective and continuity, at least six individuals (accounting for possible attrition) from the PPT moved on to the Topic Selection Team (TST). Similarly, six individuals from the TST moved on to the Topic Development Team (TDT). At least one team member and one ex-officio member continued through the entire process. Finally, six TDT members are on the Implementation Team, which is currently orchestrating the Pilot Project. Members of this team will also serve as members of the first interdisciplinary Advisory Board for Presentation U.

Last name First Name Campus Affiliation Adams Ruth Fine Arts Anderson Heidi Faculty Affairs Duncan Ben Plant Pathology Herbst John Student Center Services Hoyt Gail Economics Jensen Jane Education Mullen Mike Agriculture (at that time) Murphy Rena Health Sciences Ray Connie Institutional Effectiveness Rogers Jeff (Nels) Foreign Languages Rose Tara University Assessment


8

*Sellnow Deanna Communication and Information *Snow Diane Medical Center Staten Ruth Nursing Tagavi Kaveh Engineering Vaughn Connie Institutional Effectiveness

Pre-planning began in November 2009 with a presentation providing necessary background for the PPT to begin its work. Subsequently, the PPT gathered additional information regarding QEP requirements and best practices. The University Senate endorsed the QEP Topic Selection and Development Plan/Timeline (see Appendix A) on February 8, 2010. The Topic Selection Team (TST). Shortly thereafter the Provost appointed 32 members to the Topic Selection Team (TST) based on input from the PPT Co-Chairs. A major goal in appointment was to continue providing a broad-based constituency to ensure widespread campus representation in the selection of a QEP topic. Members included the following:

Last Name First Name Campus Affiliation Adams Ruth Fine Arts Badger Karen Social Work Baker Charlotte Public Health (student) Basu Srimati Social Sciences, A&S Blackwell Jeannine Graduate School Cavagnero Michael Physics Elliott Allison PR Fielden Micah C Student Government Garces Helen Pharmacy Greenwell Stacey Libraries Harding Roberta M Law Harper Christine Dentistry Herbst John Student Center Services Hillebrand Evan Patterson School Jensen Jane M Education Lewis Karin A Academic Enhancement Mullen Michael D Undergraduate Education Murphy Rena Health Sciences O’Bryan Mark J Design Ray Constance Institutional Effectiveness Rogers Jeff Foreign Languages Scott Maura L Business & Economics *Sellnow Deanna D Communication & Information Simpson Leah Assessment Skaggs Jen Institutional Effectiveness *Snow Diane M Medical Center/SCoBIRC Spillman Kimberly A Agriculture Stanhope Marcia K Nursing Swinford Bill Financial Operations Tabb Ashley S Information Technology Tagavi Kaveh Engineering Watson Marsha Assessment

The TST employed systematic processes to ensure broad-based involvement in brainstorming and narrowing topic ideas. The TST conducted its work from March 2010 to March 2011 (see Exhibit 1.1) following the plan and timeline set by the PPT. The following sections describe the major steps undertaken by the TST.


9

Exhibit 1.1: TST Timeline March–June 2010 Reviewed University Assessment Data

Educated Campus about the QEP and why UK is doing one Invited “Big Ideas” for improving student learning at UK

June 2010 Had a 2-day assessment retreat to mine data and identify major cross-cutting themes for improving student learning

September 2010 Announced the six themes and call for proposals October 2010 Selected ten proposals for white paper development December 2010 Discussed and voted on proposals. Submitted the top four to the SACS

Leadership Team (SLT) March 2011 SLT discussed the four White Papers and selected Multimodal

Communication Across the Curriculum (MCXC) Review University Assessment Data. The team followed a systematic approach for achieving consensus about a broad-based QEP topic. In spring 2012 the committee heard information regarding institution-level assessment of student learning and the environment for learning in presentations by Dr. Roger Sugarman, Director of Institutional Research, and Tara Rose, then Assistant Director of University Assessment and now Director. These presentations informed the team regarding the current status of and gaps in student learning at UK (see Chapter 2 for analysis of results leading to the QEP topic and for additional details). The presentation on “The Context of Learning” highlighted research results on student attrition, a model for identifying predictors of student success, and survey data from the Graduating Senior Survey (GSS) and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). Excerpts are presented below.

Student Attrition. At 81%, UK’s retention rate for the 2007 cohort was 12.4 percentage points below the median rate of UK’s top 20 benchmark institutions. Dr. Sugarman noted, “to improve retention, an institution must help students adjust to the environment, including policies, procedures, educational programming and culture.”

Modeling. The Office of Institutional Research conducted a regression model designed to explain students’ first-semester grades, a key indicator of student success. According to the model, grades were positively associated with: high school GPAs, ACT Composite scores, being female, participation in UK 101, the distance between a student’s home and UK, the number of hours students reported studying/doing homework during high school senior year, self-reported “drive to achieve,” and level of identification with being a good student. Grades were negatively associated with: being a first-generation college student, the number of hours students planned to be employed during their first term, self-reported procrastination tendencies, and self-reported “serious financial difficulties” during the previous year.

Graduating Senior Survey (GSS). UK’s Office of Institutional Research surveys graduating seniors each year. In response to the question–“Compared with when you started your first year, how would you describe your following skills and knowledge?”–UK’s 2008-2009 seniors rated their improvement on a scale from 1 (much weaker) to 5 (much stronger), as follows:

• Making effective oral presentations: mean=4.2; 27% said “much stronger.” • Thinking critically and analytically: mean=4.2; 33% said “much stronger.” • Using computers and information technology: mean=4.1; 26% said “much stronger.” • Writing effectively: mean=4.1; 29% said “much stronger.”

http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/ir.html

http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/assessment.html


10

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The NSSE survey is a questionnaire administered to samples of first-year students and seniors that assesses students' level of engagement in their academic careers. The NSSE measures five key clusters of activities, referred to as benchmarks, which research has shown to be tied to desired collegiate outcomes: level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interactions, enriching educational experiences, and supportive campus environment. UK has used the data, as needed, for statewide goal-setting and to guide institutional decision-making with regard to deployment of resources, curriculum, and other learning activities. Exhibit 1.2 shows the NSSE benchmarks and how UK students scored (↓ = lower, ↑ = higher, or <-> = same) compared to their Carnegie peers for three years of participation.

Exhibit 1.2: NSSE Benchmarks, UK Compared to Carnegie Peers

2005 2007 2009 NSSE Benchmark Freshman Senior Freshman Senior Freshman Senior

Level of academic challenge <-> <-> <-> <-> <-> ↓ Active and collaborative learning

↓ <-> ↓ <-> <-> <->

Student-faculty interaction <-> <-> <-> <-> ↑ ↑ Enriching educational experiences

↓ <-> ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Supportive campus environment

↓ <-> ↓ ↓ <-> ↓

The NSSE also asks UK students the question, “How satisfied are you with your entire educational experience?” Exhibit 1.3 shows a comparison of UK first-year students and UK seniors to their Carnegie peers for administration years 2007 and 2009.

Exhibit 1.3: Student Satisfaction with Entire Educational Experience, UK Compared to Carnegie Peers

Additional information on the IR survey website provides much greater detail for NSSE results. For example, using a scale of 1 (very little) to 4 (very much) for 16 items related to educational and personal growth, students responded to the question, “To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal


11

development?” UK seniors had a lower mean response than at least one comparison group on the following items (among others):

• “Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills” – UK mean response=2.92, UK

benchmark peers=2.99 (p<.05); 67 percent of UK seniors reported that their university experiences contributed quite a bit or very much, compared to 69 percent of UK’s benchmark peers.

• “Writing clearly and effectively” -- UK mean response=2.98, UK benchmark peers=3.08 (p<.001); 72 percent of UK seniors reported that their university experiences contributed quite a bit or very much, compared to 76 percent of their UK benchmark peers.

• “Speaking clearly and effectively” -- UK mean response=2.84, UK Kentucky peers=3.03 (p<.001); 65 percent of UK seniors reported that their university experiences contributed quite a bit or very much, compared to 72 percent of their Kentucky peers.

• “Thinking critically and analytically” -- UK mean response=3.28, UK benchmark peers=3.45 (p<.001); 86 percent of UK seniors reported that their university experiences contributed quite a bit or very much, compared to 89 percent of their benchmark peers.

• “Solving complex, real world problems” -- UK mean response=2.75, UK benchmarks=2.90 (p<.001); 60 percent of UK seniors reported that their university experiences contributed quite a bit or very much, compared to 67 percent of their benchmark peers.

A history of GSS results as well as results for the Undergraduate Alumni Survey, Campus Climate Survey, National Survey of Student Engagement, and others were available to the TST throughout the topic selection process at: http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/students/surveys.html. “The Data on Student Learning,” presented by Tara Rose, highlighted assessment data on the Wabash National Study (Wabash), Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), Program Review, and Accreditation Review. Excerpts are presented below.

Wabash National Study. The Wabash National Study is designed to help colleges and universities improve student learning and enhance the educational impact of their programs. UK freshmen participated in fall 2006 and spring 2007. Results from the first two assessments indicated the following:

• 88% of UK students perceived faculty interest in teaching and student development as

moderate (47%) or strong (41%) • 98% of UK students scored moderate (78%) to weak (20%) on diversity experiences • UK students registered minimal change on most Outcomes Measures, which included

effective reasoning and problem solving, inclination to inquire and lifelong learning, and positive attitude toward literacy

• UK students showed a significant increase in moral reasoning • UK students registered a sharp decrease in academic motivation, a component of the

Inclination to Inquire outcome

Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). The CLA is a nationally normed, authentic assessment measuring institutional achievement in student learning in four key general education areas: critical thinking, analytic reasoning, problem solving, and written

http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/students/surveys.html


12

communication. CLA results are controlled for incoming academic ability. The CLA was first administered as part of a longitudinal study of general education learning in fall 2007. The initial administration (Phase 1 of the study) tested two cohorts: 1) first-time, full-time freshmen in fall 2007 and 2) UK seniors in spring 2008. Test design ensures that the initial results are immediately useful as a cross-sectional analysis of learning. Spring 2009 was the second administration. Table D-2 provides results from the fall 2007 student cohort that was re-tested in spring 2009. UK’s students showed improvement that was “Below” expected on the Performance Task. (Note: Results in Exhibit 1.4 are those that were available for review during the QEP Topic Selection process; they differ from those presented in the final CLA institutional report due to adjustments made to the samples.)

Exhibit 1.4: CLA 2007-2009 Results Fall 2007 Spring 2009 Student

Count Mean score

Std Deviation

Mean score

Std Deviation

Performance Level

Performance Task 173 1209 202 1224 166 Below Expected Analytic Writing Task

168 1129 144 1170 179 At

Make-an-Argument 168 1122 173 1151 217 At Critique-an-Argument

171 1134 181 1186 193 At

Total CLA Score 168 1172 145 1199 149 At Expected

A basic summary of the cross-sectional results and the full institutional report are available at: http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/studentlearning/general/cla.html. Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP). The CAAP is useful for measuring value-added performance gains and is designed to assess Reading, Writing Skills, Writing Essay, Mathematics, Science, and Critical Thinking. As part of a statewide mandated accountability program, UK administered the CAAP Math module to 308 UK students in spring 2009. A list of 200-level courses offered by departments teaching in the general education program was randomly selected. Students who took the administration were enrolled in the courses sampled. The Critical Thinking module was administered to 592 UK students in spring 2010; the guidelines were to survey 200 freshmen and 200 seniors during classroom instruction. As before, courses were randomly sampled. Results for the CAAP Math and Critical Thinking are provided in Exhibits 1.5 and 1.6 respectively. UK students scored at or above national averages on both modules.

Exhibit 1.5: CAAP–Math Spring 2009 Summary Results

UK National Mean 58.5 58.5 Standard Deviation 3.8 4 N 308 1,678

Exhibit 1.6: CAAP–Critical Thinking Spring 2010 Summary Results

Count Percentage UK Average

National Average Score

Freshman 128 22% 62 62 Sophomore 252 43% 63 62 Junior 124 21% 63 62

http://www.uky.edu/IRPE/studentlearning/general/cla.html


13

Senior 61 10% 63 62 Other/No Response

27 4% 63 62

Summary 592 100% 63 62

Program Review and Accreditation Analysis. The Office of Assessment conducted a qualitative analysis of program review self-study and accreditation response documents in spring 2010, including those completed in 2002 through 2010. The purpose was to provide the TST with an idea of overarching themes or patterns of weakness that emerged from the program evaluations. Exhibit 1.7(below) provides the number of times the “area of weakness” was cited within the documents reviewed. While needing resources and improving facilities are commonly expressed needs of academic programs, the identification of curriculum improvement as a major area of weakness suggests that faculty need time and support to facilitate ongoing improvement through curriculum revision.

Exhibit 1.7: Areas of Weakness Identified in Program Review or Accreditation Documents, 2002-2010

In summary, assessment and institutional research data provided the Topic Selection Team (TST) with a basic, institution-level understanding of the available information on UK student learning and the environment for learning. In turn, this information provided rich context for the TST as its work unfolded. Educate the Campus about the QEP and Solicit “Big Ideas.” To achieve its goal, the TST formed two sub-committees: Town Criers and Data Collectors. The Town Criers consisted of individuals who went “door-to-door” to units across campus and presented campus update information sessions (see Appendix B, QEP Campus Update Slideshow, when on campus). Their goals were to: 1) educate the campus about the QEP, 2) encourage participation, and 3) request input by asking each person to visit the QEP website (www.uky.edu/QEP) and submit “Big Ideas” related to improving UK student learning via a simple online entry form by May 31, 2010. All submitted ideas appear on the QEP website1. The Data Collectors gathered and summarized data from the following sources (see Chapter 2 for more details):

1. “Big Ideas.” All campus stakeholders, including students, faculty, staff, parents, alumni, community members, were invited to post ideas about what they would like to see the University do to improve student learning and/or the environment for student learning. The

1 Big Ideas may be found on the QEP website at www.uky.edu/SACS/qep_archive.html.

http://www.uky.edu/QEP

http://www.uky.edu/SACS/qep_archive.html


14

invitation was broadcast on the radio, in the student newspaper, on the UK website, at the University Senate, and through exhaustive door-to-door, face-to-face unit visits to departments, colleges, student groups, and programs across campus. Suggestions were collected in a website repository.

2. Unit Reports. To complement institution-level assessment data archived in the files of the Office of Assessment, the TST devised a template to collect additional assessment data systematically from all units across campus. The team distributed these Unit Report templates to deans, associate deans, chairs, directors, student affairs program directors, and others. The completed reports were collected and catalogued (available on site).

3. Program Reviews. The TST collected Program Review summaries from the Office of Assessment.

4. News Media. The TST collected two-years of back issues of the campus newspaper, The Kernel, and the predominant community newspaper, The Lexington Herald-Leader.

5. Student Testimony. Random students were asked what they felt the University could do to improve student learning and/or the environment for student learning.

6. SACSCOC Reports. The TST consulted UK’s most recent SACSCOC Reaffirmation of Accreditation report and a fifth-year impact report.

Data Mining Assessment Retreat. During a 2-day retreat (June 10-11, 2010), members of the TST examined the six sources of evidence described above. TST members formed small groups, and each group examined one set of the aforementioned documents to discover emergent themes. The group capitalized on the expertise of group member, Dr. Jane Jensen, Education, who explained how to conduct a qualitative thematic analysis to identify emergent themes. The group learned and then applied a systematic approach to analyzing qualitative data by identifying themes based on redundancy (number of occurrences) and intensity (passion/power in occurrences). Subsequently, each sub-committee reported its findings to the larger group. The larger group codified “top hits” via a two-step process. First, the team identified topics present in multiple sub-committee reports. Second, the team linked related topics using concept-mapping (Exhibit 1.8). Team members individually identified common and vital characteristics that eventually self-assembled into six overarching emergent themes. Exhibit 1.8: Concept Mapping

The TST identified six cross-cutting themes using a thematic analysis and concept-mapping approach.

Post-hoc Theme Validation. Following the retreat, the TST revisited how institution-level research and assessment data supported each theme, using results from the Graduating Student Survey, Undergraduate Alumni Survey, Wabash National Study, Campus Climate Survey, National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), Unit Reports, and Retention Data Reports. However, because this section focuses on the topic selection process, Chapter 2 describes the assessment results and issues surrounding the actual topic selected.


15

Emergent Themes. The systematic data analysis and synthesis process described above revealed six themes that addressed issues related to student learning outcomes and/or the environment for student learning. A description of each theme and an example of related assessment or institutional research results follow:

1. Developing Engaged Citizenship. This topic addresses the need to develop engaged citizens who demonstrate knowledge, awareness, and an understanding of the complexities of citizenship in order to contribute to a culturally diverse, multilingual world. It addresses the need to develop and apply leadership skills by seeing issues and concerns from multiple perspectives and recognizing and evaluating the ethical dilemmas, conflicts, and trade-offs involved in personal and collective decision-making. By cultivating students’ abilities to apply these skills in a variety of circumstances, this topic may include research methodologies, leadership, and civic engagement in local, regional, national, or international settings.

Example of Related Results: UK seniors perform lower than their peers on the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) item–“Community Service or Volunteer Work,” an item that may be used as an indicator of civic engagement. On the 2009 NSSE, 61% of seniors reported that they had “Done” this activity, compared to 69% of seniors at UK’s benchmark institutions (significance level p<.001).

2. Expanding Global Awareness and Involvement. This topic brings together ideas related to

globalization, localization, internationalization, world politics, and cultural exchange. Students and the campus as a whole will benefit from having both a better understanding of others and their position within the world, as well as a better understanding of Kentucky’s unique qualities and how the Commonwealth fits into the national and international picture. It is important for students throughout their education to gain greater awareness of current events and international issues. This topic calls for increased opportunities for broader cultural understanding and enrichment across campus.

Example of Related Results: UK seniors perform lower than their peers on the NSSE item–“Had serious conversations with students who are very different from you in terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values.” As an example, on the 2009 NSSE, using a scale of 1 (Never) to 4 (Very Often), UK seniors’ average rating on this item was 2.71 compared to 2.88 for a set of benchmark institutions (significance level p<.001).

3. Fostering a Supportive and Vibrant Campus Culture. This issue addresses how UK can

create a strong and vibrant campus culture. Campus culture is defined as student-driven and dependent on responsible behavior, respect for others, and celebration of excellence; it celebrates diversity, upholds empathy, and compels civility. A vibrant campus culture embodies the total learning environment, referring to the qualities and characteristics of the spaces and places where students gather, live, and learn. It includes everything supporting the communities and activities that take place in the lives of students.

Example of Related Results: The Graduating Student Survey asks seniors a series of 10 questions related to various kinds of activities that UK emphasizes. On a scale of 1 (Very Little) to 4 (Very Much), UK’s 2008-2009 seniors failed to endorse any item at a level higher than 2.94, including items such as “Providing the support you need to help you succeed academically” and “Developing an understanding and appreciation of human diversity.”


16

4. Enhancing Scholarship: Critical Thinking, Effective Communication, & Academic Integrity.

This topic includes many of the skills necessary for students to be ethical, informed decision-makers and communicators. By building information literacy skills to research a topic, synthesize, and judge the quality of information, students will be able to think critically and make evidence-based decisions across multiple disciplines utilizing the highest standards of academic honesty and integrity. They will acquire effective, articulate communication skills through a variety of traditional and emerging modalities (e.g., reading, writing, speaking, listening, visually and digitally).

Example of Related Results: Results of UK’s initial participation in a longitudinal study using the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) found that Phase 1 (freshman) to Phase 2 (rising junior) improvement of UK students on the performance task was “Below” expected.

5. Advancing 21st Century Teaching and Learning. This topic relates to innovation in

pedagogy and opportunities for holistic learning by taking advantage of the wealth of technologies available today to integrate new knowledge with learning experiences and real life applications. Progressive pedagogy is moving beyond didactic teaching into interdisciplinary, case-based instruction and interdisciplinary mentoring. By collaborating across disciplines and across physical barriers, innovative curricula and pedagogy can enhance teaching and learning outcomes.

Example of Related Results: A qualitative analysis of program review and accreditation reports during the 2002 to 2010 time frame found that “curriculum improvement” was one of the faculty’s most frequently cited needs (N=232) to ensure high quality programs.

6. Navigating Successful Transitions. This topic focuses on student success by better

facilitating life transitions for UK students before, during, and after their educational experience at UK. Transitions include moving from secondary school to life at UK, transitions relevant to growth during undergraduate years, as well as transitions from the university setting to the workforce or graduate and professional schools. Improvements in academic and career advising and placement, enhancing life skills of students in preparation for graduation, and greater access to research and engagement experiences empower students to affect the living-learning environment of the campus. Example of Related Results: UK students have a difficult time making the transition from high school to a university setting, as evidenced by a retention rate that is significantly lower than it should be based on the quality of the first-year class. For the fall 2008 cohort, the retention rate was 80.3% compared to an average retention rate of 90.4% for UK’s benchmark institutions.

Call for Proposals. In September 2010, the TST rolled out the six emergent themes and invited faculty, staff, students, alumni, parents, and community members to submit proposals related to one or more of them, as indicated by Exhibit 1.9, the logo used in conjunction with the campaign to solicit proposals.” The invitation was made via an interview with the QEP co-chairs by then President Todd on WUKY, postcards

Exhibit 1.9: Proposal Submission


17

distributed across campus, an announcement to the University Senate, an article in the Kernel, and announcements on UK websites, including the homepage. To keep the process simple, individuals submitted proposals by clicking on a website icon that linked to an electronic proposal submission form (see Appendix C). These brief proposals were due October 1, 2010. The TST received 63 proposals submitted by individuals representing a variety of campus constituencies, including students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community members, and addressing each of the six themes (Exhibit 1.10 and Exhibit 1.11). As illustrated in Exhibit 1.4, 24 of the 63 proposals (46%) addressed the 21st century teaching and learning theme, 19 (37%) addressed the engaged citizenship and campus culture themes, 17 (33%) addressed global awareness, 16 (31%) addressed scholarship, and 10 (19%) addressed transition navigation. As illustrated in Exhibit 1.10, 24 of the 63 responders reported themselves as undergraduate students and 40 as faculty or staff. The TST believed that the themes were well-represented in the proposal submissions, lending credibility to the theme identification process; additionally, good participation by both students and faculty suggested interest and support by key groups that will be involved in and affected by the QEP. Exhibit 1.10: QEP Themes Addressed

Note: The sum is more than 63 because some proposals addressed multiple themes. Exhibit 1.11: Constituent Groups Represented

Note: Responses add to more than 100% because some proposal submitters marked themselves as representing more than one constituent group.


18

TST members used a rubric (see Appendix C) to evaluate the 63 proposals and confirmed that the selected proposals focused on the QEP requirement to enhance student learning and/or the environment for student learning, ranking their Top 10. On October 15, 2010, the members discussed the proposals and selected 10 to invite authors to develop their proposals into white papers. Authors of the following proposals (Exhibit 1.12) were invited for white paper submission (due on December 1, 2010). Authors were given specific guidelines for development (see Appendix D for an explanation of the guidelines) that included preparing an evidenced-based paper describing a QEP idea that is reflective of best practices. Exhibit 1.12: Proposals Selected for White Papers

Proposal Authors Title of Proposal Status 1 Alexandra Atkins Global Competence Student 2 Candace Chumley High School to College to Career Roadmap Student 3 Amy Gaffney Multimodal Communication Across the

Curriculum Faculty

4 Jonathan Gaffney Scale Up Classroom Redesign Student 5 Mark Kornbluh Global Awareness Faculty 6 Jason Pieratt Effective College to Career Transitions Staff 7 Marcia Rapchak Information Literacy Student/Faculty 8 Megan Smith Fostering Creative Leadership Alumni 9 Rhonda Strouse Center for Service Learning & Civic Engagement Staff 10 Ben Withers Thematic Year Faculty

White Paper Evaluation. Each proposal author became a white paper development team leader. One person from the TST participated on each team to provide SACSCOC insight as the papers were developed. Each team submitting a white paper earned a $1,000 honorarium; nine white papers were received. Evaluation of submissions used the submission guidelines provided to authors as a rubric (see Appendix D). Select the Top 4 White Papers for SACS Leadership Team Review. Based upon the results of the rubric evaluations, a comprehensive discussion on December 15, 2011, and a series of confidential votes, the TST forwarded four papers to the SACS Leadership Team (SLT: see list on page 1) for consideration:

• Center for Service-Learning and Civic Engagement • Entwining Curricula Internationally (a.k.a. Global Awareness) • Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum • Thematic Year Program: Creating a Campus Learning Community

Select Topic Using Specific Criteria for Decision. All four white papers submitted to UK’s SACS Leadership Team met the criteria set forth by SACSCOC for addressing an assessment-driven topic to enhance UK student learning and/or the environment for student learning. The final SLT evaluation used the criteria of feasibility, alignment with the University’s Strategic Plan, and alignment with UK’s existing curricular focus. After reading each white paper, the SLT discussed them at length and voted on March 24, 2011. The selected topic was Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum (MCXC).


19

From Topic Selection to Topic Development The Topic Development Team (TDT). TDT membership included “content experts” and ad hoc members, as indicated below. The TDT met monthly from May through December 2011. Meeting notes were posted on the QEP website2. The TDT goal was to flesh out the ideas offered in the White Paper and develop them into a comprehensive plan for implementing MCXC. Last Name First Name College/Unit Status 1 Badger Karen Social Work Faculty, 9 mo 2 Barron Susan Psychology Faculty, 12 mo 3 Black Penni Pharmacy Faculty, 12 mo 4 Blanton Jay PR (Director) Staff 5 Bosch Anna Linguistics (Assoc Dean, UG Educ, A&S) Faculty, 12 mo 6 Cassone Vincent Biology (Chair) Faculty, 12 mo 7 Eldred Janet English/Engineering Faculty, 9 mo 8 Frisby Brandi Communication & Information Faculty, 9 mo 9 Gaffney Amy Communication & Information Faculty, 9 mo 10 Greenwell Stacey UK Libraries Faculty, 12 mo 11 Grubbs Morris Graduate School Admin, 12 mo 12 Hamperian Kathy Info Management Staff 13 Holladay Erin PR Staff 14 Hollingsworth Randolph Undergraduate Education/History Admin, 12 mo 15 Hulse David B&E Faculty, 12 mo 16 Jones Andrew SAB/Political Sci UG Student 17 Kaufmann Renee CIS Grad Student 18 Kern Kathi CELT/History Faculty, 9 mo 19 Lane Derek CIS Faculty, 9 mo 20 Lewis Karin Academic Enhancement Asst Prov., UGE 21 Lusk Braden Engineering Faculty, 12 mo 22 Messer Amy Sociology Grad Student 23 Mountford Roxanne English Faculty, 9 mo 24 O’Bryan Mark Design Faculty, 12 mo 25 Philips Meg Alumni Staff 26 Prats Judy English Faculty, 9 mo 27 Rice Jeff English Faculty, 9 mo 28 Rose Tara Assessment Staff 29 Sacks David CELT Staff 30 Schwake Nathan Athletics Staff 31 *Sellnow Deanna Communication & Information Faculty, 10 mo 32 Skillman Laura Agriculture; Communications Faculty 33 *Snow Diane Medicine Faculty, 12 mo 34 Sparks Logan Student Gov/COM/ISC UG Student 35 Stevenson Brian Mol Biol, Immunol, and Genetics Faculty, 12 mo 36 Strange Emily Education UG Student 37 Wagoner Heather Yattaw Student Involvement Staff 38 Wells Jenny PR Staff 39 Whitehouse Parker Student Gov/Social Studies UG Student 40 Wilson Lisa Provost Budget Office Admin 41 Withers Ben Art (Chair) Faculty, 12 mo 42 Yost Scott Engineering Faculty, 9 mo

2 Meeting Minutes may be found at http://www.uky.edu/SACS/QEP_meetings.html.

http://www.uky.edu/SACS/QEP_meetings.html


20

The TDT consisted of five sub-committees:

1. The Grounders. (Chair, Dr. Brandi Frisby): Dr. Frisby, a contributing author of the original white paper, chaired this sub-committee as it gathered research on which to ground the plan. Sub-committee members examined SACSCOC documents related to effectively constructed QEPs, best practices materials from programs similar to MCXC implemented at other institutions (e.g., writing across the curriculum, speaking across the curriculum, writing and speaking across the curriculum), assessment data at UK pointing to a gap in outcomes related to multimodal (written, oral, visual) communication, and published research purporting a need to do a better job of developing multimodal communication skills in college graduates.

2. The Builders. (Chair, Dr. Derek Lane): Dr. Lane was also a contributing author of the original white paper. This sub-committee expanded the original white paper by grounding the rationale more firmly in UK assessment data results regarding multimodal communication skill deficiencies and providing more specific details describing the overall plan of the MCXC program.

3. Assessors. (Chair, Dr. Amy Gaffney): Dr. Gaffney submitted the initial MCXC proposal and was the team leader in preparing the original white paper. This sub-committee developed assessment plans for MCXC as well as its development and implementation processes.

4. Financers. (Chair, Lisa Wilson): Lisa Wilson, Vice Provost, Provost’s Budget Office, led this sub-committee in developing a modular budget for each component of the plan. The group elected a modular approach because it would simplify the process of making adjustments based on assessment results, if warranted, throughout the five-year implementation period.

5. Promoters. (Co-Chairs, Jay Blanton and Dr. Roxanne Mountford): Jay Blanton is the Public Relations/Marketing Executive Director and works in the UK President’s Office. Dr. Mountford is Director of the Division of Writing, Rhetoric, and Digital Media. This sub-committee was composed of two divisions: (1) the “Updaters,” who traveled across campus to keep the community informed about QEP progress (Appendix B, a sample PowerPoint slideshow, available to On-Site Review Team members on site) and (2) the “PR Team,” who developed campaigns, slogans, logos, banners, Facebook and other electronic media, and printed and digital publications. The PR team gathered data from a number of student focus groups regarding the perceived value of what they called “Project X,” including what to call such a program and where to house it. Since the QEP’s goal is to enhance student learning, students should play a major role in naming it. In an effort toward simplicity and clarity, students proposed Presentation U as the QEP “brand.” Members of the TDT supported it unanimously (Exhibit 1.13).

Chapter 2 describes much of the work completed by the TDT as it worked to complete its task of fully developing MCXC for the QEP. Exhibit 1.13: The QEP Brand

YOU are the Ultimate Presentation!

Students selected “Presentation U” as the name of UK’s QEP with the tagline: “YOU are the Ultimate Presentation.” They indicated that the tutoring facility should be centrally located at the William T. Young Library and named simply the “Presentation Center.”


21

CHAPTER 2: RATIONALE, HISTORY, AND BEST PRACTICES This chapter begins with a data-driven and needs-based rationale for focusing on Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum (MCXC) as UK’s QEP topic, followed by a summary of the history of writing and speaking across-the-curriculum programs in the U.S. To identify best practices for Presentation U, the Grounders subcommittee of the Topic Development Team (TDT) conducted an extensive literature review. They then synthesized research regarding the utility of such an MCXC program and provided a systematic historical review of similar programs (e.g., writing across the curriculum and oral communication across the curriculum). Finally, this chapter concludes by establishing several best practices that emerged from the committee’s research and were incorporated into UK’s proposed Presentation U.

Rationale As described in Chapter 1, the selection of MCXC as UK’s QEP is based on the University’s 2009-2014 Strategic Plan, various forms of assessment and institutional research data from UK, and relevant national data for comparison. Therefore, this rationale for the selection of MCXC first affirms a strong alignment of the topic with the 2009-2014 Strategic Plan and then moves into a review of institutional and national data that—given UK’s vision to be among the best in the nation—are highly relevant for its students and their development. Alignment with the Strategic Plan. The QEP’s focus on improving multimodal communication skills addresses the University’s mission of “. . . improving people’s lives through excellence in education . . .” most centrally by enhancing fundamental skills sought by employers of college graduates in order that UK graduates can more effectively interact within their professions and better understand, inter-relate, communicate, and respond to the needs and wishes of their clients and communities. By doing so in ways that consider multiple modalities, channels, and contexts, the QEP will address UK’s flagship institutional goal, (Goal 1) “Prepare students for leading roles in an innovation-driven economy and global society,” as it seeks to help students in developing twenty-first century multimodal communication skills that reach beyond traditional written and/or oral forms. Further, by extending multimodal communication across the curriculum, the QEP will help ensure that graduates are able to (Objective 1.3) “demonstrate expertise in their disciplines and . . . succeed in professional and community settings.” Finally, as graduates apply disciplinary knowledge and approaches in service to the well-being of Kentuckians and those beyond its borders and are recognized for excellence and leadership, the QEP will ultimately help the University fulfill its vision to be “one of the nation’s 20 best public research universities.” The various excerpts cited above from the 2009-2014 Strategic Plan reflect key areas of alignment to demonstrate that the QEP is grounded in University needs. Those key areas are: excellence, preparation for leading roles, expertise in the discipline, and being among the best, and they are implicit in the overarching goal of the University of Kentucky’s QEP—to prepare students to employ effective, state-of-the-art, multimodal communication skills as expected of professionals in their chosen fields. Furthermore, the key areas of alignment provide context for the following review of assessment and institutional research data that support the QEP topic. Institutional Data. The QEP Topic Selection Team (TST) sought input from the Office of Assessment and the Office of Institutional Research for institution-level information regarding the current status of UK student learning and the environment for learning. Given the inherent difficulties associated with assessing human behavior and the varied theoretical philosophies about assessment, the information provided drew intentionally from a variety of perspectives—self-report survey data (Alumni, Graduating Senior, and NSSE), nationally normed testing results


22

(CLA), recommendations of program and accreditation reviews, and special studies designed to inform institution-level progress in student learning and development (Wabash National Study), among others. Providing data from a variety of perspectives allowed for the analysis and synthesis of a rich dataset that supported the selection of MCXC as the QEP topic. The summaries below focus on selected results available, both then and now, that are related to written, oral and visual communication competencies across the curriculum.

Survey Results. Although self-reported survey data is weak as a measure of student learning, an important value in reviewing survey data comes from the discovery of common themes that coalesce to provide direction for improvement. Therefore, UK surveys freshmen, graduating seniors, and alumni on a regular basis. The results presented in the first exhibit below are from seniors who graduated in academic year 2008-2009 and are the same results that were available during the topic selection process. Exhibit 2.1 shows the mean response on a scale from 1 (much weaker) to 5 (much stronger) for seniors who were asked to describe how their skills had improved compared to the first year. Exhibit 2.2 shows over a six-year period the mean response of seniors who described improvement in their skills and knowledge for three items related to MCXC. Both sets of data suggest that UK’s graduating seniors believe they have made reasonable improvement in oral presentation and writing effectively and that these findings have been fairly stable over time.

Exhibit 2.1: Graduating Senior Self-report of Improvement, Mean Response

Exhibit 2.2: Graduating Senior Self-report of Improvement, Mean Response Over Six Years

4.13 3.83

3.4 4.06

3.9 4.24

4.15 3.73

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Writing effectively

Using statistical or mathematical…

Using foreign languages

Using computers and information technology

Understanding methods and applying…

Thinking critically and analytically

Making effective oral presentations

Appreciating the arts

Mean Response


23

Additionally, the most recent related survey results include the following:

• The 2011-2012 Graduating Senior Survey (GSS) found that less than half of seniors endorsed their improvement on “making effective oral presentations” and “writing effectively” as “a lot of progress.” (Note: The 2011-2012 GSS changed the response options for these items to gain more insight into students’ perceptions as to the level of their improvement.)

• Similar to the 2009 NSSE results available during the topic selection process, the 2012 NSSE found that seniors rated UK’s contribution to their growth lower (significance level p<.001) than their peers at Carnegie institutions in these key areas, among others (where 1 = “very little” and 4 = “very much”):

o Writing clearly and effectively: UK mean = 2.92; Carnegie mean = 3.07 o Speaking clearly and effectively: UK mean = 2.78; Carnegie mean = 2.94 o Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills: UK mean = 2.91; Carnegie

mean = 3.03 (Note: UK did not use an institutional benchmark peer group for the 2012 NSSE; thus, comparisons here use the Carnegie group.)

• The 2010-2011 Undergraduate Alumni Survey (conducted two years after students graduate) found relatively low endorsements of “Excellent” when asking alumni to rate the quality of various aspects of the curriculum:

o Only 12% rated the UK curriculum excellent for “providing job-related skills and knowledge”: only 27% rated their major curriculum excellent on the same item.

o Only 12% rated the UK curriculum excellent for “preparation to meet demands of my job”; only 23% rated their major curriculum excellent on the same item.

An important theme emerges through a careful review of UK’s survey data—students do not appear to endorse excellence to a high degree with respect to the curriculum in helping them develop effective oral and written communication skills and in preparing them for their work lives. Although graduating seniors tend to self-report progress in making effective oral presentations and writing effectively, their Carnegie peers rate the contribution of their institutions higher, and as alumni, UK graduates appear to be somewhat dissatisfied with their preparation for work, which, it is safe to assume, involves possessing adequate oral and writing skills. Therefore, in considering key elements of the UK strategic plan—excellence, preparation for leading roles, expertise in the discipline, and being among the best—these findings generate concern about less-than-excellent perceptions of the quality of a UK education in helping students improve communication skills and develop job-related skills. The UK QEP—Presentation U—will address this concern. Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). With respect to self-reported survey data, perhaps a more informative measure of student learning can be found in results of the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). UK initiated participation in a longitudinal study of student improvement on the CLA starting with the fall 2007 freshman cohort. The longitudinal design of the CLA required that UK administer it to the same cohort three times: first in fall 2007, next in spring 2009, and finally, in spring 2011. Results of the CLA provide an “effect size” indicating learning gains between the three phases (i.e., freshman, rising junior, and senior CLA administrations); an effect size of 0.5 is considered “large.” Initial results available in 2009-2010 found that UK student learning gains from the freshman to rising junior levels were:

• Below expected on the “Performance Task” that requires students to use an integrated set of critical thinking, analytic reasoning, problem solving, and written communication


24

skills to answer several open-ended questions about a hypothetical but realistic situation.

• At expected for the “Analytic Writing Task” made up of “make-an-argument” and “critique-an-argument” components measuring a student’s skill in articulating complex ideas, examining claims and evidence, supporting ideas with relevant reasons and examples, sustaining a coherent discussion, and using standard written English.

While the early results of the CLA with respect to the Performance Task supported the need for improving instruction related to written communication skills, the final results of the longitudinal study, as shown in Exhibit 2.3 below, were both surprising and compelling:

• When comparing student performance in 2007 (freshmen) and 2009 (rising juniors), the improvement in scores was below expected for the performance task and above expected for the analytic writing task. (Note: initial 2007 to 2009 CLA results differ from those in the final longitudinal study due to sample adjustments made by CLA.)

• When comparing student performance in 2007 (freshmen) and 2011 (seniors), the improvement in scores was above expected for the performance task and below expected for the analytic writing task.

• When comparing student performance in 2009 (rising juniors) with their performance in 2011 (seniors), the improvement in scores was well above expected for the performance task and well below expected for the analytic writing task (making and critiquing arguments).

Exhibit 2.3: Performance Level over Three Phases of the CLA, 2007 Cohort

Surprisingly, the initial trends of improvement on the performance task and analytical writing task were reversed between the rising junior and senior years, a time when students begin to focus studies on their majors. More research on this finding is necessary to facilitate understanding of what is happening, and the University is pursuing this line of inquiry starting with a new longitudinal study implemented in fall 2011. More compelling for the QEP, however, these findings suggest that UK students improve very little after completing required general education courses designed to develop these kinds of skills, which suggests further that UK needs to help students strengthen these skills as they complete their major program of study. Therefore, there is a need for a consistent, focused curriculum in the major to help improve students’ written communication skill. The UK QEP—Presentation U—will address this need. Additional Findings. Other data available to support the QEP topic included the following: Wabash National Study. The Wabash National Study employed a three-phase longitudinal design. The first two phases were conducted in 2006-2007: a cohort of full-time freshmen was tested in both fall and spring semesters. The final phase was conducted in February 2010. Exhibit 2.4 shows the proportion of students from the freshman cohort of fall 2006 who exhibited


25

moderate to high growth (change of 0.3 standard deviations or more), small growth (change between 0.05 and 0.3 standard deviations), or no growth/decline (change less than 0.05 standard deviations) in the outcomes. After four years at UK, 20 percent of students had no growth or declined in critical thinking, 60 percent of students had no growth or declined in positive attitude toward literacy (reading and writing), and 74 percent of students had no growth or declined in academic motivation. These findings suggest that UK students need additional support in developing key skills related to MCXC and in sustaining motivation toward academic success. Presentation U will address these needs. Exhibit 2.4: Wabash National Study Results, UK Student Growth Over Time

Oral Communication Course Analysis. In April 2004 oral communication was suspended from general education and not reinstated until fall 2009. As indicated in Exhibit 2.5 (below), from academic year 2003 through 2009, 65 percent of UK undergraduates took at least one oral communication course before receiving degrees; conversely, 35 percent did not. Thus, there has been a lack of focus and commitment to oral communication at UK during a time when it has become increasingly important for success in the workplace. Presentation U will help reverse this trend and strengthen UK students’ skills beyond general education and into their chosen fields. Exhibit 2.5: Percentage of Graduates completing an Oral Communication Course


26

The Case for Visual Communication. An important finding that emerged from reviewing institutional data available for documenting the need to improve student learning was the obvious absence of any reference to visual communication, an area of intellectual and academic pursuit made particularly salient in today’s world of high tech visual resources designed to communicate ideas, opinions, and messages. This finding, in and of itself, suggests that UK needs to update its curriculum to address and assess visual communication competencies. The new UK Core includes visual competencies in general education. If data indicate a need to further strengthen written and oral communication within disciplines, then it follows that UK should work to strengthen visual communication within disciplines as well. The QEP, Presentation U, will address this need. Taken together, the assessment and institutional research findings above resulted in the following concerns that guided development of UK’s QEP, Presentation U:

1) deficiencies in students’ written communication skills, as evidenced by CLA results; 2) perceived shortcomings among students in development of job-related skills and

knowledge, as evidenced by self-report survey results; 3) gaps in consistent development and assessment of oral communication skills, as

evidenced by oral communication course completions as well as survey results; 4) little emphasis, if any, on visual communication skills; and, therefore, most importantly, 5) little emphasis on oral, written, and visual communication competencies within disciplines.

Nationwide Research. For an institution such as UK that aspires to be among the best research universities in the nation, nationwide research is an essential source of information about teaching multimodal communication skills across the curriculum. Colleges and universities nationwide typically require at least one course in written composition and one course in oral communication as part of general education. Doing so is intended to prepare students to communicate effectively upon graduation. However, research repeatedly reveals that students do not effectively transfer the skills learned in these fundamentals courses into their majors or into their actions as professionals after graduation (Finley, 2012). This deficit stems from the fact that fundamentals alone are not enough and one size does not fit all. In other words, these skills are not congenital but, rather, acquired and developed over time through the processes of instruction, practice, assessment, and revision. Thus, students need to further hone the fundamental skills acquired in the general education curriculum in ways that prepare them specifically for their academic disciplines and the professions their chosen majors represent. The following paragraphs highlight several vital reasons for selecting Presentation U as the UK QEP. While all employers want to hire college graduates who can communicate effectively, they seek most diligently those who are competent in the appropriate vernacular. Survey after survey of business and industry professionals reports that communication skills are among the most sought after skills in new hires. Mastering communication, public speaking and debate is “critical in any environment where you’re working with others to get things done—in other words, all jobs” (Schiavone, 2012), president and founder of CollegeRecruiter.com, concludes that all graduates “should successfully complete at least a few classes in topics such as writing, debate, speech, public speaking, and communication [to] enhance their communication skills [and] concretely demonstrate these skills to potential employers” (Schiavone, 2012). One of the most comprehensive studies on skills employers seek in college graduates was conducted by Peter D. Hart Associates on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) and released in 2007. Responses from a series of interviews with 305


27

employers of college graduates, company owners, CEOs, presidents, and vice presidents revealed the most important and sought-after skills as:

• Teamwork skills and the ability to collaborate with others in a diverse group (44%) • Critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills (33%) • The ability to communicate orally and in writing (30%) • The ability to assemble and organize information from multiple sources (21%) • The ability to innovate and think creatively (20%) • The ability to work with numbers/statistics (9%) • Foreign language proficiency (3%).

Interestingly, results from interviews with 510 recent college graduates in the same study also ranked these top three skill sets as most important:

• Teamwork skills and the ability to collaborate with others in a diverse group (38%) • Critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills (37%) • The ability to communicate orally and in writing (37%)

Thus, a QEP focused intentionally on refining multimodal communication skills (i.e., integrated written, oral, and visual communication delivered in flat print, face-to-face, and digital environments) and tailoring this information to the particulars of their chosen fields will better prepare UK graduates for the working world they will enter when they graduate. Second, employers reported that these are the very skills college graduates lack. In a follow-up survey of 302 employers and college graduates conducted by the AACU in 2009, only “one in four employers thinks . . . colleges are doing a good job in preparing students for [today’s] challenges” (Hart, 2010, p. 2). More specifically, 89 percent of those interviewed said colleges should place greater emphasis on developing students’ “ability to effectively communicate orally and in writing” (p. 9). Eighty-one percent of those interviewed reported that college graduates also lack desired critical and analytical reasoning skills (p. 9). Although these data are not specific to UK, one can reasonably assume they reflect UK students as much as others, especially when only 12 percent of UK alumni report that preparation for the demands of their job was excellent. Thus, these data are quite useful in informing efforts at UK. As such, Presentation U will not only address the concerns and needs that emerged during a review of institution-level data, but will also address a national need identified by employers who may seek to hire UK graduates.

Additional Rationale for Addressing Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum Building on UK Core. Although the aforementioned rationale alone warrants selection of MCXC as UK’s QEP topic, Presentation U addresses another important UK aim, which is based on fundamental design principles underlying UK’s revised general education curriculum—UK Core. In 2008, the University community began developing a new and improved general education curriculum to replace the existing general education curriculum, the University Studies Program (USP). The University Senate and Provost jointly established a General Education Reform Steering Committee to do so in ways that adhered to seven essential design principles. One of the seven design principles of the newly established UK Core requires the University’s general education program to:

“Intentionally identify and strengthen the connections between the general education curriculum and the student’s major field of study.”


28

Further, UK Core addresses these principles based on four assessable learning outcomes, one of which is:

“Students will demonstrate competent written, oral, and visual communication as producers and consumers of information.”

Presentation U, targeting juniors and seniors in upper-division courses, will complement the design principles and learning outcomes of UK Core (freshman and sophomore years). In looking at the sequence of events over the four undergraduate years, UK Core will address this learning outcome through a two-course integrated multimodal composition and communication sequence that reflects effective communication skills and practices. Presentation U will then build on the UK Core outcome by reinforcing multimodal communication skills that meet the needs of each student’s individual discipline. Communication Requirement in the Major (CRM). Another important UK initiative rests with a proposal currently being reviewed at the University Senate to expand the University-wide Graduation Writing Requirement into what was initially described as the Communication Requirement in the Major (CRM). To clarify, UK implemented a six-year GWR pilot in Fall 2004. The intent was to embed a writing-intensive course into all majors across the University by 2010. Writing-intensive courses required students to prepare a substantial research paper that underwent a series of revisions based on peer and instructor reviews; unfortunately, the goal was not realized by 2010. A majority of students were, in fact, achieving the Graduation Writing Requirement through an English course (e.g., ENG 203, 205, 231, 232, 233, 234, 261, 281) rather than through an assignment or series of assignments in the student’s chosen major. At that time, the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education appointed a task force comprised of individuals representing a broad cross-section of undergraduate programs to determine why integration of the Graduation Writing Requirement had not occurred and then to propose a revision or replacement that addresses the issues. The committee has now revised the CRM into what is being described as the Graduation Composition and Communication Requirement (GCCR) in the major, which is more directly aligned with the integrated written, oral, and visual communication outcome in the UK Core (see Appendix E). The proposed GCCR replaces a one-size-fits-all writing requirement with a more flexible communication requirement tailored directly to the expectations of the professions for which each major prepares its students. In an effort to promote flexibility, each undergraduate degree program will be asked to: 1) identify one or more specific GCCR program learning outcomes, 2) provide assignments and courses that fulfill the identified outcomes, and 3) develop a specific program learning outcome and assessment plan focused directly on the GCCR. While these specific learning outcomes are not yet available, in general, students will be expected to be able to: 1) craft a document of at least 4,500 words, 2) deliver a 10 minute presentation OR create at least one significant visual/electronic artifact (e.g., a website or video presentation), and 3) respond to feedback on the assigned work. Since the GCCR is to be managed within each department or unit, if approved, Presentation U will provide the necessary faculty education and student tutoring support infrastructure to ensure the success of this expanded requirement. Finally, although an assessment showed that 112 of the 141 undergraduate majors at UK have a student learning outcome related to some aspect of communication, to date no formalized systematic instruction or student product assessment of them exists. Thus, Presentation U will break new ground in helping to fill this instruction and assessment gap at UK.


29

A Cutting-Edge Focus. Across the country similar programs to Presentation U exist, focusing intentionally on writing across the curriculum, on speaking across the curriculum, and even on writing and speaking across the curriculum. However, none of them was originally created with the goal of intentionally and purposefully embracing all three modalities (written, oral, visual) and all three delivery channels (flat print, face-to-face, digital). Thus, Presentation U’s multimodal communication focus places UK among the trendsetters in addressing communication broadly across the curriculum, acknowledging the role of integrated written, oral, and visual communication. In turn, UK graduates will also stand out as “trendsetters” by demonstrating the higher level of multimodal communication skills that employers are seeking, helping the University achieve its mission, vision, and goals. Presentation U’s vision for MCXC offered as situated learning is particularly exciting. Lave and Wenger (1991) are credited with first proposing the concept of situated learning, which is grounded in the assumption that learning is a co-constructed social process that is most effective when situated within a specific context. Ultimately, the University of Kentucky will situate multimodal communication skills training and development within the contexts of individual majors to help students discover, internalize, and practice these skills in the very business and community settings and within the constraints of their chosen fields. UK will do so by “assist[ing] faculty across the university in developing . . . communication assignments and evaluation tools for their courses,” (Sellnow & Martin, 2010, pp. 37-38). Presentation U aspires to do what Dannels and Housley-Gaffney (2009) suggest in terms of bridging the divide between CXC (Communication Across the Curriculum) and WAC (Writing Across the Curriculum) programs to work together in ways that will, ultimately, better prepare UK college graduates for life beyond the University. Thus, the University of Kentucky is innovative in its vision for preparing its graduates in terms of communication skills, but it is also joined by other institutions—North Carolina State University, Rutgers, Stanford, and Iowa State University, to name a few—that are pursuing related projects. Students will benefit greatly from this nationwide movement to develop multimodal communication skill-building into curricula in a variety of ways in introductory courses as well as vertically integrating it within the disciplines.

Historical Perspective

Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC or WXC) and Communication Across the Curriculum (CAC or CXC) programs first emerged in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s as a component of general education (e.g., Bazerman, et al., 2005; Cronin & Glenn, 1991). This initiative may have come about, in part, as a response to a perceived literacy crisis captured by a 1975 Newsweek article, “Why Johnny Can’t Write.” Perhaps the single best comprehensive resource for information is the WAC Clearinghouse3. Complaints from business and industry leaders that “college graduates do not possess adequate written and oral communication skills” provided a primary rationale for creating such programs (Cronin & Glen, 1991, p. 356). Interestingly, however, half of the CXC centers established before 1990 were disbanded by the late 1990s (Weiss, 1998). Reasons stemmed from “financial exigencies, to leader dependence, to insufficient institutionalization” (Sellnow & Martin, 2010, p. 37). Over the past decade, however, such programs have gained renewed momentum. Notably different this time, however, is the fact that WAC and CXC programs are beginning to merge, as colleges and universities realize that effective communication is more than either writing or

3 Information on the WAC Clearinghouse may be found at http://wac.colostate.edu/.

http://wac.colostate.edu/


30

speaking alone (e.g., Dannels & Housley-Gaffney, 2009; Reiss, Selfe, & Young, 1998; Sheridan & Inman, 2010). Research suggests five models of such programs: (1) speaking-intensive programs, (2) combined speaking and writing programs, (3) discipline-specific programs, (4) faculty development programs, and (5) start-up programs (Helsel & Hogg, 2006). Furthermore, scholars seem to agree that a model that emphasizes faculty development, support, and recognition is critical to success (Hampson, 2009; Helsel & Hogg, 2006; Hobgood, 2000; Weiss, 1990; Yancy & Huot, 1997). Finally, successful programs today appear to focus on both student tutoring and faculty development (Dannels, 2001a). However, only about twenty percent of these programs provide a structure focused on both (Helsel & Hogg, 2006). Systematic assessment focusing on both student achievement and faculty development is also clearly critical to program success (Dannels, 2001a). Such insights will inform Presentation U (see Best Practices below).

Related Programs Beyond published research about the history and current state of WAC and CXC programs, the Grounders identified fifteen programs at other institutions related to the proposed Presentation U (see Exhibit 2.6). To learn more about these programs and how they might help in creation and implementation of Presentation U, committee members reviewed written documents and/or conducted interviews with program directors. For example, Rebecca Burdette, Assistant Director of the Communication Across the Curriculum program at Louisiana State University, reported:

In only five short years, we have built a dedicated community of 300+ faculty committed to improving the communication skills of LSU undergraduates in every college . . . and [the program] has positively impacted student learning overall, resulting in deeper learning of course content and improved critical thinking and analytical skills. (personal correspondence taken from the original white paper)

Similarly, April Kedrowicz, director of the CLEAR (Communication, Leadership, Ethics, and Research) program at the University of Utah, indicated that the program:

has had a positive effect on student learning and communication skill development. Graduates are entering the workforce with above average speaking, writing, and teaming competencies.” (personal correspondence taken from the original white paper).

And, Deanna Dannels, PhD, associate director of North Carolina State University’s Campus Writing and Speaking Program (CWSP), explained that they have:

helped faculty across campus, in every discipline from agriculture to zoology. Through our faculty development programs, students are more engaged in both formal and informal writing and speaking. Faculty consistently report back to us that their students’ communication skills improve at the same time that students’ understanding of course content improves. (personal correspondence taken from the original white paper).

These efforts not only helped to establish best practices (see below) for developing Presentation U, but also affirmed that such programs can improve student learning.


31

Exhibit 2.6: Related Programs

Institution Program Title Writ

ten

Ora

l

Dig

ital

Stud

ent

Focu

s

Facu

lty

Focu

s

Cen

ter

Acr

oss

Ye

ars

Acr

oss

M

ajor

s

University of Southern Mississippi

Finding a Voice: Improving Oral & Written Competence X X X X X X

Dillard University Communication Skills Enhancement Grounded in Critical Thinking

X X X X

Frank Phillips College Writing Matters X X X

George Corley Wallace State Community College Write Now! X X X X X

Piedmont Virginia Community College

Write Here, Write Now! Creating a Culture of Writing X X X X X

Iowa State WOVE (written, oral, visual, electronic) X X X X X X X

Louisiana State University Communication Across the Curriculum X X X X X X X X

University of Houston Writing Center X X X X X X

SW Christian College Improving Writing Skills X X X X

King College Communication Skills X X X X

North Carolina Central University Communicating to Succeed X X X X X

Our Lady of the Lake College

Engaged Learning through Writing Initiative X X X

University of Mississippi Write Here. Write Now. Enhancing Student Writing. X X X X

North Carolina State Campus Writing and Speaking Program X X X X X X X

University of North Carolina-Greensboro

Communication Across the Curriculum X X X X X X X


32

Best Practices Several best practices emerged from the committee’s research into the history, current state, and challenges faced by WAC and CXC programs. These best practices include a clear focus on: 1) faculty development and support paired with a student tutoring program, 2) assessment, 3) vertical integration of relevant communication skill training within the disciplines and over the course of a student’s entire college career, and 4) interdisciplinarity. First, a program that focuses intentionally on faculty development paired with student tutoring enhances student learning, faculty involvement, and faculty coordination among units across the campus (Agee & Holisky, 2000; Weiss, 1990). Faculty development is critical to debunking misconceptions about what communication is, how to evaluate it, and that anyone can teach it without any formal training (Dannels 2001a; Helsel & Hogg, 2006; Russell, 1987). To be successful, faculty development must be an ongoing, recursive process that includes regular meetings (Anstendig & Ritchie, 2003). Opportunities for training and consultation with experts must also be readily available and ongoing (Cronin and Glenn, 1991; Morello, 2000). Thus, faculty development will comprise one of the three learning outcomes of Presentation U. Faculty should not be forced to participate but, instead, should be allowed to volunteer and be offered incentives for doing so (Hobgood, 2000). Faculty development efforts must be supported with financial, human, and physical resources as well as in the form of tenure, promotion, and merit recognition (Cronin & Glenn, 1990; Dannels, 2001a). In fact, lack of faculty development, support and involvement is cited most often as a primary reason programs fail (Cronin, Grice, & Palmerton, 2000; Helsel & Hogg, 2006; Weiss, 1998). Thus, the University’s proposed Presentation U institutes a volunteer Faculty Fellows Program supported by financial incentives for faculty participation ($3,000), locates the program within the Provost’s Office to ensure University support, and establishes a budget that supports successful implementation. In addition, successful completion will result in a formal certificate as well as showcasing of the faculty member’s success as evidenced by his/her achievements, abilities, and successful multimodal communication products. All Faculty Fellows will be honored as positive examples and role models. The Presentation U plan also provides for sustainability, should the Faculty Fellows Program prove successful. Finally, in recognition that successful programs today appear to focus on both student tutoring and faculty development (Dannels, 2001a), Presentation U will include a student tutoring component to help students refine their multimodal communication projects for classes, conferences, or other professional presentations. Second, learning outcomes and assessment must drive programs (Cronin & Glenn, 1990). Assessment must be a priority to find out “what students know” and can “do upon graduation” (Helsel & Hogg, p. 37). To be effective, assessment must be clearly connected to the larger university assessment program (Helsel & Hogg, 2006). Assessment for improvement of communication skills over time must occur throughout a student’s college career rather than in only one class or only when students visit the tutoring center. This research is critical for such programs to succeed and flourish (Dannels & Gaffney, 2009). Thus, learning outcomes and assessment findings undergird Presentation U, which will undergo continuous assessment and improvement. Third, communication skill development must be integrated into and situated within programs and majors throughout the University (Morello, 2000). Research suggests that early attempts to provide WAC and CXC failed, in part, because they were tied directly and exclusively to the general education program. After students completed their written and oral


33

communication general education courses, they failed to transfer those skills into their work in upper-division major courses. Effective communication skills cannot be achieved in one or two isolated skills-based general education courses. Not only is “communication . . . too important to get taught in a single course” (Steinfatt, 1986, p. 464), its relevance is best determined as it pertains to the professions for which a given major prepares its students (Dannels, 2001b). Foundational courses (such as the Composition and Communication I and II courses required in the UK Core) are necessary for teaching fundamentals; however, these skills are made relevant only when vertically integrated and refined within the disciplines. Thus, Presentation U will focus on skill development of junior and senior students in upper-division courses in diverse disciplines. Fourth, many programs failed in the past, in part, because they were not fully integrated “into the organizational structure of the university” (Russell, 1987, p. 185) and consisted of many “dispersed, decentralized conversations” (Dannels & Gaffney, 2009, p. 141). To be successful, WAC and CXC programs must be intentionally interdisciplinary. That is, they must be “woven so tightly into the fabric of the institution as to resist the subtle unraveling of academic politics” (Russell, 1987, p. 191). To ensure success, participation, contributions, and leadership must be shared among disciplines (Garside, 2002; Helsel & Hogg, 2006). Presentation U will employ communication experts to serve as consultants who work with faculty within various disciplines to develop instructional strategies and assignments suited to the outcomes expected of graduates in those programs. This concept rooted in situated learning theory has come to be referred to in some circles as communication in the disciplines (CID) rather than communication across the curriculum (CXC), which can sometimes be misinterpreted as a one-size-fits-all approach. One size certainly does not fit all when it comes to the types of communication skills required in different professions and in interaction with those professions’ diverse communities. Thus, placing the program in the Provost’s Office addresses the best practices described above and encourages acculturation of the program within the University. Summary. Presentation U will adhere closely to each of these best practices as the University of Kentucky provides multimodal communication skill-building to its graduates by means of both student tutoring and professional development for the faculty (who will ultimately teach and model these skills). This dual focus housed within a Presentation Center will help students improve multimodal communication skills within their declared major field and better prepare them for the workforce, addressing the concerns and needs identified in the rationale. Learning and program outcomes for Presentation U are clearly established in Chapter 3; each element of the Presentation U action plan is described in Chapter 4; and detailed plans for assessment of Presentation U outcomes are presented in Chapter 5.


34

CHAPTER 3: LEARNING AND PROGRAM OUTCOMES

This chapter sets forth expected learning and program outcomes for UK’s QEP, Presentation U. It begins with a brief summary of findings that led to the identification of multimodal communication across the disciplines (MCXC) as the QEP topic, followed by a summary of best practices that will be incorporated into Presentation U. Next, a clear definition of multimodal communication across-the-disciplines is established, followed by learning outcomes that are specified for both students and faculty who participate in Presentation U. Finally, program outcomes will be specified for the major components comprising the Presentation Center. Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum Development of the rationale for Presentation U made clear the need to address the following areas to improve student learning:

• a deficiency in students’ written communication skills; • perceived shortcomings in developing job-related skills and knowledge; • the absence of consistent development and assessment of oral communication skills; • little emphasis on visual communication skills; and, most importantly, • little emphasis on combined oral, written, and visual communication competencies within

disciplines.

These identified points, collectively, indicate less than adequate preparation for UK students in all areas of multimodal communication in the majors. It is important to note here at the onset that, while oral and written communication have been part of a general university education for many years, visual communication and multimodal communication are relatively new, arriving with the digital age, and represent largely “untested waters” (i.e. as yet incompletely or un-assessed at the university level). In the University’s efforts to address multimodal communication across the curriculum, UK is recognizing a rising trend. If successful, this effort will advance students and point the direction for university education in the twenty-first century. For these reasons, UK chose to focus on the integration of multimodal communication skills within the major, complementing and building upon pedagogies from the general education curriculum (UK Core). Multimodal Communication Across the Curriculum A review of related literature and similar existing programs identified best practices to be incorporated into Presentation U:

1. A Faculty Fellows Program to help faculty develop expertise around teaching multimodal communication skill in re-designed MCXC courses, paired with a student tutoring component to help students refine their multimodal communication projects for MCXC courses.

2. Comprehensive assessment of learning and program outcomes to facilitate continuous improvement and ensure success.

3. Vertical integration of relevant communication skill training that builds on successful general education outcomes and focuses on skill development of junior and senior students in upper-division courses.

4. Work with faculty in many disciplines to develop instructional strategies and assignments suited to the outcomes expected of graduates in those programs.


35

Definition of Multi-modal Communication Across the Discipline Multimodal communication is the ability to communicate in the following formats: oral/aural (sounds/speaking/hearing/listening), written (words/reading/writing), and visual (seeing/images/ nonverbal symbols) across the curriculum. These multimodal messages may be communicated in flat print (academic papers, research reports, brochures, newsletters, etc.), face-to-face (conversations, consultations, public speeches, etc.), or using digital (television, cell phone, computer, Internet, etc.) channels. Communication occurs in intrapersonal, interpersonal, small group, and public contexts or settings and addresses both production and consumption. Interpersonal contexts involve two people. Interpersonal communication regularly serves the purpose of forming and maintaining relationships among, for example, acquaintances, friends, colleagues, and intimates. Small group contexts involve a few people who may come together to interact and collaborate in order to achieve a common goal. Some examples include family groups, social groups, support groups, service groups, and workplace teams. Public contexts involve large audiences whether the communication comes as one-to-many or a few-to-many. Communication in public contexts aims at publishing, distributing, or broadcasting a unified message and may come in the form of a news report, public speech, newsletter, or website. For purposes of refining the goals of the QEP, here the focus is on information production and on interpersonal, small group, and public contexts. The Goal of Presentation U To address student learning deficiencies in written communication, less-than-excellent preparation for job demands, and inconsistent or inadequate curricular offerings in oral and visual communication, the overarching goal for Presentation U is to: Prepare students to employ effective, state-of-the-art, multimodal communication skills as expected of professionals in their chosen fields. Learning and program outcomes have been developed to ensure that this goal is achieved. Learning Outcomes Learning outcomes (LOs) are broad statements that describe the specific sets of knowledge, skills, behaviors, beliefs/attitudes, or values indicative of successful growth and development for students and faculty. Achieving the overarching goal of Presentation U will require new learning outcomes for two key groups: Presentation U students and Faculty Fellows. For the purpose of establishing learning outcomes, the phrase “Presentation U students” refers to students who complete MCXC courses taught by Faculty Fellows Program participants. Most important, UK seeks to prepare students to communicate effectively using multiple modes, via various channels, and within different contexts as appropriate in a particular field of study or profession. Thus, UK has identified the following broadly stated learning outcomes for Presentation U students:

Learning Outcome 1 (LO1: addressing learning improvement in knowledge and skills). Presentation U students will demonstrate competent communication (written, oral, and/or visual) skills as producers of information4 as defined within individual disciplines.

4 For purposes of assessment, the QEP student learning outcome is intentionally focused on competent communication as producers of information. However, it is understood that instruction focused on


36

Learning Outcome 2 (LO2: addressing positive change in beliefs/attitudes). Presentation U students will be able to describe their development of communication skills, job-related skills and knowledge, and preparation for job demands at high levels indicative of excellence.

To achieve these student learning outcomes, UK also seeks to prepare faculty to teach multimodal communication effectively within their disciplines. Thus, UK has identified the following broadly stated learning outcome for Faculty Fellows:

Learning Outcome 3 (LO3: addressing the environment supporting student learning). Faculty Fellows will demonstrate the ability to implement written, oral, and/or visual communication assignments and/or activities that reflect disciplinary definitions of competent communication.

Exhibit 3.1 depicts operationalized outcomes for Presentation U students and Faculty Fellows. Operationalized outcomes are specific, measureable statements of performance, which, taken together, comprise broadly stated learning outcomes. Thus, operationalized outcomes are sub-components of each learning outcome; they are specific statements of what students and faculty will be able to do. Exhibit 3.1: Learning Outcomes and their Operationalized Outcomes for Presentation U Students and Faculty Fellows Learning Outcome 1 (LO1): Students will demonstrate competent communication (written, oral, and/or visual) as defined within individual disciplines as producers of information. Operationalized Outcomes for LO1:

Students will develop written communication competency as demonstrated by: Content LO1-1. Effective, comprehensive, and accurate use of evidence to explain and support ideas. LO1-2. Use of evidence-formed analysis that is both cogent and connected to a clearly defined purpose. LO1-3. Submissions that fully meet assignment criteria. Structure LO1-4. Clear organization of content with effective connection among ideas and purpose, with transitions that enhance readability. LO1-5. Language and tone that are appropriate for the audience and occasion. LO1-6. Adherence to writing standards regarding style and conventions (e.g., grammar, sentence structure, spelling, use of citations). Delivery LO1-7. Presentation in a format appropriate for the audience and occasion. LO1-8. Appropriate adaptation to the conventions of the genre and medium.

Students will develop speaking communication competency as demonstrated by: Content LO1-9. Appropriately using evidence to support goal and main ideas.

competent communication as producers will inevitably also include a natural focus on competent communication as consumers of information as well (but the consumer aspect will not be assessed as part of the QEP).


37

LO1-10. Using evidence-formed analysis that is both cogent and connected to a clearly defined purpose. LO1-11. A presentation that fully meets assignment criteria. Structure LO1-12. Clear organization of content with effective connection among ideas and purpose, with transitions that enhance understanding of the flow among ideas. LO1-13. Language and tone that are appropriate for the audience and occasion. LO1-14. Adherence to the standards regarding style and conventions (e.g., grammar, pronunciation and enunciation, source citations). Delivery LO1-15. Effective use of voice that is intelligible, conversational, and expressive. LO1-16. Effective body language that conveys confidence and poise in ways that enhance the verbal message. LO1-17. Effectively construction and integrated presentational (visual, audio, audiovisual) aids. Students will develop visual communication competency as demonstrated by: Content LO1-18. Choice of visual content that enhances understanding of the message and contributes to a unified theme. LO1-19. Visual communication artifacts that fully meet assignment criteria.• Visuals that are cited appropriately in text and references. Structure LO1-20. Document designs that demonstrate a strategic integration and lay-out of visual content that supports impact, meaning, and/or appeal of the message. LO1-21. Visual conventions that are appropriate for the intended audience and venue (e.g., color, font, placement, space). LO1-22. Visual features that are appropriate for purpose, audience, and occasion. Delivery LO1-23. Choice of visual medium that is appropriate for purpose, audience, and occasion. LO1-24. Professional quality and design that effectively engage the audience and communicate the message and purpose Learning Outcome 2 (LO2): Presentation U students are able to describe their development of communication skills, job-related skills and knowledge, and preparation for job demands at high levels indicative of excellence. Operationalized Outcomes for LO2: LO2-1. In their senior year, Presentation U students will describe their improvement in written, oral, and visual communication skills at a level higher than non-Presentation U seniors. LO2-2. In their senior year, Presentation U students will describe their UK experience as contributing very much to their job-related skills and knowledge and at levels that meet or exceed peers at Carnegie institutions. LO2-3. As alumni, Presentation U students will describe their major curriculum as preparing them for job demands at a level exceeding those of non-Presentation U alumni. Learning Outcome 3 (LO3): Faculty Fellows will demonstrate the ability to implement written, oral, and/or visual communication assignments and/or activities that reflect disciplinary definitions of competent communication.


38

Operationalized Outcomes for LO3: Faculty Fellows are able to: LO3-1. Define what constitutes competent written, oral, and/or visual communication in their fields. LO3-2. Design activities that create opportunities for students to enhance their major-specific written, oral, and/or visual communication. LO3-3. Effectively implement activities and/or assignments that create opportunities for students to develop their major-specific communication proficiencies. LO3-4. Use assessment rubrics to evaluate students’ proficiency in major-specific written, oral, and/or visual communication. Program Outcomes Program Outcomes (POs) are broad statements that describe operational and process expectations indicating effective programs. Achieving the overarching goal of Presentation U will require exceptional performance of the two programs that constitute the Presentation Center: the Student Tutoring Program and the Faculty Fellows Program. Thus, UK has identified the following broadly stated outcomes for these programs:

Program Outcome 1 (PO1): The Student Tutoring Program will support a sufficient number of Presentation U students to achieve the goal of Presentation U. Program Outcome 2 (PO2): The Student Tutoring Program will provide courteous, responsive, and effective academic support for Presentation U students. Program Outcome 3 (PO3): The Faculty Fellows Program will support a sufficient number of faculty to achieve the goal of Presentation U. Program Outcome 4 (PO4): The Faculty Fellows Program will provide useful information in workshops that lead to effective implementation of MCXC courses in the major.

Exhibit 3.2 depicts program and operationalized outcomes for the major program components of the Presentation Center. Exhibit 3.2: Program Outcomes and their Operationalized Outcomes for the Presentation Center Program Outcome 1 (PO1): The Student Tutoring Program will support a sufficient number of Presentation U students to achieve the goal of Presentation U. Operationalized Outcomes for PO1: PO1-1. The Student Tutoring Program will serve a high percentage of Presentation U students each semester. PO1-2. A high percentage of students previously served by the Student Tutoring Program will seek additional support. Program Outcome 2 (PO2): The Student Tutoring Program will provide courteous, responsive, and effective academic support for Presentation U students. Operationalized Outcomes for PO2: A high percentage of students served by the Student Tutoring Program will: PO2-1. Evaluate tutors as helpful and responsive to their needs. PO2-2. Report improved understanding of and performance on MCXC projects as a result of tutoring participation.


39

Program Outcome 3 (PO3): The Faculty Fellows Program will support a sufficient number of faculty to achieve the goal of Presentation U. Operationalized Outcomes for PO3: PO3-1. The Faculty Fellows Program will enroll the maximum number of faculty that can be supported each year. PO3-2. The composition of Faculty Fellows will be representative of the diverse departments that offer undergraduate degree programs. PO3-2. A high percentage of Faculty Fellows will implement and sustain multimodal communication instruction, projects, and assessment in their courses. Program Outcome 4 (PO4): The Faculty Fellows Program will provide useful information in workshops that lead to effective implementation of MCXC courses in the major. Operationalized Outcomes for PO4: A high percentage of Faculty Fellows who participate in workshops will: PO4-1. Strongly agree that the content was useful for their needs and interests. PO4-2. Agree that they have a better understanding of how to use rubrics for assessing communication assignments in their courses. PO4-3. Implement multimodal communication in their courses. PO4-4. Report that students in their course demonstrated achievement of the outcome: competent communication (written, oral, and/or visual, across multiple modes) within the discipline. Assessment strategies have been developed for both learning outcomes and program outcomes and are presented in detail in Chapter 5, Assessment Plan.


40

CHAPTER 4: FIVE-YEAR ACTION PLAN This chapter provides an overview of Presentation U’s administrative structure, design, and operations. It describes a pre-implementation pilot project (Phase I, Part A) and the five-year Presentation U implementation plan (Phase I, Part B and Phase II). To meet the goal of improving students’ multimodal communication skills within the majors, Presentation U focuses on upper-division undergraduates. It consists of two major components: a Student Tutoring Program and a Faculty Fellows Program, both of which will be located in the Presentation Center. Administrative Structure Presentation U will report to the Provost. The Program Director, three Program Coordinators, and a six to eight member interdisciplinary Advisory Council will oversee the program (Exhibit 4.15) and ensure successful and efficient collaboration with appropriate pre-existing programs such as the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, the MC3 Lab, the Writing Center, the eStudio, and the Study (see Exhibits 4.3 and 4.4). The Program Director will be a tenured full professor with experience in program administration, expertise in multimodal communication, and evidence of teaching excellence in higher education. This full-time position will hire and oversee the faculty, staff, and students working in the program, as well as all Presentation U operations. A half-time Coordinator for Student Services will recruit, train, and supervise student tutors and mentors and manage day-to-day operations in the Center. A half-time Coordinator for Faculty Development will oversee the Faculty Fellows program. A half-time Coordinator for Assessment will lead assessment processes and prepare assessment reports. Additional descriptions of all roles and responsibilities appear in Exhibit 4.5. Exhibit 4.1: Organizational Design of Presentation U

5 Advisory Council Structure. For the first two years, the Advisory Council/Implementation Team will be larger than 6 to 8 members and will consist of two separate subcommittees in order to ensure full attention to the needs of each program. The first subcommittee will focus on operations involving student tutoring to be conducted at the Presentation Center. The second subcommittee will focus on operations of the Faculty Fellows Program to promote faculty development. After two years, these two groups will be melded and pruned to form the smaller 6 to 8 member advisory board that will operate as such from that point on.


41

Student Tutoring Program Student tutoring services will be housed in the Presentation Center to be located in the basement of the William T. Young Library as an extension of “The Hub.” The Hub currently provides technology and research services as well as study space. The Hub is currently being renovated to add oral presentation practice rooms, space for large-group and small-group workshops and collaborative projects, and state-of-the-art digital technology hardware and software. These initial renovations, which are taking place during the 2012-2013 academic year, are being covered by the $17 student fee. Tutoring will be one additional service available during the Hub’s operating hours. Hours of operation, staffing, and training plans are based on pilot assessment results from students who visited a similar facility (the MC3 Lab) during the Fall 2012 semester using the “Presentation U Tally Sheet” and “Presentation U Experience Survey” located in Appendix G (items #3 and #8). Presentation U will target juniors and seniors enrolled in the courses redesigned and taught by Faculty Fellows Program participants. However, all UK students, faculty, and staff seeking to refine their multimodal communication projects for classes, conferences, or other professional presentations may use the services of the student tutors in the Presentation Center. These tutors will provide individual and small-group peer tutoring in any communication modality (e.g., oral presentations, visual products, written documents, audiovisual broadcasts, websites, digital products). Tutors may also conduct small and large-group workshops, as needed, that focus on aspects of effective multimodal communication (e.g., gathering and evaluating information sources, constructing effective visuals, delivering effective speeches, improving writing style and mechanics, and designing effective digital products and websites). Tutors will conduct these workshops in the Presentation Center with oversight by the Coordinator for Student Services. Requirements for student tutors are modeled after successful campus programs that employ them (e.g., the eStudio, the MC3 Lab, the Study, the Writing Center). Student tutors must have completed both Composition and Communication I and II from the UK Core with a B or better, have a cumulative grade point average of 3.0 or better, and pass an interview screening with the Coordinator for Student Services. Additional details regarding the number of tutors projected to be employed each year can be found in Exhibit 4.5. Faculty Fellows Program A program focused on developing students’ broad-based communication skills cannot thrive without the predominant presence of an educated, skilled faculty. To this end, Presentation U advisory board members, UK faculty with expertise in MCXC modes, and Presentation U leadership will provide training focused specifically on designing instruction, assignments, evaluation rubrics, and assessment methods to faculty who aspire to integrate multimodal communication into their courses. In Phase I, a pilot project (Part A) was conducted and is currently being assessed to refine the processes proposed for the Faculty Fellows program. Pilot Project A (CIS 300), conducted in the College of Business and Economics during Summer 2012/Fall 2012/Spring 2013, will inform the multimodal communication instructional methods, assessment tools, and student learning outcomes (e.g., pre and post assessment data collected from students, rubrics used by faculty to evaluate multimodal communication products, and Student Experience survey data from those tutored at the MC3 Lab). Volunteer faculty participation was enthusiastic and successful. A second Pilot Project B (Fall 2013), will focus on the first semester Faculty Fellows training


42

workshops and consultations in preparing faculty to integrate multimodal communication instruction, assignments, and assessment in their courses. Presentation U’s Faculty Fellows Program will be implemented as a primary component of the Presentation Center (see above). Eligible faculty members will be invited to apply to the voluntary Faculty Fellows Program beginning in Fall 2013 and during each subsequent semester throughout the five-year implementation period. Assessment of the initial pilot project (Phase I, Part A) and informal queries indicate that faculty are interested and enthusiastic about participating. Of UK’s 2,291 full-time faculty, 442 part-time faculty, and 844 teaching assistants employed in Fall 2011, 1,694 full-time faculty and 414 part-time faculty were considered instructional and eligible to teach upper-division courses, based upon UK’s 2011-2012 Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Fact Booklet, and to apply to the program. In addition, Type I Teaching Assistants who teach upper-division courses and can commit to the three-semester program will also be eligible. Targeted recruitment efforts will attempt to build Faculty Fellows cohorts representing diverse majors. Faculty applications will ask for name, e-mail, department, college, course number/title, and expected student enrollment. Appropriate courses can come from any discipline and be self-selected by colleges, departments, and faculty as ones that could be modified appropriately to include an MCXC student learning outcome along with instruction and assignments to teach and assess it. Should a review of applications reveal that an area (e.g., Fine Arts, Engineering, Public Health) is under-represented, the implementation team/advisory board will conduct a targeted recruitment campaign for participants in that area. Each Faculty Fellow will earn an incentive stipend ($3,000) for participating in a three-semester cohort (activities occurring in each semester are described in Exhibit 4.9). Each faculty cohort (n < 25) will meet regularly to develop and implement needs-based multimodal communication material in their courses as well as to refine them based on review of assessment results. Seven cohorts of Faculty Fellows will have completed their course implementation assessment by the time of the SACSCOC Impact Report. Following completion of their three-semester commitment in the Faculty Fellows Program, participants will be encouraged to continue teaching multimodal communication skills in these revised courses. As part of that effort, participants will earn a Certificate of Participation and be recognized at a public ceremony. Their successful instructional methods, assignments, and student products will be showcased at the Presentation Center and on the Presentation U website. In Fall 2011, 19,709 students were enrolled in UK undergraduate degree programs, of which 4,433 held junior status and 5,553 held senior status. Using a timeline scenario from Fall 2013 through Spring 2018, Faculty Fellows participants could potentially serve 21,875 to 43,750 students over a five-year implementation period (see Exhibit 4.2). This range represents a conservative estimate of the maximum number of students served since some faculty who do not participate in the Faculty Fellows program might also integrate multimodal communication instruction, assignments, and assessment into their courses. This estimate is also based on the assumption that each student takes one MCXC integrated course although, in reality, some students may take more than one. The estimate also assumes that each Faculty Fellow (or another instructor he/she mentors in the program to do so) continues to teach the revised courses after his or her three-semester commitment. This assumption regarding continuation seems likely given the need to integrate a GCCR (Graduation Composition and Communication Requirement) into each major.


43

Exhibit 4.2: Five-Year Impact Potential

Collaboration between Presentation U and Existing Units Unique to Presentation U is the focus on MCXC content expertise (related to instructional design, assignments, and evaluation and assessment rubrics) that is not currently available in any existing University of Kentucky support program. Fundamental to its success, however, is intentional collaboration with existing units across campus. Achieving that collaboration will capitalize and expand upon the expertise of systems in place on campus to maximize physical and human resources. Exhibit 4.3 identifies UK student tutoring partners. Exhibit 4.3: Tutoring Collaboration Opportunities

Each of these centers has developed effective student tutoring models that will serve as best practices to inform Presentation Center tutoring efforts. The Writing Center was created to help students improve writing skills. The Study offers tutoring services that target first and second-year students needing remedial help in math and science. The eStudio was created to help College of Engineering students. The MC3 Lab primarily serves students enrolled in Composition and Communication courses and College of Communication and Information students; it also serves as a pilot tutoring service for students taking CIS 300 during Fall 2012 and Spring 2013. None of these centers has the space or staff required to launch a campus-wide MCXC-focused initiative such as Presentation U. Working in parallel with Presentation U, units such as the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) will collaborate with the Leadership Team to deliver Faculty Fellows training workshops and consultations (see Exhibit 4.4 for some examples). The number of workshops and their topics will be drafted by the Implementation Team during Summer 2013, then piloted, assessed, and refined as needed for Fall 2013. These workshops will first teach certain MCXC


44

skills to instructors, then methods for teaching and assessing them in their classrooms. For example, faculty who want to teach students to create an effective website would first be taught to do so themselves and then be advised on how to teach and evaluate effective website development in their courses. Faculty who want to teach students to give effective oral presentations would first be taught to do so themselves and then advised on how best to teach and evaluate oral presentations in their classes. Sample workshop titles include Teaching Public Speaking, Teaching Web Design, Teaching Graphic Design, Teaching Visual Communication, Teaching Interpersonal Communication, and Teaching Writing. Roles and responsibilities related to Presentation U are outlined in Exhibit 4.5. Exhibit 4.4: Faculty Development Collaboration with CELT

Best Practices Manual Collaborate with the Presentation U leadership team (i.e., program director, coordinators, and implementation team/advisory board) to create a best practices guide for faculty development. Train the Trainers Model Offer a series of webinars or face-to-face workshops on effective faculty development training techniques to the Presentation U leadership team. Workshop Design and Delivery Collaborate with the Presentation U faculty development leadership team to design and deliver a series of faculty development workshops aimed at teaching Faculty Fellows Program participants to embed effective multimodal communication instruction and assignments in their courses. Full Team Engagement Offer a series of webinars or face-to-face workshops on effective faculty development training techniques to the Presentation U faculty development leadership team.

Exhibit 4.5: Roles and Responsibilities Job descriptions to be submitted to Human Resources during Spring 2013

Presentation U Director (full-time) Related Presentation Center Program

Responsibilities Qualifications 5-Year Total Cost

Student Tutoring Faculty Fellows

• Hire and oversee Presentation U Coordinators • Oversee and manage the Presentation U Center • Promote and advertise information about the Presentation U service and logistics and disseminate to students, faculty, and staff • Develop and coordinate activities with program areas • Monitor and review the performance of areas within Presentation U to ensure quality services • Evaluate Presentation U for suitability and assess the need for change • Ensure successful and efficient collaboration with pre-existing centers/labs across the University • Chair the Advisory Board

• Tenured Full Professor • Experience in Program Administration • Expertise in Multimodal Communication • Evidence of excellence in teaching at a Higher Education Institution

$892,470

Coordinator for Student Services (half-time)


45

Related Presentation Center Program


Student Tutoring

• Recruit, train and supervise all Presentation U student tutors and mentors • Design and implement tutoring and mentoring services • Promote and advertise information about the Presentation U service and logistics and disseminate to students, faculty, and staff • Collaborate with existing center/lab directors in best practice activities

• PhD Required • Expertise in Multimodal Communication • Experience in fields of tutoring, learning assistance, tutor certification, and/or other student learning/ development programs at a Higher Education Institution • Experience working with a diverse population

$153,622

Coordinator for Faculty Development (half-time) Related Presentation Center Program


Faculty Fellows

• Call for volunteer Faculty Fellows • Facilitate orientations and training workshops • Conduct consultations • Assist Faculty Fellows in course revision, implementation, and assessment • Promote and advertise information about the Presentation U service and logistics and disseminate to students, faculty, and staff • Collaborate with the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in best practice activities

• Tenured Professor • Expertise in Multimodal communication • Evidence of excellence in teaching at a Higher Education Institution • Expertise in teaching pedagogy

$153,622

Coordinator for Assessment (half-time) Related Presentation Center Program



• Hire and oversee the assessment graduate assistants • Lead assessment efforts • Conduct norming sessions • Collect and analyze assessment data • Prepare annual reporting and disseminate to Presentation U Director and Advisory Board • Collaborate with the University Assessment Director in Institutional Effectiveness efforts

• PhD Required • Three years’ experience in Student Learning Outcomes assessment within Higher Education • Proficiency in statistical analysis, ability to analyze, synthesize, and present assessment results to diverse audiences

$412,060

Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Fall 2013

Information Technology Manager (full-time) Related Presentation Center Program



46

N/A

• Develop and maintain Presentation U website • Provide IT support to Presentation U Center • Maintain and update all lab equipment • Assist with Presentation U assessment initiatives • Support Director and Coordinators as needed

• Master’s degree • Experience with computers, Internet, Web design and maintenance, keyboarding, programming, coding, HTML, Microsoft Office and Blackboard • One year experience in assessment of learning within at a Higher Education Institution preferred

$326,352

Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Spring 2013 (4 positions)

Four Graduate Mentors Related Presentation Center Program


Student Tutoring

• Work 20 hours per week • Conduct general office management activities • Mentor Presentation U tutors in multimodal communication • Maintain a consistent weekly schedule of work hours in Presentation U • Develop handouts and other instructional materials, work on projects assigned by the Coordinator for Student Services, and help to keep Presentation U running smoothly and efficiently; including tutoring services

• Enrolled in UK Graduate program • Good communication skills, problem solving, ability to work well with others, and interpersonal skills • Knowledge of UK resources • Experience in multimodal communication preferred

$425,274

Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Spring 2013 (4 positions) Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Spring 2014 (6 positions) Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Spring 2015 (2 positions)

12 Undergraduate Tutors Related Presentation Center Program


Student Tutoring

• Work 10 hours per week • Assist with office operations • Tutor students in specific course material and integrate study and learning strategies to promote independent learning • Maintain a consistent weekly schedule of work hours in Presentation U • Attend workshops in order to develop and enhance multimodal communication techniques • Develop handouts and other instructional materials, work on projects assigned by the Coordinator for Student Services, and help to keep Presentation U running smoothly and efficiently.

• Enrolled in UK undergraduate program • Good communication skills, problem solving, ability to work well with others, and interpersonal skills • Knowledge of UK resources • Experience in multimodal communication preferred

$653,760

Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Spring 2013 (1 position) Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Spring 2014 (1 position)

2 Assessment Graduate Assistants Related Presentation Responsibilities Qualifications 5-Year

Total Cost


47

Center Program


• Support the Coordinator for Assessment • Assist in the preparation, implementation, and dissemination of assessment activities, in research, and other assessment initiatives • Assist with office operations

• Enrolled in UK graduate degree program • Good communication skills, problem solving, ability to work well with others, and interpersonal skills • Knowledge of UK resources • Experience in multimodal communication preferred • Proficiency in Statistical Analysis skills Knowledge of Assessment

$190,523

Job description to be submitted to Human Resources Spring 2013 (2 positions)

Center Summer Staff Related Presentation Center Program


Student Tutoring

• Summer center staffing will include the Coordinator for Student Services, 1 undergraduate tutor and 1 graduate mentor

• Employed as a Presentation U staff member during the school year

$150,147

Faculty Fellows (25 per cohort) Related Presentation Center Program


Faculty Fellows

• Develop, implement, and assess multimodal communication instruction and products • Maintain involvement for three semesters • Attend ongoing meetings scheduled by Coordinator for Faculty Development • Continue teaching multimodal communication after three semester commitment • Serve as mentors for future Faculty Fellows and provide best practice exemplars for website repository

• Current full or part-time UK instructor teaching an upper-division course • Interest in learning and integrating multimodal communication instruction into programs and courses • Interest in learning effective pedagogical strategies through face-to-face and online seminars, workshops, and/or consultations

$565,163

Advisory Board (6-8 positions with expertise in MCXC) Related Presentation Center Program



48


• Rotating 2-year terms • Assist in the selection of Faculty Fellows • Assist in faculty-designed workshops and consultations • Serve as normed evaluators to assess student artifacts • Collaborate with Coordinator for Assessment in analyzing results and submitting annual improvement actions • Ex-officio members include the Presentation U Director and the Coordinators for Student Services, Faculty Development, and Assessment

• UK faculty member • Expertise in Multimodal Communication representing a broad cross-section of the UK Campus • Expertise in teaching pedagogy • Knowledge and experience in Assessment

N/A

Total Personnel Budget $3,992,993

Implementation Timeline Presentation U will be implemented in two phases (Phase I and II; Exhibit 4.6). The first phase consists of a two-part pilot project (Parts A and B). Part A was conducted in the College of Business and Economics in Fall 2012. Exhibit 4.7 describes the program, and Exhibit 4.8 focuses on the assessment process employed. Pilot Part A will provide an opportunity to test elements of the Presentation U plan on a small scale in order to make modifications before implementing Pilot Part B in Fall 2013. Pilot Part B will focus on conducting, assessing, and refining the Faculty Fellows application process and workshops. Phase II marks the full-scale implementation of Presentation U (with both the Student Tutoring Program and Faculty Fellows Program housed within the Presentation Center) beginning in Spring 2014 (See Exhibit 4.9), which will be informed by both Parts A and B of the Pilot. More detail for both phases appears below. Exhibit 4.6–Timeline Overview Phase Component Date

Phase I

Pilot Part A Fall 2012-Spring 2013

Pilot Part B Fall 2013

Phase II Presentation Center programs Spring 2014-Fall 2018

5-Year Impact Report Spring (March 25), 2019

Phase I–Pilot Projects Timeline. In Phase I, Part A (see Exhibits 4.7 and 4.8, UK piloted nine sections (approximately 200 students) of a new course during the Fall 2012 semester using the processes outlined for Presentation U; UK will make modifications as needed before launching the second pilot in Fall 2013 (Part B). The course, CIS 300 (Strategic Business and Professional Communication), was approved by the University Senate in May 2012. It focuses on developing multimodal communication skills in upper-division students majoring in accounting, analytics, economics, finance, marketing, or management. Its syllabus (Appendix F) and assignments were created based on data collected from research and focus groups held with professors from the College of Business and Economics. These assignments include the creation of materials for flat print and digital distribution, spontaneous and formal oral presentations in face-to-face and virtual


49

environments, and team projects requiring delivery of presentations that integrate oral, written, and visual modes delivered in face-to-face and virtual environments. The Provost provided funding support to hire four faculty with expertise in multimodal communication to teach these courses. The faculty attended three pre-semester training sessions during Summer 2012. The MC3 Lab Director agreed to provide tutoring support to the students enrolled in these courses and to pilot the student tutoring service assessment rubrics. Evaluation rubrics, a pre-post student self-efficacy survey, and MCXC student assignments also will be used, assessed, and refined during this part of the pilot. The purpose for using the pre-post self-efficacy survey is to provide early feedback during the process of MCXC implementation on students’ perceptions of their improvement in multimodal communication skill. Such formative assessment data will guide process improvements, as indicated, throughout each semester of tutoring and instructional activity. Exhibit 4.7: Pilot Project Part A Timeline

Spring 2012

-Conduct needs assessment focus groups with B&E faculty and potential employers -Develop syllabus and gain Senate approval

Summer 2012

-Conduct Orientations/Consultations with CIS 300 instructors and follow-up needs assessment -Develop assessment materials (e.g., assignments, pre/post test questions)

Fall 2012

-Teach pilot sections -Administer pre/post MCXC Student Self-efficacy Survey -Collect assessable student work -Norm evaluators with faculty-develped rubrics

Spring 2013

-Conduct assessment analyses in relation to Presentation U design, assessment measures, and implementation process -Modify design process and materials as needed

Fall 2013

-Hire faculty/ administrative staff -Hire and train Center tutors and mentors -Send out call for Faculty Fellows Program applicants -Presentation Center opens in Spring 2014


50

Exhibit 4.8: Pilot Project Part A Assessment Process

Target Responsible Party Activities Assessment Method / Process Use of Results

Summer 2012

• QEP co-chairs • Four faculty instructors hired to pilot the B&E course

• Training Workshops focused on teaching the MCXC intensive B&E course

• Faculty representatives participated in focus groups to discuss communication needs of targeted student population in pilot course • Course instructors participated in MCXC orientation to assist with syllabus revision

• To inform construction of pilot course and future trainings for faculty in MCXC content integration/course revision

Fall 2012 • Four faculty instructors • MC3 Lab Director

• Nine sections of CIS 300 were taught that integrated multiple communication modes • Hired, trained, and supervised tutors

• Administered pre/post MCXC Student Self-efficacy Surveys in CIS 300 course sections via Qualtrics • Randomized collection of pre- and post-test student assignments designated as assessment artifacts • Evaluated with faculty- developed rubrics and normed evaluators . Piloted the Presentation U Tally Sheet and Student Experience Survey

• To prepare for future project implementation and evaluation of outcomes via pilot project • To collect data for analysis in following semester

Spring 2013

• QEP co-chairs • MC3 Lab Director • Faculty instructors • Assessment Coordinator

• Data analysis • Reflection and revision

• Assessment data analyzed and discussed • Revision of assessment rubrics and courses as indicated Revision of MC3 Forms and services as indicated

• Assessment and analysis will test rubrics and evaluate the student self-efficacy survey itself • Findings will inform revisions to measures, process, and design

Phase I–Pilot Part B. In order to assess the training methods employed for the first Faculty Fellow Program cohort, a Pilot Part B will be instituted for Fall 2013, prior to beginning the full scale Presentation U project in Spring 2014. Pilot Part B will recruit faculty from across campus who may or may not have expertise in multimodal communication. All faculty members will be afforded the same training regimen. All training workshops, consultations and portfolios will be assessed, and the Faculty Fellow Program for 2014-2018 will be modified based upon the results of that assessment. Phase II–Presentation U Implementation Plan. Exhibit 4.9 provides a graphic illustration of the timeline for Presentation U from initial implementation in Spring 2014 to the 5-year Impact Report in 2018-2019. In this illustration Cohort #1 refers to the Pilot Project Part B group of Faculty Fellows.


51

Exhibit 4.9: Presentation U Timeline

KEY: Black = Fac/Staff; Dark blue = Cohort #1; Red = Cohort #2; Green = Cohort #3; Light Blue = Cohort #4; Orange = Cohorts #5-#7 The Program Director will be responsible for supervising and coordinating all activities among units and positions related to Presentation U student services and faculty development, as described in Exhibit 4.10. Exhibit 4.10 shows one complete Faculty Fellows cycle beginning with the Pilot Part B Cohort #1 in Fall 2013 and Cohort #2 beginning in Spring 2014. The three-semester cohorts will be repeated until the impact report is due on March 25, 2019. Chapter Five describes the systematic assessment plan for Presentation U. Chapter 6 provides an itemized budget.

96

Exhibit 4.10: Presentation U Implementation Plan

Year One: Pilot Part Two (Summer/Fall 2013) and Semester One (Spring 2014)

Responsible Party Tasks/Activities Timeline

Presentation Center infrastructure development

QEP Co-chairs, Academic Information Technology group, Library staff

Design space and finalize equipment needs (e.g., hardware and software) Fall 2012/Spring 2013

Secure leadership for Presentation U and student staff for the Presentation Center

Provost-appointed implementation team/initial Advisory Board; Presentation U Leadership appointed thereafter

Select Presentation U Interdisciplinary Advisory Board members, orient them to roles/responsibilities (e.g., select Faculty Fellows, assist with faculty development workshops/consultations, serve as normed evaluators of assessment artifacts)

Spring 2013

Provost and Search Committee (to be established by and chaired by the QEP Co-chairs)

Advertise for, interview, hire, and train Presentation U Leadership team (Presentation U Director, Coordinator for Student Services, Coordinator for Faculty Development, Coordinator for Assessment)

Spring 2013/Summer 2013

Presentation U Coordinator for Student Services

Advertise for, interview, hire, & train student peer tutors & mentors; formalize assessment procedures

Summer 2013/Fall 2013

Open the Presentation Center

Presentation U Leadership Market and disseminate information about Presentation U services to students, faculty, staff

Summer 2013 (and ongoing)

Presentation U Leadership, student peer tutors and mentors

Begin offering Presentation U tutoring services at the Presentation Center Fall 2013

Establish Faculty Fellow Program (Cohort #1—Pilot Part B)

Presentation U Coordinator for Faculty Development

Send out call for eligible faculty to apply to Faculty Fellows Program Spring 2013

Faculty Fellow Program potential participants

Interested faculty fill out a Faculty Fellows Application Summer 2013

Presentation U Advisory Board members, Leadership

Select Faculty Fellows (n ≤ 25) for inclusion in the Faculty Fellows Program Cohort #1 Fall 2013 (September)

Faculty Fellow Program Cohort #1 (Pilot Part B) Prepare courses for implementation with inclusion of MCXC material and for assessment

Faculty Fellows, Coordinator for Faculty Development , Faculty and/or staff with expertise in MCXC modes and pedagogy from campus wide programs, Advisory Board members

Faculty Fellows revise courses/course assignments to include MCXC material; Workshops, consultations, orientations are provided for Faculty Fellows for course and pedagogy development

Fall 2013 (September- December)

Faculty Fellow Program participants (Cohort #1/Pilot Part B) implement revised MCXC courses and gather assessment data

Faculty Fellow Program participants; Coordinator of Faculty Development

Implement revised MCXC courses and update their portfolios Spring 2014 (January)


53

Faculty Fellow Program participants; Coordinator of Assessment

Gather pre and post tests as well as direct and indirect student learning assessment data randomly at the beginning and end of the semester

Spring 2014 (January and April/May)

Select Faculty Fellow Program participants (Cohort #2)

Presentation U Coordinator for Faculty Development

Send out call for eligible faculty to apply to Faculty Fellows Program Spring 2014 (January)

Faculty Fellow Program potential participants

Interested faculty apply to Faculty Fellows Program Spring 2014 (January)

Presentation U Advisory Board members, Leadership

Select Faculty Fellows (n ≤ 25) and their courses for inclusion in the Faculty Fellows Program Cohort #2

Spring 2014 (January)

Faculty Fellow Program participants (Cohort #2) Prepare courses for implementation with inclusion of MCXC material and for assessment

Faculty Fellows, Coordinator for Faculty Development , Faculty with expertise in MCXC modes and/or pedagogy from campus-wide programs, Advisory Board members

Faculty Fellows (Cohort #2) revise courses/course assignments to include MCXC material; Workshops, consultations, orientations are provided for Faculty Fellows for course and pedagogy development

Spring 2014 (January- April)

Review use of Presentation Center services

Presentation U Advisory Review utilization and needs assessment data; assess adequacy of current services Spring 2014- Summer 2014

Board members, Presentation U Leadership

Dissemination of assessment results

Coordinator of Assessment

Assessment findings shared with Presentation U leadership, the Provost, Faculty Fellow participants, Advisory Board members, students, other constituents

Summer 2014 (August)

Implementation and assessment, as described in Exhibit 4.10, will continue throughout the remainder of each cohort through Fall 2018.

96

CHAPTER 5: ASSESSMENT PLAN The goal of Presentation U is to prepare upper-division students to employ effective, state-of-the-art, multimodal communication skills as expected of professionals in their chosen fields. Therefore, the success of Presentation U will be defined, ultimately, by the achievement of the student learning outcomes, which include demonstrating multimodal communication competencies within their disciplines and describing their development in communication and work-related skills at a high level, and by documenting the impact of Presentation U on student achievement. This Chapter presents the Assessment Plan, outlining an assessment strategy designed to ensure rich, useful data to measure outcomes and inform needed improvements. Definition of Key Terms Multimodal communication across the curriculum focuses on enhancing UK students’ skills in employing oral (i.e., sounds/hearing), written (i.e., words/reading), and visual (i.e., seeing/nonverbal symbols) modalities across the curriculum. These multimodal messages may be communicated via flat print, as with academic papers, research reports, brochures, newsletters; face-to-face, with conversations, consultations, or public speeches; and using digital modes of transmission, including television, cell phone, computer, and Internet channels. Communication may be: intrapersonal (not focused on here); interpersonal (between two people–building relationships between acquaintances, friends, colleagues, and intimates); small group (among a few people—strengthening family groups, social groups, support groups, service groups, and workplace teams); and public (one-to-many or few-to-many, communicating in contexts or settings, as with news reports, public speeches, newsletters, or websites). Terms used in presenting the Assessment Plan described in this chapter include the following:

Learning Outcomes (LOs) are broad statements that describe the specific sets of knowledge, skills, behaviors, or values indicating successful growth and development for both students and faculty. Program Outcomes (POs) are broad statements that describe operational and process expectations indicative of effective programs. Operationalized Outcomes (OOs) are specific, measureable statements of performance, which, taken together, comprise broadly stated learning and program outcomes. Measures are the direct and indirect means (tests, portfolios, surveys, inventories, and tallies) used to assess achievement of learning and program outcomes. Methods are the processes and practices used to collect, analyze, interpret, and use assessment data to inform and confirm continuous improvement in achieving stated outcomes.

General Overview of Assessment Plan As discussed at length in Chapter 4, Presentation U employs a two-pronged approach: a Student Tutoring Program and a Faculty Fellows Program, both administered in the Presentation Center. Outcomes have been developed and operationalized for students and for each of these programs (Chapter 3), and assessment methods employing direct and indirect measures have been delineated. Activities for this part of the program will be overseen by the Presentation U Assessment Coordinator and evaluated by the Director with input from the Advisory Council. The Presentation U leadership (Director, Coordinators, Implementation Team, and Advisory Board) will monitor and assess the overall progress of the plan. They will create appropriate training materials, monitor sufficiency of space and effectiveness of tutoring support, assess the degree to


55

which Faculty Fellows Program targets are being met, and track indicators of improvement in student learning in multimodal communication. The leadership group will have authority to modify any initiatives as warranted by assessment. Presentation U student success will be determined by students demonstrating competence and showing MCXC improvement based on the variety of assessment instruments detailed in the Assessment Plan and by improving survey results on the Graduating Senior Survey, National Survey of Student Engagement, and Undergraduate Alumni Survey. Faculty Fellows Program success will be measured by surveys, portfolios, and assessment of MCXC products by students who participate in Faculty Fellows-taught courses. Student tutoring will also be assessed based on Student Experience Survey reports and the quality of student work produced in Faculty Fellows-taught courses. Presentation U will be implemented following the pilot study and SACS acceptance of the plan. Each faculty member volunteering for Presentation U’s Faculty Fellows Program will participate in the project for three semesters. During semester one, all Faculty Fellows participants will complete a needs assessment surveying their impressions of their competencies. Faculty will learn multimodal communication skills by attending workshops by Presentation Center staff experts. Each faculty member will also complete an evaluation of workshop effectiveness. During this first semester, a randomized collection of pre-MCXC assignments will be collected and assessed for use as baseline data. In the second semester, each Faculty Fellows participant will require a communication-intensive assignment (the characteristics of which will be defined by the faculty member to accord with what is typical for that discipline) from all students, or at least a subset of students if the class is large. This work will be assessed using the standardized rubrics provided (see Appendix G for written communication rubric). Standardized rubrics have been developed for each communication mode (oral, written, and visual). Each rubric includes the dimensions of content, structure, and delivery. Each dimension is described by several components and given one overall score. Assessors will also use the rubric holistically and assign the artifact one overall rating. Since the rubric is used as a means to evaluate a course rather than individual student performance, data for overall and dimension-specific student learning is reported and examined in the aggregate and in relation to the student learning achievement benchmarks set by the course instructor. Student success or failure in meeting expected benchmarks will be used to inform changes to course instruction or assignments, as indicated by assessment findings. Not all works will necessarily be multimodal in nature; however, combinations of communication modes will be assessed to evaluate multimodal accomplishments. Assessment of assignments collected from the second semester will occur in semester three; this assessment will be conducted by the Advisory Board in consultation with Presentation U staff. At this time, all Faculty Fellows participants will reflect upon assessment findings and revise their courses beyond their three-semester commitment. Faculty Fellows will submit course revision plans to the Presentation U Director based on this reflection-revision process. This process will not require departmental or higher approval because course content will not be changed. Who will be assessed? Presentation U students will be assessed at the following time points:

• MCXC Assignment in semester two of each Faculty Fellows cohort • Pre-Post Student Self-Efficacy Survey in semester two of each Faculty Fellows cohort • Collegiate Learning Assessment in senior year


56

• Graduating Senior Survey (see note below) in senior year • National Survey of Student Engagement in senior year • Undergraduate Alumni Survey two years after graduation

Note: The Graduating Senior Survey, administered in the spring semester of each student’s final year, will be revised to include questions directly related to improvement of multimodal communication skills. Aggregate data will be compared between students who participated in Presentation U and those who did not. Faculty Fellows will be assessed at the following time points:

• Faculty Fellows Portfolio Evaluations in semester three In addition to using the above learning outcomes assessments to help document program success, Presentation U will be assessed at the following time points:

• Tally Sheet Analysis–every semester • Student Experience Survey–every semester • Faculty Fellows Recruitment Targets—Spring 2014 though Fall 2017 • Faculty Fellows Implementation Analysis—Spring 2015 through Fall 2018 • Faculty Fellows Workshop Evaluations—Spring 2014 through Fall 2017 • Faculty Fellows Experience Survey—Spring 2015 through Fall 2018 • Faculty Fellows Needs Assessment—Spring 2014 through Fall 2017

Who will NOT be assessed? The Presentation Center will assist any UK student who would like help with a communication-intensive project, but students not affiliated with a course taught by a Faculty Fellows participant will not be assessed during the five-year period unless assessment data supports this addition. The Presentation Center, as a facility, will not be directly assessed within the QEP plan. However, because of its location in the William T. Young Library “Hub,” library staff will perform routine assessment of the workings of the facility, as is already done for other “Hub” activities. Outcomes and Measures As stated in Chapter 2 (Best Practices), thorough assessment is vital to the success of any educational program, especially one as previously uncharted as Presentation U. To this end, assessment measures for each learning outcome are outlined in detail in Exhibit 5.1. Program outcomes and measures are outlined in Exhibit 5.2, laying the groundwork for ongoing program assessment and improvement.


57

Exhibit 5.1: Learning Outcomes Mapped to Measures

Learning Outcome 1 (LO1): Students will demonstrate competent communication (written, oral, and/or visual) as defined within individual disciplines as producers of information. LO1 establishes the competencies that Presentation U students will be able to demonstrate; it is comprised of 25 operationalized outcomes that will be assessed using direct and indirect measures. Operationalized Outcomes Measures Written communication competency as demonstrated by: Content • Effective, comprehensive, and accurate use of evidence to explain and support ideas (LO1-1). • Use of evidence-formed analysis that is both cogent and connected to a clearly defined purpose (LO1-2). • Submissions that fully meet assignment criteria (LO1-3). Structure • Clear organization of content with effective connection among ideas and purpose, with transitions that enhance readability (LO1-4). • Language and tone that are appropriate for the audience and occasion (LO1-5). • Adherence to writing standards regarding style and conventions (e.g., grammar, sentence structure, spelling, use of citations) (LO1-6). Delivery • Presentation in a format appropriate for the audience and occasion (LO1-7). • Appropriate adaptation to the conventions of the genre and medium (LO1-8). Oral communication competency as demonstrated by: Content • Appropriate use of evidence to support goal and main ideas (LO1-9). • Use of evidence-formed analysis that is both cogent and connected to a clearly defined purpose (LO1-10). • Presentation that fully meets assignment criteria (LO1-11). Structure • Clear organization of content with effective connection

Direct Measures: • Improvement in demonstrated student competency in written, oral, and visual communication: the Pre-MCXC baseline collection and assessment data and the MCXC assignment collection and assessment data will provide a comparison of pre- and post-MCXC implementation for student performance on specific assignments designed during the first semester and executed during the second semester using normed evaluators and faculty-developed rubrics. Three rubrics (see written communication in Appendix G) for written, oral, and visual communication reflect each of the operationalized outcomes LO1-1 through LO1-25. • Improvement in CLA analytic writing results: For the written communication outcome only, Presentation U students will complete the CLA in the senior year, as part of the University’s ongoing CLA participation, to assess their performance relative to national norms and to non-Presentation U students. Over-sampling will ensure adequate representation of Presentation U students. Assessment will provide feedback regarding the effectiveness of Presentation U with respect to a key finding that helped develop the rationale for the QEP.

Indirect Measures: Improvement in student confidence ratings on written, oral, and visual communication tasks based on results


58

among ideas and purpose, with transitions that enhance understanding of the flow of ideas (LO1-12). • Language and tone that are appropriate for the audience and occasion (LO1-13). • Adherence to the standards regarding style and conventions (e.g., grammar, pronunciation and enunciation, source citations) (LO1-14). Delivery • Effective use of voice that is intelligible, conversational, and expressive (LO1-15). • Effective body language that conveys confidence and poise in ways that enhance the verbal message (LO1-16). • Effectively constructed and integrated presentational (visual, audio, audiovisual) aids (LO1-17). Visual communication competency as demonstrated by: Content • Choice of visual content that enhances understanding of the message and contributes to a unified theme (LO1-18). • Visual communication artifacts that fully meet assignment criteria. (LO1-19). • Visuals that are cited appropriately in the text and references. (LO1-20). Structure • Document design that demonstrates a strategic integration and lay-out of visual content that supports impact, meaning, and/or appeal of the message (LO1-21). • Visual conventions that are appropriate for the intended audience and venue (e.g., color, font, placement, space) (LO1-22). • Visual features that are appropriate for the purpose, audience, and occasion. (LO1-23). Delivery • Choice of visual medium that is appropriate for the purpose, audience, and occasion (LO1-24). • Professional quality and design that effectively engage the audience and communicate the message and purpose (LO1-25).

of the MCXC Student Self-efficacy Survey administered pre and post in second semester (see working draft in Appendix G)


59

Learning Outcome 2 (LO2): Presentation U students are able to describe their development of communication skills, job-related skills and knowledge, and preparation for job demands at high levels indicative of excellence. LO2 establishes the beliefs that Presentation U students will describe regarding their acquisition of communication and work-related skills developed while at UK; it is comprised of three operationalized outcomes that will be measured using self-reported survey data. These assessments will provide feedback regarding the effectiveness of Presentation U with respect to key findings that helped develop the rationale for the QEP. Operationalized Outcomes Measures LO2-1. In their senior year Presentation U students will describe their improvement on written, oral, and visual communication skills at a level higher than non-Presentation U seniors.

Self-ratings of improvement on written, oral, and visual communication skill will use existing and newly developed items on the UK Graduating Senior Survey and will be compared to those of non-Presentation U seniors.

LO2-2. In their senior year Presentation U students will describe their UK experience as contributing very much to their job-related skills and knowledge and at levels that meet or exceed peers at benchmark institutions.

Presentation U senior ratings on the contribution of their UK experience to development of “job-related skills and knowledge,” an item on the National Survey of Student Engagement, will be compared to peers at Carnegie benchmark institutions.

LO2-3. As alumni, Presentation U students will describe the quality of their major curriculum as preparing them for job demands at a level exceeding non-Presentation U alumni.

Presentation U alumni ratings on the quality of their major curriculum in preparing them for job demands, an item on the UK Undergraduate Alumni Survey, will be compared to those of non-Presentation U alumni.

Learning Outcome 3 (LO3): Faculty Fellows will demonstrate the ability to implement written, oral, and/or visual communication assignments and/or activities that reflect disciplinary definitions of competent communication. LO3 establishes the teaching competencies in multimodal communication within their disciplines that Faculty Fellows Program participants will be able to demonstrate; it is comprised of four operationalized outcomes that will be assessed using two kinds of measures: direct and indirect. Direct measures of student learning outcomes are considered key indicators of faculty effectiveness and are, therefore, categorized here as direct measures of faculty learning outcomes. Operationalized Outcomes Measures • Faculty Fellows are able to define what constitutes competent written, oral, and/or visual communication in their fields (LO3-1) • Faculty Fellows participants design activities that create opportunities for students to enhance their major-specific written, oral, and/or visual communication (LO3-2) • Faculty Fellows participants effectively implement

• Leadership evaluation ratings on the Faculty Fellow Portfolio: Presentation U Leadership will assess revised course syllabus (as found in portfolio) using portfolio assessment rubric, item 1, which addresses LO3-1. •Peer evaluation ratings on the Faculty


60

activities and/or assignments that create opportunities for students to develop their major-specific communication proficiencies (LO3-3) • Faculty Fellows participants use assessment rubrics to evaluate students’ proficiency in major-specific written, oral, and/or visual communication (LO3-4)

Fellow Portfolio: peer faculty will assess revised assignments (as found in portfolio) using portfolio assessment rubric, item 2, which addresses LO3-2. •Leadership evaluation ratings on the Faculty Fellow Portfolio: Presentation U Leadership will assess assignments/ activities in the revised course syllabus (as found in portfolio) using portfolio assessment rubric, item 3, which addresses LO3-3. •Peer evaluation ratings on the Faculty Fellow Portfolio: peer faculty will assess revised completed course rubrics (as found in portfolio) using portfolio assessment rubric, items 4 and 5, which address LO3-4. • Improvement in student demonstration of competency in written, oral, and visual communication: pre-MCXC baseline collection and assessment data and MCXC assignment collection and assessment data will result in comparison of pre- and post-MCXC implementation for student performance on specific assignments designed during the first semester and second semester using normed evaluators and faculty developed rubrics. Three rubrics (see written communication in Appendix G) for written, oral, and visual communication reflect the operationalized outcomes LO1-1 through LO1-25.


61

Exhibit 5.2: Program Outcomes Mapped to Measures

Program Outcome 1 (PO1): The Student Tutoring Program will support a sufficient number of Presentation U students to achieve the goal of Presentation U. PO1 establishes the expectation that the Student Tutoring Program will serve a critical mass of Presentation U students in order to ensure the success of Presentation U and document the program’s effectiveness. Operationalized Outcomes Measures PO1-1. The Student Tutoring Program will serve a high percentage of Presentation U students each semester.

The percent of students enrolled in MCXC designated classes in a given semester and who complete at least one Presentation U Tally Sheet will constitute one measure.

PO1-2. A high percentage of students previously served by the Student Tutoring Program will seek additional support.

The percent of students completing the Presentation U Tally Sheet for the first time and who return for additional consultation and complete a second Presentation U Tally Sheet will be tracked.

Program Outcome 2 (PO2): The Student Tutoring Program will provide courteous, responsive, and effective academic support for Presentation U students. PO2 establishes criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the Student Tutoring Program from the student perspective. Operationalized Outcomes Measures A high percentage of students served by the Student Tutoring Program will: PO2-1. Evaluate tutors as helpful and responsive to their needs. PO2-2. Report improved understanding of and performance on MCXC projects as a result of tutoring participation.

Frequencies and mean ratings by students on three items (helpful, responsive, improvement) will be developed on the Student Presentation U Experience Survey (working draft in Appendix G).

Program Outcome 3 (PO3): The Faculty Fellows Program will support a sufficient number of faculty to achieve the goal of Presentation U. PO3 establishes the expectation that the Faculty Fellows Program will attract and develop a critical mass of faculty who develop and implement teaching competencies in multimodal communication within their courses in order to achieve the impact on student learning envisioned by the QEP. Operationalized Outcomes Measures PO3-1. The Faculty Fellows Program will enroll the maximum number of faculty that can be supported each year.

25 new Faculty Fellows Program participants will be targeted per semester.

PO3-2. A high percentage of Faculty Fellows will implement and sustain multimodal communication instruction, projects, and assessment in their courses.

The percent of Faculty Fellows completing the program who implement MCXC in their courses will be determined; the percent of Faculty Fellows completing the program who continue to teach MCXC courses in


62

each subsequent semester will also be determined.

Program Outcome 4 (PO4): The Faculty Fellows Program will provide useful information in workshops, leading to effective implementation of MCXC courses in the major. PO4 establishes criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the workshops comprising the Faculty Fellows Program from the faculty perspective. Operationalized Outcomes Measures A high percentage of Faculty Fellows who participate in workshops will: PO4-1. Strongly agree that the content was useful for their needs and interests. PO4-2. Agree that they have a better understanding of how to use rubrics for assessing communication assignments in their courses.

Frequencies and/or mean ratings by Faculty Fellows on two items (content useful and better understanding of rubrics) included on the Faculty Fellows Presentation U Workshop Evaluation (working draft in Appendix G) will be tracked.

PO4-3. Implement multimodal communication in their courses. PO4-4. Report that students in their course demonstrated achievement of the outcome: competent communication (written, oral, and/or visual, across multiple modes) within the discipline.

Response frequencies of Faculty Fellows participants will be determined on two items (course implementation and meeting student outcome) included on the Faculty Fellows Presentation U Experience Survey (working draft in Appendix G).

Assessment Methods Exhibit 5.3 provides a comprehensive assessment plan. It maps responsible parties, activities, methods, and planned use of results related to learning and program outcomes within the QEP time frame, which starts “Prior to Semester One” and continues to Fall 2018. Examples of working draft versions of measurement instruments are provided in Appendix G. The assessment plan timeline schedule is provided in Appendix H. Exhibit 5.3: Presentation U Assessment Plan

Related Outcomes

Responsible Party Activities Assessment

Method/Process Use of Results

Prior to Semester One

PO3, PO4

QEP Co-Chairs Presentation U Leadership Team Faculty Fellows Program Participants

• Hire Director and Coordinators

• Appoint Advisory Board members (normed evaluators)

• Submit Faculty

• Presentation U

Advisory Board will review submitted portfolios

• Faculty Fellows will complete a needs assessment

• Portfolio data will be used to select faculty and appropriate MCXC courses for inclusion in Presentation U using a Portfolio Assessment Rubric


63

Fellow Portfolio

• Select Faculty Fellows Program participants

• If 25 or fewer applicants, all will be accepted into the program

• If >25 applicants, cross campus diversity will be a guiding selection principle

• Needs

assessment data will be used to help design workshops and other training as needed

Semester One (repeated for each cohort)

LO1, LO3, PO4

Faculty Fellows Program Participants Presentation U Leadership Team CELT Staff

• Collect and assess pre-MCXC assignments for baseline data

• Faculty Fellows

attend workshops and consultations as they revise syllabi and develop lesson plans, assignments, and rubrics for evaluation and assessment of the MCXC assignments in semester two

• Randomized pre-MCXC assignments as selected by Faculty Fellow will be used as baseline data

• Normed evaluators will assess the data using faculty developed rubrics

• Conduct workshop

evaluations

• Pre-MCXC assignment baseline data assessed in semester one will be used in comparison with MCXC assignments assessed in semester three • Comparison data will be used to evaluate effectiveness of MCXC courses and content in meeting stated outcomes • Modifications will be made to workshop content and delivery methods as needed

Semester One (and all subsequent semesters)

PO1, PO2

Presentation U Leadership Team Coordinator for Student Services Coordinator for Assessment Mentors and Tutors

Hire, train, and supervise mentors and tutors as they help students with their MCXC projects

• Maintain Presentation Center Usage Log

• Administer Presentation Center Student Experience Surveys

• Coordinators will use results to improve student tutoring process as needed

• Coordinators will provide report data to the Presentation U Leadership Team and Faculty Fellows participants to consider in relation to quality of student work

Semester Two (repeated for each cohort)


64

LO1, LO3

STUDENTS Presentation U Leadership Team Faculty Fellows Program Participants Assessment Coordinator

• Implement the MCXC integrated courses/ assignments

• Collect MCXC

assignments for assessment

• Administer pre/post MCXC Student Self-efficacy Survey via Qualtrics

• Collect MCXC assignments for assessment using a randomized sample (Comparison of student performance on specific assignments pre and post multimodal integration using normed evaluators and faculty developed rubrics)

• Assignments will be packaged in groups (oral, written, visual) and assessed by normed evaluators using faculty developed rubrics

• Results will be

used to measure student performance in meeting outcomes and to inform curricular improvement as necessary

LO1, LO3

FACULTY Faculty Fellows Program Participants Presentation U Leadership Team

• Implement MCXC revised courses/ assignments

• Collect MCXC

Student Self-efficacy data for assessment

• At the start of the semester, collect Faculty Fellow Portfolio documents consisting of redesigned syllabus, lesson plans showing MCXC, sample assignments

• At the end of the semester collect sample of completed evaluation rubrics

• Administer pre/post MCXC Student Self-efficacy Surveys via Qualtrics

• Portfolio data will be used to evaluate success in meeting stated outcome and to demonstrate use of rubrics and other materials

• MCXC Student Self-

efficacy data will be used to evaluate success in meeting stated outcome and inform curricular revision as necessary

PO2, PO4

Graduate Mentors and Tutors Presentation U Leadership Team

• Graduate mentors will provide tutoring and support to students through Presentation U

• Faculty Fellows will

participate in workshops and consultations for course revision

• Administer Faculty Fellow Program Presentation U workshop evaluations following each workshop

• Administer Student Presentation U experience surveys at the end of each MCXC course and visits to Presentation U

• Complete the Presentation U Utilization Tally each semester

• Analyze data

Results will be used to assess success of Presentation Center efforts through mentors and tutors to support faculty in professional development and to support students learning multimodal communication skills


65

Semester Three (repeated for each cohort)

LO1,LO3, PO4

Assessment Coordinator Advisory Board members Faculty Fellows Program Participants Presentation U Leadership Team

Score, analyze and interpret assessment data on stated outcomes

• Score randomly collected MCXC assessment assignment artifacts using normed evaluators and faculty developed rubrics

• Review Faculty Fellow portfolios

• Administer Faculty Presentation U Experience Survey

• Compile MCXC Student Self-efficacy Surveys

• Examine assessment data collected in semester two during semester three

• Reflect upon

findings and apply to inform curricular revision

LO2

Assessment Coordinator and Assistants Advisory Board members Presentation U Leadership Team

Analyze and interpret student performance on standardized measures

• Gather data from UK’s standardized assessments (CLA, NSSE, and Senior Surveys)

• Include analysis of students who may have participated in Presentation U and the standardized testing

Assessment data will be evaluated to inform project revision and evaluate student success

Spring 2019 – Final semester

All

Students Assessment Coordinator and Assistants Presentation U Leadership Team Faculty Advisory Board members Administration

• Analyze, interpret, discuss, and disseminate data

• Prepare impact

report for SACS

• Compile assessment data regarding all outcomes

• Interpret • Disseminate

• The impact of the QEP project will be examined and used to improve the project

• Prepare impact

report for SACS

Spring 2019 – 5-Year Impact Report Due in March 2019 Data Analysis Process and Reporting Cycle Presentation U will undergo a five-year cycle (Spring 2014–Fall 2018). This period includes annual measurement of all learning and program outcomes and development of a comprehensive assessment report at the close of the five-year period. Details regarding the assessment timeframe and subsequent activities are found in Exhibit 5.3 above, the Presentation U Assessment Plan.


66

MCXC Assignment assessment data will be gathered through Blackboard Outcomes and examined by the Presentation U Assessment Coordinator and Leadership. Every August beginning in Fall 2014 and continuing throughout the assessment cycle, Presentation U will share the results with the Presentation U Leadership Team, the Provost, Faculty Fellows participants, and Advisory Board members for use in planning program improvements and budgetary adjustments as needed (e.g., funding more tutors and/or mentors to meet demands at the Presentation Center). These data will be used for continuous quality improvement of the Faculty Fellows Program and Student Tutoring services. In addition, a Presentation U Outcomes Assessment Report (template currently under development) will be submitted by the Program Director to the Office of Assessment annually, where it will be reviewed by the University Assessment Council. The report will include information on 1) outcomes assessed, 2) methods and tools used, 3) results, 4) interpretation of the results, 5) improvement action plan, and 6) reflection. Exemplary samples of student products, lesson plans, assignments, and rubrics will be identified by the Presentation U Leadership Team (i.e., Director, Coordinators, Implementation Team, and Advisory Board) and featured in an annual showcase of best practices as well as archived on the website. All comments generated as a result of constituent reviews will be communicated to the Presentation U Director, Coordinators, Faculty Fellows, and the Advisory Board for future refinement. The leadership team will modify the plan (student tutoring, faculty fellows) as warranted by assessment data.


67

CHAPTER 6: ITEMIZED BUDGET This chapter describes a detailed budget in terms of annual and total expenditures required throughout the five-year implementation cycle and the recurring budget required to sustain the program or a modified version of the program beyond 2018 should assessment results illustrate that it is achieving the goal for improving student learning in multimodal communication across the curriculum. As illustrated in the timeframe depicted in Exhibit 6.1, Presentation U will require an estimated recurring financial commitment from the University of Kentucky of approximately $1,059,785. As the University has been developing its QEP, it has also been securing financial resources to support the endeavor. For the last two budget cycles, the University has made the QEP one of its top funding initiatives to ensure adequate recurring budget support for the program, as defined in the proposal. As of the writing of this statement, all necessary recurring funds are available for full implementation in 2013-2014. In addition, approximately $3 per student per semester of the student technology fee from the Fall 2012 fee increase will be used to support the Media Center, which complements the Presentation Center by supporting and enhancing the technology aspect of the QEP. It is notable that these student fee increases were evaluated and endorsed by the UK Student Government Association.

Presentation U Budget Item Summaries Program Director and Coordinator Salaries. The proposed budget includes a nine-month salary of $100,000 plus 3/9 summer salary for the program director. This is a new full-time faculty position dedicated to Presentation U. Program success will require a dedicated director who can truly focus attention on it. Each of the three coordinators (student services, faculty development, and assessment) will devote a portion of the DOE (distribution of effort) to his or her Presentation U responsibilities. The other part of each coordinator position’s DOE will reside in another campus unit. The estimated recurring budget for these four positions is $348,178. Their offices will be located in the Presentation Center. The plan is to fill these positions by Fall 2013. Facilities and Equipment. The University of Kentucky believes in the importance of making the Presentation Center widely accessible to students and faculty. Given the size of UK’s campus, location becomes critically important. Therefore, space on the lower level of the William T. Young Library, referred to as “The Hub,” will be reconfigured to house and support the Presentation Center and a media development center. The Young Library is located in the heart of campus and is heavily used by students and faculty alike, making it a prime location for serving the campus. The budget includes $400,000 to renovate space in “The Hub” of the William T. Young Library for the Presentation Center. This estimate is based on costs incurred recently to renovate a similar space in another UK campus lab (the eStudio in the College of Engineering). The budget also includes an additional $133,750 for start-up and replacement equipment costs, including the purchase of two whisper rooms for oral presentation rehearsal and refinement, three 40-inch LED/LCD monitors, one poster printer, 20 computers, a computer server, and a networked printer. Beyond 2018, a recurring budget of $50,000 has been allocated for replacement equipment. Student Tutoring Staff. The Presentation Center will be overseen by the Coordinator for Student Services and staffed by four graduate student mentors at $20,000 each and undergraduate peer tutors at $10/hour for 32 weeks. The proposed budget includes summer center staffing through


68

STEPS (Student and Temporary Employment Program). Ultimately, the estimated recurring budget for graduate mentors and undergraduate tutors is $261,679. Other Personnel. The proposed budget includes hiring an Information Technology Manager to provide full-time support to Presentation U beginning in fiscal year 2014 at approximately $80,000 in annual salary and benefits. The total recurring budget required to sustain the position is estimated at approximately $84,000. To assist the Coordinator of Assessment, the proposed budget includes funding for one graduate assistant in the first year at $20,000 and two each year thereafter. The estimated total recurring budget is about $43,795. Faculty Fellows. Presentation U will support seven Faculty Fellows cohorts over the course of the five-year implementation cycle. Each cohort will be comprised of no more than 25 participants. Each Faculty Fellow will earn a $3,000 incentive paid in three installments as course materials are produced, implemented, and assessed. The maximum total non-recurring cost over five years is about $565,163 (presuming each cohort achieves the full 25-person maximum). The estimated recurring cost for continuing the program beyond 2018 is $161,475. Operating and Professional Development Expenses. The proposed budget includes $5,000 annually for operating expenses, $10,000 annually for workshop expenses, and another $50,000 annually for professional development opportunities. Assessment. As part of the proposed Operating Budget and in addition to the graduate assistants described above in “Other Personnel” to assist the Coordinator of Assessment, this proposed budget includes a total of $57,200 through 2017-2018 to support the administration of the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) and National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to a sample of Presentation U students. Although the University currently supports these administrations, this funding will ensure that an over-sampling of Presentation U students provides adequate data for analysis and reflection; additionally, it will ensure that these assessment programs will continue if university-wide budget cuts impact the ability of the institution to continue CLA and NSSE participation.

Program Sustainability Since the initial development of the University’s QEP concept Presentation U, the University has reorganized its administrative team to focus on “student success” and supporting analytics. Under the leadership of the Senior Vice Provost for Student Success, student support units such as Undergraduate Education, the Center for Internationalization, and Student Affairs and Enrollment Management are more closely aligned to the student’s full “life-cycle.” This alignment allows the University to create synergies among these departments and assist colleges in ensuring students in their programs succeed by improving retention, graduation rates, and the overall student experience. Presentation U is a core piece of the “student success” initiative. By providing students the tools to acquire the communication skill sets necessary to succeed in the workplace, the University can impact the student experience in a positive way. Of course, the success of the student is dependent upon the success of the faculty. For Presentation U to be successful for the student, faculty must implement multi-modal communication as part of its core curriculum. The UK QEP uses an incentive-based approach to encourage faculty to incorporate multi-modal communication as part of their courses. This incentive-based model has proved successful in prior initiatives, such as the innovative UK Core program, which replaced the previous University Studies Program. By encouraging peer interactions while providing university leadership, the success of the program on a long-term basis becomes more likely as the incorporation of multi-modal communication becomes a core basis for course development and delivery. Other


69

University programs such as The Study (student tutoring center), The Writing Center, and the Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching (CELT) will contribute to the success of Presentation U by complementing its efforts. All of these units report to the Senior Vice Provost for Student Success, again allowing synergy and shared vision. CELT, which is specifically designed to assist faculty in developing new course delivery modalities, will be critical in assisting Presentation U’s efforts in imbedding multi-modal communication in course development and delivery. For any initiative, data from assessment is imperative to allow potential course correction and continuous improvement. The University recognizes this, and as part of the reorganization mentioned above, recently realigned Information Technology and Institutional Planning, Research, and Effectiveness under the Senior Vice Provost for Advanced Analytics, Planning, and Technologies. This reorganization allows these units to work collectively to develop better data structures and analysis tools to support the University’s ability to assess its efforts in quantitative and qualitative ways. The QEP proposal includes assessment as a core part of Presentation U, which will be an extension of the University of Kentucky’s efforts to support student success and the success of University academic programs. Exhibit 6.1: Itemized Presentation U Budget

Personnel 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Total Cost over 5 years

Total Recurring Needed to

Sustain Presentation U Program Director Salary /Benefits

171,495.57 174,925.48 178,423.99 181,992.47 185,632.32 892,469.84 185,632.32

Full Professor 9 month faculty position (base pay $100K) with 3/9 summer salary; projected 2% salary increase each year. Benefits projected at 28.622% budgeted rate. However, this rate fluctuates from year to year.

Coordinator of Faculty Services

25,724.40 25,724.40 25,724.40 25,724.40 25,724.40 128,622.00 25,724.40

$10K time buyout to selected faculty member

Coordinator of Faculty Services

5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 25,000.00 5,000.00

Transfer to dept for time buy-out to back-fill teaching needs.

Coordinator of Student

25,724.40 25,724.40 25,724.40 25,724.40 25,724.40 128,622.00 25,724.40

$10K time buyout to selected faculty member

Coordinator of Student

5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 25,000.00 5,000.00

Transfer to dept for time buy-out to back-fill teaching needs.

Coordinator Summer Stipend - Salary / Benefits

14,217.19 14,501.53 14,791.57 15,087.40 15,389.14 73,986.83 15,389.14

2/9ths worth of summer salary for student services coordinator to keep the center open during the 8 week session

Coordinator for Assessment Salary / Benefits

79,180.80 80,764.42 82,379.70 84,027.30 85,707.84 412,060.06 85,707.84


70

50% of New Assessment Position ($60K plus benefits); Assumes 2% salary increase per year.

Assessment Graduate Assistants Salary / Benefits

20,430.00 41,268.60 42,093.97 42,935.85 43,794.57 190,522.99 43,794.57

Graduate Stipends at $20,000; 1 in year 1; 2 in each year thereafter; 2% inflationary increase included; Benefits projected at 2.150% budgeted rate. However, this rate fluctuates from year to year.

Information Technology Manager -Salary / Benefits

N/A 79,180.80 80,764.42 82,379.70 84,027.30 326,352.22 84,027.30

FT Support beginning in FY14; Assumes 2% salary increase per year.

Center Summer Staffing

10,880.00 16,320.00 16,320.00 16,320.00 16,320.00 76,160.00 16,320.00

STEPS Summer Staffing

Faculty Fellows 80,737.50 161,475.00 161,475.00 134,562.50 26,912.50 565,162.50 161,475.00

$3,000 incentive is given out in 3 installments as course materials are produced. 1st installment for each cohort expected in semester 1; 2nd installment in semester 2; 3rd installment in semester 3. Includes FICA expense.

Graduate Mentors, includes Stipend, Benefits

81,720.00 83,354.40 85,021.49 86,721.92 88,456.36 425,274.16 88,456.36

4 graduate student assistants to train and supervise tutors as well as to tutor. Stipends are $20,000 per student; 2% inflationary rate included; 12 projected to serve 3 centers by year 3. Benefits projected at 2.150% budgeted rate. However, this rate fluctuates from year to year.

Undergraduate Peer

52,300.80 130,752.00 156,902.40 156,902.40 156,902.40 653,760.00 156,902.40

Interns hired at $10/hour; 40 hour workweek coverage expected for 32 weeks per yea; 4 in year 1, 10 in year 2; 12 in year three and thereafter

Total Personnel Budget

572,410.66 843,991.03 879,621.3

4 862,378.34 764,591.23 3,922,992.61 899,153.73

STUDENT TUITION/FEES/HEALTH INSURANCE Graduate Student Tuition

19,885.60 21,078.74 22,343.46 23,684.07 25,105.11 112,096.98 25,105.11

4 GA Mentors, 1 GA for Assessment in year 1, 2 GAs for assessment in the years thereafter. Assumes 6% tuition increase for all out-years

Graduate Student Health Insurance

6,880.00 8,256.00 8,526.00 8,526.00 8,526.00 40,984.00 8,526.00

4 GA Mentors, 1 GA for Assessment in year 1, 2 GAs for assessment in the years thereafter. Student Health Insurance Premium is $1,376 per year - Budget assumes constant rate but unlikely to hold steady.

TOTAL STUDENT / TUITION / FEES / HEALTH INSURANCE

25,981.60 27,174.74 28,439.46 29,780.07 31,201.11 142,576.98 31,201.11

EQUIPMENT AND CURRENT EXPENSES Equipment: - Whisper Rooms 2 @ $4,375; 4x6 basic room

8,750.00 8,750.00

40 inch LED/LCD monitors

4,500.00 4,500.00


71

3 @ $1,500

Poster Printer 1,500.00 1,500.00 Desktop stations (Macs/PCs) 20 @ $2,500

50,000.00 50,000.00

Computer Server 15,000.00 15,000.00

Networked Printer

4,000.00 4,000.00

Replacement budget 25,000.00 25,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00

Total Equipment

83,750.00 - 25,000.00 - 25,000.00 133,750.00 50,000.00

Operating:

Workshop Expenses (meals, etc.)

10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 50,000.00 10,000.00

Professional Development ($2,000 travel allotment for one domestic conference per fellow)

50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 200,000.00 50,000.00

CLA and NSSE Participation 27,250 20,150 9,800.00 57,200 12,000

Other Operating Expenses

5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 25,000.00 5,000.00

Total Operating

15,000 92,250 65,000 85,150 74,800 332,200 77,000

TOTAL EQUIPMENT / OPERATING EXPENSES

98,750.00 92,250.00 90,000.00 85,150.00 99,800.00 465,950.00 127,000.00

RENOVATION Nonrecurring 400,000.00 400,000.00 TOTAL RENOVATION 400,000.00 400,000.00

TOTAL ALL CATEGORIES 1,097,142.26 963415.77 998,060.80 977,308.41 895,592.35 4,931519.59 1,059,784.80


72

REFERENCES

Cronin, M., & Glenn, P. (1991). Oral communication across the curriculum in higher education: The state of the art. Communication Education, 40, 356-367. Dannels, D. P., & Housley-Gaffney, A. L. (2009). Communication across the curriculum and in the disciplines: A call for scholarly cross-curricular advocacy. Communication Education, 58, 124–153. Finley, A. (2012). Making progress? What we know about the achievement of liberal education outcomes. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Hart Research Associates. (2010, January 10). Raising the bar: Employers’ views on college learning in the wake of the economic downturn. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Hart Research Associates. (2006, December 28). How should colleges prepare students to succeed in today’s global economy? Washington, D. C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Lave, J., & Wenger, W. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: University of Cambridge Press. Reiss, D., Selfe, D., & Young, A. (Eds.). (1998). Electronic communication across the curriculum. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Schiavone, K. (2012, October 25). College classes that will make you a better job candidate. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08- 25/classified/chi-jobseekers-college-courses-20120825_1_college-courses-college- classes-science-and-technology Sellnow, D. D., & Martin, J. (2010). The basic course in communication: Where do we go from here? In D. L. Fassett & J. T. Warren (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of communication and instruction (pp. 33-53). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Sheridan, D. & Inman, J.A. (Eds.). (2010). Multiliteracy Centers: Writing Center Work, New Media and Multimodal Rhetoric. Hampton Press. UK (n.d.). UK Core website: Design principles tab. Retrieved on November 22, 2011 at http://www.uky.edu/UKCore/principles.html. UK (n.d.). UK Core website: Learning outcomes tab. Retrieved on November 22, 2011 at http://www.uky.edu/UKCore/outcomes.html. UK (n.d.). UK Strategic plan. Retrieved on November 22, 2011 at http://www.uky.edu/Provost/strategic_planning/mission.htm. UK (n.d.). SACS Website: QEP tab. Retrieved on November 22, 2011 at http://www.uky.edu/SACS. Weiss, R. O. (1998, November). Sustaining speaking across the curriculum programs. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, New York.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-

http://www.uky.edu/UKCore/principles.html

http://www.uky.edu/UKCore/outcomes.html

http://www.uky.edu/Provost/strategic_planning/mission.htm

http://www.uky.edu/SACS


73

APPENDICES

Appendix A: QEP TOPIC SELECTION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN/TIMELINE

Summer 2008 • Several UK faculty, staff, and administrators attended a QEP Workshop

hosted by SACS (Heidi Anderson, Connie Ray and Kaveh Tagavi; Orlando, FL).

Summer 2009 • Several additional faculty, staff, and administrators attended a QEP Workshop hosted by SACS in Houston, TX (Mike Mullen, Deanna Sellnow, Marsha Watson, and Rena Murphy).

October 2009 • Brief presentations on SACS and QEP Background November 2009 • Establishment of the QEP Pre-Planning Team; members appointed November 20, 2009 • Members of the Pre-Planning Team met with QEP officials from three

Kentucky universities that had completed their QEPs: Northern Kentucky University, Eastern Kentucky University, and the University of Louisville (presentations; Q&A)

December 4, 2009 • Pre-planning Team met to develop a plan for the topic selection process and to create documentation for review by an outside consultant

December 17-18, 2009

• Retreat: Pre-planning Team met with external reviewer, Dr. Robert Armacost, University of Florida, for advice on the topic selection process and timeline; members drafted a Topic Selection and Development Process proposal

January 2010 • Topic Selection Team identified, draft of plan (including timeline) formalized and presented to Senate Council to ensure consistency with Senate rules and curricular procedures. Provost appointed Co-Chairs Drs. Sellnow and Snow to be a “continuous presence” throughout the process from PPT to Implementation phase.

• Began budget allocation discussions • $$$ Payroll: Chair, Coordinator, and a Staff Assistant

February 2010 • Members of Topic Selection Team chosen to attend SACS Institute (July 2010)

February - April 2010 • Collected and reviewed assessment data (set up weekly meetings) • $ Operational expenses • Sign up for April unit meetings, etc., across campus

February 2010 • UNIVERSITY SENATE UPDATE February - April 2010 • Ongoing process - Involve campus; get ideas (suggestion box); form focus

groups • $ Operational expenses; facilitators; assessment; food and beverage

April 2010 • Inform campus community of assessment data results • $$ Materials; printing; advertising

Summer 2010 • Synthesis: Analyze results of storming using assessment data of themes that emerge from data; choose those consistent with QEP criteria (funnel non-selected themes to appropriate campus units for further attention)

• Develop pre-proposal and white paper rubrics (refer to UCF) • $$ Stipends for summer employment costs

August 16, 2010 • “Roll out” themes (reflect assessment data and storming from Spring); request pre-proposals

• $$ materials, PR, advertising September 2010 • UNIVERSITY SENATE UPDATE October 1, 2010 • Pre-proposals due


74

October 2010 • Review pre-proposals; select 8-10 from which to invite white papers October-November, 2010

• Share with and get input from Deans Council, UCAPP, Senate, Provost Staff, Student Affairs, etc.

November 2010 • Request white papers • $$ Awards at $1,500 ea. x approx. 8-10

November 2010 • UNIVERSITY SENATE UPDATE December 1, 2010 • White papers due to topic selection committee January 2011 • Topic selection committee selects 3-4 white papers (topics)

• Announce to campus community for comment (team decides how to announce)

• $ Materials, advertising, PR, operational costs January 2011 • UNIVERSITY SENATE UPDATE; request feedback February 2011 • Topic(s) Submitted to UK SACS Leadership Team (includes President,

Provost, and Board of Trustees) February-March 2011

• Announce final topic to UK community • $$ Materials, PR, advertising, operational costs

March 2011 • QEP Topic Development Team identified • Members of QEP-TDT chosen to attend SACS Institute in July 2011

April 2011 • Begin on-going preparation of final QEP document (budget finalized and approved)

• $ Materials; $$ summer stipend expenses possible for eligible faculty and staff

June 2011 • Reaffirmation Orientation Meeting in Atlanta (Pres and Leadership Team; max = 5 people, one from QEP group)

July 2011 • Selected Members of QEP Planning Committee go to SACS Institute • $$$ Travel expenses

August 2012 • Final QEP Approval Process (Senate, Leadership Team, BOT) Fall 2012 • Run pilots and begin concentrated marketing and PR campaign

• $$$ Staff, PR, advertising, materials • Engage students in contests to develop a name, a logo, etc.

January 2013 • Submit QEP document to SACS Review Team (75 p. text + 25 p. appendices)

• Collect and examine pilot assessment data; revise plan as needed April 2013 • On-site SACS Review April 2013 • SACS Response submitted to UK; we respond 2013-2017 • Implement QEP December 2017 • Prepare 5-yr Impact Report (Due January 2018- reporting on cohorts 1-6)

Appendix B: Sample Campus QEP Update Slideshow The Campus QEP Update Slideshow will be available for on-site examination.


75

Appendix C: QEP Proposal Submission Form and Rubric C.1: Submission Form An icon appeared on numerous campus websites (e.g., home, libraries, colleges, student affairs). Proposal items included:

1. Submitter’s name and contact information 2. Proposal (project) title 3. Identification of the theme(s) addressed 4. Description of how the proposal would improve UK student learning (300 words or less) 5. Who would be involved (e.g., undergraduates, graduate students, professional, non-

traditional, faculty, alumni, community members) and how (brief description of the key activities)

6. Whether the proposal would enhance an existing program or be entirely new 7. A list of any existing models related to, or similar to, the proposed idea (if any) 8. Whether the submitter would be willing and available to help develop a white paper

during the fall 2010 semester if the proposal was selected 9. Names of others who might be interested in helping with the project

C.2: Rubric

1. Clearly addresses one or more themes 2. Focused on improving student learning or the environment for student learning 3. Potential for broad-based involvement 4. Implementation feasibility

APPENDIX D: QEP WHITE PAPER GUIDELINES AND ASSESSMENT RUBRIC White Paper guidelines (Pt. F.1) instructed writers to flesh out the proposal into no more than ten pages. Evaluation rubrics (Pt. F.2) were created to rate and rank them using SACS criteria for an effective QEP. D.1: White Paper Submission Guidelines Please prepare an evidence-based paper (maximum 10 double-spaced pages, Times New Roman or Arial 12 point font) describing your QEP idea that is reflective of best practices. Submit your paper as a PDF. Format your paper as follows:

1. Title page (1 page) Include a tentative title for your QEP, as well as the names and contact information of all contributing authors.

Caption: To encourage proposal submission, individuals merely clicked on this icon, which linked them to a brief survey of questions (www.uky.edu/SACS/qep_submit.html)

http://www.uky.edu/


76

2. Abstract (1 page) Describe the goals of your QEP in no more than 100 words. 3. Outline the major components of your plan Introduction (1-2 pages)

Briefly describe the issue your QEP addresses. Include any pertinent background information, as well as its significance to student learning at UK. It is critical to articulate its potential for long term impact on student learning and its direct relationship to the University’s strategic plan. Plan (3-5 pages) Describe your QEP. This is essentially the work plan. Please educate us as to who will be involved (individuals, groups, units, etc.), what will be done (what are the major components or activities of the plan), where will the activities take place, when (e.g., a one-time event, repeated, involve a succession of experiences), how (step-by-step process and cost/benefit relationship), and why you believe this approach is valuable to and appropriate for implementing at UK. Be sure to explain the scope of your QEP (sufficiently broad enough to significantly impact student learning yet focused enough to be managed effectively). In addition, identify your approach to overcoming any potential obstacles for successful implementation. Include a detailed assessment plan.

4. References and Appendices (1-2 pages). D.2: White Paper Rubric Directions: On a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), rate each QEP white paper.

1. Potential for Long-term Impact on Student Learning 2. Quality of the Suggested Work Plan 3. Relationship to Strategic Plan 4. Careful Consideration of the Value and Appropriateness to UK 5. Evidence-Based and Reflective of Best Practices 6. Feasibility (obstacles to overcome and how) 7. Scope of Project Sufficiently Broad To Significantly Impact Student Learning 8. Scope of Project Sufficiently Focused To Be Managed Effectively 9. Assess-ability of Plan (Measurable Outcomes and Observable Results) 10. Cost/Benefit Relationship


77

APPENDIX E: CRM to GCCR PROPOSAL E.1: Proposal Revised Proposal for a Graduation Composition and Communication Requirement (GCCR)* *Graduation Writing Requirement ad hoc Committee Report and Recommendation. Originally submitted January 2011

Members: Deanna Sellnow (Chair), Karen Badger, Anna Bosch, Janet Eldred, David Hulse, Scott Kelley, Richard Sweigard, and Scott Yost Revised Proposal – April 2012 to reflect discussions with Senate Council, Mark Kornbluh (Dean, A&S), and Roxanne Mountford (Director, Writing, Rhetoric, and Digital Media).

Background for Modifying the Current GWR Because adoption of the UK Core has changed the nature of writing instruction in general education at UK, the Graduation Writing Requirement (GWR) needs to be modified. The current GWR requires both a Tier-I and Tier-II writing course; the Tier-I course under USP was English 104, which is no longer taught. This course has been replaced with Composition and Communication I and II, a two-course sequence integrating instruction and practice in writing, oral communication, and visual/digital design. The Tier-II courses were managed under the Writing Initiative, which has been dissolved. Transfer and equivalency questions have since been managed on an ad-hoc basis by the Vice-Provost for Undergraduate Education and the Division of Writing, Rhetoric, and Digital Media, which is the consolidated unit on campus for writing (including the old Writing Program and the current Writing Center). New courses for the Tier-II GWR courses are no longer being proposed. Finally, there are reasons to reconsider some aspects of the old GWR. A primary goal of the GWR was for students to have the option of taking a Tier-II writing course within their own major. That goal has not been met. For example, in the 2008-2009 academic year, 4515 students enrolled in Tier-II writing classes, and the English Department, through the Writing Program, Literature and Film courses provided 3326 of those enrollments (73.7%). The 12 courses originally tasked with meeting GWR and providing the vast bulk of enrollments are:

• ENG 203 (now WRD 203) Business Writing • ENG 230 Introduction to Literature • ENG 231 Literature and Genre • ENG 232 Literature and Place • ENG 233 Literature and Identities • ENG 234 Introduction to Women’s Literature • ENG 261 Survey of Western Literature from the Greeks Through the Renaissance • ENG 262 Survey of Western Literature from 1660 to the Present • ENG 264 Major Black Writers • ENG 270 The Old Testament as Literature • ENG 271 The New Testament as Literature • ENG 281 Introduction to Film

Since that time, the following 11 courses have been added on a permanent basis. Note that these courses are all for majors only except ENG/WRD 204 and ENG/WRD 205.

• Architecture: ARC 314 (Approved Spring 06- Present) • Communication and Leadership Development: CLD 250 (Fall 05- Spring 2010)


78

• ENG 204 (now WRD 204) (Spring 2010- Present) • ENG 205 (soon to be WRD 205) (Spring 2009- Present) • History: HIS 471, 490, or 499 (Spring 06- Present) • Interior Design: ID 234 (Spring 2012 to Present) • Physics: PHY 435 or 535 (Spring 07- Present) • Russian: RUS 499 (Fall 06- Present) • Sustainable Agriculture: SAG 201 (Fall 07- Present) • Social Work: SW 470W (Spring 06- Present)

In addition, a number of other courses are approved on a semester-by-semester basis or were approved for a short time and no longer available. Note that these courses are all for majors only.

• Arts and Science: A&S 300 (Fall 08 Only) • Agricultural Biotechnology: ABT 201 AND 301 (Approved Fall 06 to Present) • Agricultural Economics: AEC 580 (Approved Spring 08 ONLY) • Anthropology: ANT 582 (Approved Spring 07-Spring 08 Only) • Biology: Bio 425/VS 395 (Approved Fall 06 Only) • Chemical and Materials Engineering: MSE 403G (Fall 2010 to Present) • Civil Engineering: CE 599 (Approved Spring 07- Fall 08) • Civil Engineering: CE 507 (Fall 08 only section 001; Fall 09 only section 003) • Clinical Leadership and Management: CLM 595 (Fall 07 to Present) • Communications: COM 351 (Summer 08 to Present) Communication Disorders: CD

410/482/483 (Spring 06- Spring 2009) • Electrical Engineering: EE 490 (Fall 2010- Present) • Geography: GEO 300 (Spring 06-Fall 08 Only) • Special Education and Rehabilitation: EDS 530 (Fall 06 to Present) • Educational Policies Studies: EPE 301W (Spring 08 to Present) • Forestry: FOR 460 (Starting Fall 09) • Forestry: FOR 400 (Starting Fall 2012) • Math: MA 330 (Spring 09 only section 002; Spring 2010 only section 002) • Mining: MNG 371 (Starting Fall 08) • Chemical and Materials Engineering: MSE 403G (Spring 2009 only section 001; Spring

2010 only section 002) • Natural Resource Conservation and Management: NRC 301(Fall 05 to Present) • Nursing: NUR 854 (Fall 2004 to Present) • Nutrition and Food Science: NFS 591 (Spring 07-Spring 09 Only) • Nutrition and Food Science: NFS 474/475 (Fall 2009 to Present) • Political Science: PS 490 (Spring 08 to Present)

What do our Benchmarks Do? An inspection of our benchmarks reveals that most require a Tier II writing course in the major. A brief summary of most of our benchmark requirements follows: University of Arizona (http://catalog.arizona.edu/2010-11/policies/writing.htm) The University of Arizona requires that every undergraduate degree program include at least one required writing emphasis course. Writing emphasis courses are junior- or senior-level courses that emphasize writing in the discipline. At least 50% of the grade in the course must be awarded based on the writing component. Michigan State University (http://www.reg.msu.edu/ucc/policies.asp#Tier%20I%20and%20Tier%20II%20Writing) Michigan State has a Tier II writing requirement. These Tier II writing courses are generally required courses in the degree programs. These courses are 3 credit (minimum) 300 or 400 level courses identified with a W. They also allow more than one course, for example, a cluster of


79

courses in the discipline with 1 or 2 credits per course to count. One outcome is that students are expected “to produce well written, edited, revised and proofread papers which communicate effectively in their fields.” The writing requirements are primarily developed within the degree programs, but must include at least one major assignment that includes submitting a draft that is evaluated and returned for revision prior to the final grade. University of Iowa Iowa requires a two-course sequence in Rhetoric (which includes writing, speaking, and reading) but does not require a Tier II course in writing and communication. University of Missouri (http://cwp.missouri.edu/) Missouri has a writing requirement largely in the disciplines. At least 20 pages of writing, with drafts and revisions as part of the assignments, are required. As described at the Missouri Campus Writing Program website: “WI assignments may be traditional individually-written printed-page papers, or may take the form of group-work, oral, multi-media and/or electronic communications.” There should be multiple assignments, and hopefully, peer evaluations in addition to professor evaluations. University of Minnesota (http://onestop.umn.edu/degree_planning/lib_eds/index.html) All students must take four writing-intensive courses beyond freshman writing. At least one of these must be in the major. University of California at Davis (http://writing.ucdavis.edu/about-uwp/about/) All students complete a two-course sequence, to include an introductory requirement and then either intermediate or advanced courses as designated by each college. The second courses are typically in the discipline but not exclusively so. Ohio State University (http://asccas.osu.edu/resources/gecguidelines#1) OSU has a “required third course in writing and related skills (e.g., oral communication) to assure that junior or senior year students are provided an upper-level course in their major that contains a significant writing component. Departments may choose to accept 1) one or more courses each of which meets this requirement, 2) writing sections of single courses each of which meets this requirement, 3) a group of courses, each containing a writing component, which together meet this requirement, or 4) a course which counts for the major but is outside of the major department. In addition to requiring students to apply writing skills to their major, this third course should also develop students’ skills in the oral articulation of ideas as well as their critical and analytical abilities in reading demanding texts and synthesizing ideas. Course work might also include a research project that exposes students to scholarly literature in their majors and requires them to improve library skills or to access information through computer systems.” University of Wisconsin (http://pubs.wisc.edu/ug/geninfo_study_ger.htm#comm) Students at UW take a freshman course in Literacy Proficiency and then must take a second course prior to graduation. This can be a course in the discipline, or one from outside the department. University of Florida (http://www.registrar.ufl.edu/soc/201201/gord.html) Students must complete enough courses to meet a 24,000-word writing requirement prior to graduation. Writing intensive courses provide 2,000, 4,000 or up to 6,000 words, depending on the course. Freshman Composition provides 6,000 of the 24,000 word total. The additional courses are offered across most disciplines. Students must get a C in the course AND get a C in the writing portion of the course for it to count. What has Prevented UK from Moving Writing into the Disciplines? When college Academic Associate Deans were asked why their Colleges have not created more Tier-II writing courses in the majors, they typically responded that the format of the requirement does not work for their discipline. Members of Undergraduate Council, who are often heavily involved in the curriculum in their departments, made similar comments. One faculty member indicated that the requirement seems to be based on the type of writing assigned in literature


80

classes (e.g., a minimum of 5 pages per assignment), but the writing in his department’s natural science curriculum is incompatible with it. There was not enough flexibility in the current guidelines to facilitate science writing in the major (e.g., lab reports, scientific papers and presentations). The Graduation Composition and Communication Requirement (GCCR) is a viable alternative to the GWR and is also timely given a number of converging initiatives, as outlined below. First, our UK Core has replaced disconnected writing and communications classes with the Composition and Communications I and II course series, which integrates writing, oral presentation, information literacy, and use of digital media. Courses in the disciplines could build on this platform. The student-learning outcomes in place for C&C could inform the outcome-based assessment of student proficiency in upper-level courses. Second, all degree programs are to be assessed by the program faculty. Each program should have developed a set of program learning outcomes, and in nearly all cases, one learning outcome of most programs is related to written and oral communications. For example, this is from Mechanical Engineering:

Our students will have the ability to communicate effectively. Students will be able to demonstrate • Technical writing skills • Formal presentations skills • Interpersonal skills • Visual communication

A second example is from the College of Social Work:

Students will demonstrate • Professional demeanor in behavior, appearance and communication • Effective oral and written communication in professional settings. • Collaboration with colleagues and clients for effective policy action • Separate fact from opinion in data presentation

Departments now must regularly assess artifacts from courses that relate to this learning outcome. They would use results of assessment to fine-tune their curriculum to ensure that students can indeed meet these outcomes when they graduate. Third, faculties in the disciplines are best suited to determine the types of writing and communication skills their students should have upon graduation. The type of writing and communication skills required of a journalism or marketing major are likely to be very different from that required for a physics or animal science graduate. Fourth, the University of Kentucky’s Quality Enhancement Plan for SACS, “Presentation U,” addresses the absence of support on campus for faculty who wish to incorporate more writing and communication instruction and assignments in their courses. In addition, this plan will better organize and enhance resources like The Writing Center and the Study to support students’ writing, oral communications, and use of visual media in the majors.


81

Proposal for a Graduation Composition and Communication Requirement (GCCR) The ad hoc committee discussed options ranging from (a) eliminating any kind of graduation writing or communication requirement altogether to (b) retaining the existing requirement to (c) proposing a variety of options in between. Ultimately, the group concluded that the best approach is in line with the trend among UK benchmark universities, most of which require writing in the major, but enhancing this practice by adding either oral communication or visual/digital design. The new requirement would bring vertical integration of the UK Core C&C requirement into the major. Philosophy & Rationale: Effective composition and communication (C&C) skills are acquired and developed over time through the processes of instruction, practice, assessment, and revision. Moreover, students’ understanding of what constitutes effective writing and communication skills increase with further education and training. Employer surveys conducted annually by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) report strong writing and other communication skills (listening, speaking, interpersonal, and teamwork) consistently among their top 10 criteria for hiring college graduates. Thus, college graduates ought to leave the university having attained the C&C skills necessary to succeed in the professions their academic majors represent. Although the fundamental principles of effective C&C are being taught as part of UK Core, many additional skills are discipline or profession specific. In some fields, for instance, being able to communicate orally using visuals such as models or posters, or in public or online forums using electronic slideshows, or in interpersonal or small group settings is as crucial to success as being able to write essays, articles, or reports. A discipline-specific C&C requirement will help convey to students that such skills are not just a box to be checked in order to graduate, but are important skills for success in their major and chosen profession. Thus, the committee proposes the following recommendation. Recommendation: Transform the current graduation-writing requirement (GWR) into a graduation composition and communication requirement (GCCR) that is appropriate for the academic discipline and profession(s) a given major represents. The committee recommends that each GCCR address writing in the discipline and at least one other modality of communication—oral or visual. The choice of the second form of communication is based on what is most appropriate for the major. The GCCR may be satisfied via either a specific C&C intensive course or a series of C&C-intensive assignments in a series of courses. The GCCR will be articulated in one or more specific degree program learning outcomes and will be assessed regularly as required by program accreditation standards and university standards for SACS reaffirmation of accreditation that are already in place. Implementation Timeline and Parameters: The GCCR Advisory Committee and the Undergraduate Council will conduct GCCR certification and oversight jointly. Disciplinary courses that currently satisfy the GWR will be grandfathered in as certified for the new GCCR but will be subject to review. The GCCR will replace the GWR the academic year following approval by the University Senate. The current GWR requirement will continue to be required until the GCCR is implemented. During the interim, a program may design and submit new courses for satisfaction of proposed GCCR; these courses may be used to fulfill the GWR. These courses should be evaluated by the Division of Writing, Rhetoric, and Digital Media and Undergraduate Council until the GCCR is established. Current writing-intensive courses offered by English and WRD (e.g., ENG 230, 261, 262, 264, 271, 281 and WRD 203, 204, 205) as well as all other approved GWR courses will continue to be offered as options under the GCCR as long as they offer evidence that oral or visual communication skills have been added.


82

Degree programs will be asked to identify their GCCR program learning outcome(s), course(s) and assignment(s) to fulfill it, as well as their assessment plan. The assessment plan will include (a) clear goals for successful achievement of the GCCR, (b) specific criteria and rubrics for systematically assessing student work, and (c) a cogent description of how assessment results will be utilized to revise GCCR instruction and/or curriculum if the goals are not met. In cases in which another unit is offering the courses for the degree program (e.g., WRD 203: Business Writing for majors in the College of B&E), the degree program will conduct the review and make recommendations to the unit offering the course to help implement any needed revisions. The new requirement is for students to complete written assignment(s) of at least 4,500 words (the equivalent of 15 pages of double-spaced, typewritten text). In addition, students must present at least 10 minutes of presentation OR create at least one significant visual/electronic artifact (e.g., a web site or video presentation). These requirements do not have to be completed in a single course and can be completed over multiple assignments. Significant instruction and feedback on the assignments is required in the course in which this work is assigned. Degree programs will propose courses to meet the GCCR to the Senate’s GCCR Advisory Committee for review and a vote. The proposal must include the assignment(s) and a daily syllabus that clearly shows days in which C&C instruction is offered. In cases in which programs wish to designate multiple courses, clear information for students and advisers on how the courses fulfill the GCCR must be offered. For example, degree program A may decide that one course will meet all of the GCCR (marked “fulfills the GCCR” in the University Bulletin). Degree program B may decide that students will fulfill the writing portion in course 1 (marked “fulfills the written component of the GCCR”) and the oral portion in course 2 (marked “fulfills the oral component of the GCCR”). Degree program C may decide that students will fulfill the writing portion in two courses and a visual component in a third course (in the latter case, “fulfills the visual component of the GCCR”). The courses fulfilling the writing portion would be designated by word count (e.g., “fulfills 2500 words of the written portion of the GCCR”). The University of Florida details word counts per writing-intensive course and so could be used as a model. It must be emphasized that it will not be adequate to require an assignment without linking it to clearly articulated objectives, providing significant instruction in support of those objectives, and identifying a draft/feedback/revision process. These details must be provided in course proposals to the GCCR Advisory Committee. To satisfy the GCCR, students must earn an average grade of “C” or better on the designated C&C-intensive assignments produced in any given course designated as fulfilling some or all of the GCCR. GCCR Certification Guidelines GCCR certification will be granted by identifying:

(1) Program learning outcome or outcomes focused directly on skill mastery in writing (required) and at least one other communication component (oral or visual communication);

(2) a course (or series of courses) that identify major assignment(s) focused on meeting that outcome;

(3) an explicitly stated instruction/draft/feedback/revision/evaluation process; (4) a discipline-specific information literacy component; (5) a grading plan (in some cases, a rubric) that identifies the significant elements that

will be evaluated in the assignment; and (6) a cogent plan for assessing the GCCR at the program level.

E.2: Program Certification Application


83

Graduation Composition and Communication Requirement (GCCR)

Program Certification Application

Degree/Major: Contact Name: Email: Phone: Program Learning Outcomes (e.g., On graduation, the student will be able to…)

C&C-intensive course or series of courses used to satisfy the GCCR*:

* Include a syllabus for each course identified. Assignment(s) (include a description and grading plan, as well as an explanation of the weight of the assignment in the overall course grade):

Describe briefly the instruction plan for teaching the C&C skill(s): Describe briefly the draft/feedback/revision plan:

Describe briefly the GCCR assessment plan:

Signatures: Department: Date: College: Date:


84

APPENDIX F: CIS 300 SYLLABUS DRAFT Course Description: This communication intensive course prepares B&E majors for their careers by developing effective communication skills (integrated written, oral, and visual) applied specifically to today’s technology-driven and global business environment. The course will focus on developing strong communication skills in interpersonal settings, on small group teams, and when delivering public presentations. Students will prepare cover letters, resumes, websites, and portfolios; develop effective interviewing skills in face-to-face and online environments; communicate effectively based on audience analysis in face-to-face and online settings; deliver effective formal public business presentations (informative and persuasive) based on audience analysis and using a variety of presentational aids that enhance the message; and learn to manage data, graphics, and a positive on-line presence (e.g., websites blogs, social media outlets, email messages, and webinars). Prerequisites: Upper-division status in accounting, analytics, economics, finance, management, marketing, or permission from instructor Learning Outcomes: Upon completion of the course, students will be able to:

• Write, revise, and proofread effective audience-centered business documents in a variety of formats (e.g., cover letter, resume, press release, memoranda, e-mail correspondence, formal speech outlines, meeting agendas and minutes, websites).

• Prepare and deliver effective formal oral business presentations (informative and persuasive) using appropriate presentational aids based on the rhetorical situation (purpose, audience, occasion, constraints).

• Practice effective interpersonal and intercultural communication skills (speaking, listening, responding, interviewing, conflict management) appropriate to the rhetorical situation (purpose, audience, occasion, constraints).

• Practice effective small group communication skills (teamwork, leadership, conflict management) in informal settings and as part of formal presentations (face-to-face and on-line).

• Respond effectively to media and stakeholder inquiries during crisis events and during question and answer sessions.

• Use strong evidence (locate, analyze, evaluate) to support ideas, arguments, and positions, as well as to solve workplace problems.

Required Materials: Lehman, C., & Dufrene, D. (2011). Business Communication (16th ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western, Cengage Learning. Perrin, R. (2012). Pocket guide to APA style (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage. Microsoft Office (PowerPoint, Word, Publisher) Other readings as assigned by the instructor Course Activities and Assignments: Each student will compile an electronic portfolio of materials that will include, for example, a cover letter, resume, and reflective essay for a job in his or her chosen field, sample business documents, formal outlines and presentational aid printouts of formal oral presentations, and recordings of mock interviews and speeches.


85

1. Cover letter, resume, and reflective essay (60 points) Each student will conduct research to locate a job posting for a position he or she might like to hold one day. Each student will prepare a cover letter and resume applying for that position. Documents are to reflect research about the mission of the organization, required and preferred credentials, and the expertise the student would bring to the organization if hired. Students will prepare a 400-500 word self-reflection articulating how and why they prepared the cover letter and resume as they did, citing at least three credible sources using proper APA style. These documents will be revised at the end of the semester to reflect what the student learned throughout the term. In the revised 400-500 word self-reflection, students will explain what they changed (or did not change) and why. 2. Business documents (100 points) Students will prepare an interoffice memo, e-mail message, and press release that reflect ethical and effective responses to case study scenarios provided by the instructor. Students will also prepare a sample brochure, flyer, newsletter, or website for an organization. 3. Interview and critiques (60 points) Each student will prepare a 400-500 word self-critique of his or her mock job interview as well as a 400-500 word peer critique of a classmate’s interview, as assigned by the instructor. 4. Job Talk Public Speech (50 points) Each student will deliver a 5-7 minute “job talk” answering the question: “Why should you hire me?” for the position selected by the student. Points will be earned for the formal and speaking outlines, the construction and integration of presentational aids (e.g., PPT slideshow), self and peer review critiques of documents and rehearsals, as well as the content, structure, and delivery of the actual speech (including a question and answer session). 5. Team Project (150 points) Students will work together in teams (4-6 students each) to examine a workplace crisis situation and formulate potential solutions for it as well as for addressing various stakeholder groups. Each group will produce a 500-700 word written report describing what and how they would communicate to the various groups and why, a formal 16-20 minute actuation persuasive presentation delivered as a group symposium, and a digital product communicating to one of the groups described in the written report. 6. Exams (150 points) There will be two examinations to evaluate comprehension of theories and concepts addressed in the assigned readings and class discussions. 7. In-Cass Activities (30 points) Grading: 90-100% = A 80-89% = B 70-79% = C 60-69% = D 0-59% = E


86

APPENDIX G: ASSESSMENT MEASUREMENT TOOLS G.1: Presentation U Written Communication Rubric (draft)

Category Accomplished (3)

Competent (2)

Needs Improvement (1)

Insufficient (0)

Content Evidence Integrates credible,

evidence effectively with accuracy and depth to thoroughly explain and support ideas while considering alternate perspectives

Uses appropriate and credible evidence effectively with accuracy to explain and support ideas

Evidence is used to explain and support ideas but the evidence may not be credible, and/or presented with depth or effectiveness

Evidence to support ideas is lacking, is not credible, is inaccurate or irrelevant to the thesis

Analysis Writing reflects analysis, synthesis, assessment, and/or interpretation of ideas and evidence; analysis draws from the evidence and clearly assists readers in understanding meaning; connects to purpose of the paper, reflects original thought and creativity

Uses evidence-formed analysis to assist readers in understanding meaning and connects to purpose of the paper; writing reflects original thought

Evidence-formed analysis is used but may have minor flaws or be incomplete; connection to meaning and purpose is not completely clear

Evidence-formed analysis is lacking, inaccurate, disorganized, or otherwise unable to assist readers in understanding meaning and purpose

Focus and Coverage

Thoroughly fulfills all assignment requirements

Fulfills assignment requirements (but some superficially or without addressing one or two minor parts)

Many requirements fulfilled but assignment incomplete, missing or under exploring major or significant portions

Does not address and/or fulfill assignment requirements

Structure

Macrostructure Clearly organized content that reflects purpose and focus of paper, ideas are clearly connected, information included is important and tied to purpose,

Content is organized and effectively connects ideas and purpose of the paper; transitions enhance readability

An attempt is made to organize content but is at times not logically organized; material strays from focus and purpose of paper; contains somewhat weak

Content is not organized in a logical way; transitions are lacking or ineffective; material does not reflect purpose or focus of paper.


87

assists the reader in developing insight; transitions enhance readability

transitions.

Microstructure Tone and language use clearly appropriate for audience and medium and enhances readability

Tone and language mostly appropriate for audience and medium, with a few minor gaps.

Tone and language somewhat appropriate for audience and medium, but inconsistent

Tone and language are not appropriate for audience and medium

Style and Conventions

Adheres to writing standards regarding style and conventions; no errors (e.g., spelling, grammar, sentence structure, use of citations, etc.)

Generally adheres to writing standards; there are some errors regarding writing standards and conventions but they do not reflect readability

There are noticeable errors regarding writing standards and conventions; detracts from message and impacts readability

There are numerous errors regarding writing standards and conventions; consistently detract and/or confuse the reader, obscure points and/or message

Delivery Presentation Presented in a

clear format appropriate for purpose and audience and/or professional standards

Presented in a format appropriate for purpose and audience and/or professional standards with only very minor variances

Presented in a format somewhat appropriate for purpose and audience and/or professional standards with some major requirements missing or incorrect

Presented in a format not appropriate for purpose and audience and inconsistent with professional standards; format appears disorganized or absent

G.2: Pre/Post MCXC Student Self-efficacy Survey (draft) – To be developed in Qualtrics Directions: For each of the items below, please rate how confident you are that you can complete the task described using the following scale:

1 (Low) 2 3 4 5 (High) Written Communication

1. I can clearly express my ideas in writing. 2. I can organize my ideas effectively in writing.


88

3. I can adapt the words I use (e.g., jargon) based on my audience. 4. I can clearly define any technical terms so that my audience can understand what I mean. 5. I can consistently us language that is inclusive of people (firefighter instead of fireman.) 6. I have a good command of the elements of writing (e.g., grammar, punctuation, sentence

construction, etc.) 7. I am able to read, interpret, and evaluate information from multiple sources to use in my

writing. 8. I am able to integrate material from outside sources into my writing to connect ideas. 9. I can paraphrase information accurately without relying on the original author’s writing. 10. I can properly cite sources in my writing. 11. I can proof read my own writing. 12. I can provide feedback to my peers that help them to improve their writing. 13. I can choose the appropriate written medium with which to convey a message (e.g., email,

formal paper, newspaper, website, etc.) 14. I can adapt my writing style appropriately for the medium (e.g., professional email,

newspaper, essay, research paper) 15. I am able to format my writing appropriately for the expectations of the profession and the

mode of delivery. Oral Communication (Public Speaking)

1. I can fully support my main ideas with evidence. 2. I am able to read, interpret, and evaluate information from multiple sources to use in

constructing my presentation. 3. I am able to integrate material from outside sources into my presentations in a way that

connects ideas. 4. I can paraphrase information accurately without relying on the original author’s writing. 5. I can properly cite sources utilized in my presentation. 6. I can use concrete, precise language. 7. I can adapt the words I use (e.g., jargon) based on my audience. 8. I can clearly define any technical terms so that my audience can understand what I mean. 9. I can create an introduction that draws in my audience and sets up what I will cover. 10. I can construct an organized speech. 11. I can speak effectively and meet professional communication standards expected in

studio and/or field formats. 12. I can effectively deliver an individual or team-based persuasive presentation. 13. I can prepare for and organize an effective interview. 14. I can stop myself from fidgeting during my speech. 15. I can correctly interpret other people’s nonverbal behaviors. 16. I can maintain good posture during my speech. 17. I can use gestures effectively to reinforce important points, clarify structure, or reference

visual aids. 18. I can use eye contact to engage with the audience and facial expressions to convey

attitude/emotions and establish sincerity. 19. I can make it clear that I am a credible speaker during my speech. 20. I can effectively utilize voice tone, volume, pacing to enhance the effectiveness of my

presentation. 21. I can deliver an organized speech. 22. I can conduct or participate in an effective interview.

Team Oral Communication

1. I can protect another person’s feelings through my communication. 2. I can find common ground when dealing with a conflict


89

3. I can use “I” language in order to own my feelings. 4. I can recognize when it is appropriate to share personal information with another person. 5. I can recognize my cultural assumptions and expectations at play in my interactions. 6. I can correctly interpret other people’s nonverbal behaviors. 7. I can communicate with a variety of people without letting prejudices interfered. 8. I can engage in perception checking to be certain I understand what someone is trying to

communicate to me. 9. I can help ensure that members of a group that I am working with are all allowed to offer

opinions during a discussion. 10. I can avoid putting pressure on group members to conform to ideas. 11. I can provide productive feedback to group members about their roles in a group. 12. I can speak so that others can understand me. 13. I can recognize when I should take a leadership role and when I should step back. 14. I can stay on task when working in a group.

Visual Communication

1. I am able to brainstorm different ways to visually communicate my message and choose the one most effective to convey the message to the intended audience.

2. I can choose the appropriate visuals to convey a message and/or explain a concept. 3. I have the skills to be able to select and apply layout and design elements that are

appropriate for static or print media that meets standards of my profession. 4. I have the skills to select and apply layout and design elements that are appropriate for

on-line media that meets standards of my profession. 5. I am able to identify means through which complex ideas can be communicated in a visual

format. 6. I can explain the rationale for my choice of visual aid(s). 7. I am able to correctly cite visual aids that I utilize from other sources 8. I can use diagrams, charts, and other visual aids effectively to express my ideas. 9. I am able to select a visual presentation style appropriate for purpose, audience, and

venue. 10. I can employ professional-looking visual aids. 11. I am able to effectively use verbal messages to enhance a visual message and vice versa

(avoiding simply repeating the messages in two different forms.) 12. I am able to identify and incorporate effective design elements in print, video, web, and

oral presentation materials. 13. I am able to understand the visual communication of others. 14. I have the skills to structure a visual message that meets standards in my profession. 15. I have developed the technical skills required to design visual communication deliverables

required by my profession. 16. I can respond to questions about my visual representations without being defensive. 17. I am able to create and edit video footage that meets standards of my profession. 18. I am able to effectively use visual communication to convey the meaning and impact of

the information or message.

G.3: Presentation U Tally Sheet (draft)

1. Time arrived: __________ 2. Please list your name: _____________________________________________ 3. Please list your major: ______________________________________________ 4. In which course (s) are you here to receive consultation for? ____________________ 5. What best describes your classification?


90

( ) Freshman ( ) Sophomore ( ) Junior ( ) Senior

6. Describe the type of communication mode you would like to receive assistance for: (mark all that apply)

( ) Written Communication (i.e., words/reading), ( ) Oral Communication (i.e., sounds/hearing)

( ) Visual Communication (i.e., nonverbal symbols/seeing) ( ) Other (please specify): _________________________ 7. While visiting Presentation U, did you:

( ) Use a Computer ( ) Use specific software ( ) Visit the sound room ( ) Work with a tutor ( ) Work with a mentor ( ) Other (please specify): _________________________

8. Time out: __________

G.4: Faculty Fellows Needs Assessment (draft)

1. Please list your name and title: _______________________________________ 2. Which College/Department do you represent? ___________________ 3. Are you interested in providing multimodal communication skills in your course (s) to increase

student performance in this area? ( ) Yes ( ) No 4. In which courses do you plan to embed multimodal communication instruction and projects?

__________________________________________________________ 5. What classification are your students? (mark all that apply)

( ) Freshman ( ) Sophomore ( ) Junior ( ) Senior

6. Which of the following best describes how your course is administered? ( ) Traditional On-Campus ( ) Traditional Off-Campus ( ) Distance Learning ( ) Both traditional and distance learning (hybrid model) ( ) Other (please specify): _________________________

7. Describe the type of communication mode utilized in your courses: (mark all that apply)

( ) Written Communication (i.e., words/reading), ( ) Oral Communication (i.e., sounds/hearing) ( ) Visual Communication (i.e., nonverbal symbols/seeing) ( ) Other (please specify): _________________________

8. Describe how the above multimodal messages are communicated: (mark all that apply) ( ) Flat print (e.g., academic papers, research reports, brochures, newsletters) ( ) Face-to-face (e.g., conversations, consultations, public speeches


91

( ) Digital (e.g., television, cell phone, computer, internet) ( ) Other (please specify): _________________________

9. Describe how communication occurs in your course (s): (mark all that apply) ( ) Interpersonal (settings are between two people, serves the purpose of forming and maintaining relationships among, for example, acquaintances, friends, colleagues, and intimates) ( ) Intrapersonal (settings are private to the self, might serve purposes such as reflection, comprehension, analysis, or evaluation) ( ) Small Groups (settings are among a few people who come together to interact and collaborate for the purpose of achieving a common goal. Some examples include family groups, social groups, support groups, service groups, and workplace teams ( ) Public Communication settings (settings are among large audiences whether coming from one-to-many or a few-to many, serves the purpose of publishing, distributing, or broadcasting a unified message and may come in the form of, for instance, a news report, a public speech, a newsletter, or a website. ( ) Other (please specify): _________________________

10. Please indicate whether you will or will not need training in each of the following areas: (Please

place an X in the appropriate box) Not

applicable for my

courses

Will Not Need

Training

Will Need

Training

Unsure at this time, but would

like more information

a. Implementing appropriate instruction related to Written Communication

b. Creating assignments for Written Communication

c. Creating rubrics for Written Communication

d. Implementing appropriate instruction related to Oral Communication

e. Creating assignments for Oral Communication

f. Creating rubrics for Oral Communication

g. Implementing appropriate instruction related to Visual Communication

h. Creating assignments for Visual Communication

i. Creating assignments that integrate two or three of the above communication modes

j. Other - Please Specify: k. Other - Please Specify:


92

l. Other - Please Specify:

11. In your opinion, what is the greatest need for training related to implementing multimodal communication in your course (s)? List in order of importance, and feel free to list training other than what is listed in the table above.

1. _____________________________________________ 2. _____________________________________________ 3. _____________________________________________

12. Multimodal communication training can be delivered in different ways. Please indicate your preferences in regard to the following training options. (Please place an X in the appropriate box in each row.)

Highly

Preferred Preferred Not

Preferred a. Individual training (one-on-one) b. Group training across disciplines (one-to-many) c. Group training within same discipline (one-to-many) d. Live training through video conferencing/web casting

e. Exercises, simulations, and other hands-on training f. Other (please specify):

G.5: Faculty Fellows Presentation U Workshop Evaluation (draft)

1. Having completed this workshop, I understand what I need to do to integrate multimodal communication skills (Written, Oral, and/or Visual) into my course(s). ( ) Strongly Agree ( ) Agree ( ) Neither Agree/Disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Strongly Disagree

2. The content presented was useful for the needs and interests of my Course(s). ( ) Strongly Agree ( ) Agree ( ) Neither Agree/Disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Strongly Disagree

3. After attending this workshop I plan to implement each of the following modes in my course: ( ) Written Communication (i.e., words/reading), ( ) Oral Communication (i.e., sounds/hearing) ( ) Visual Communication (i.e., nonverbal symbols/seeing) ( ) Other (please specify): _________________________

4. After attending this workshop I have a better idea of how to develop rubrics for

communication type assignments. ( ) Yes ( ) No

5. After attending this workshop I have a better idea of how to better articulate my syllabus.


93

( ) Yes ( ) No

6. Please contact me at: ______________________________________________. I would like more additional training in the following areas:

( ) Written Communication assignments, rubrics or syllabi creation ( ) Oral Communication assignments, rubrics or syllabi creation ( ) Visual Communication assignments, rubrics or syllabi creation ( ) Other, Please specify: ___________________________________

G.6: Faculty Fellow Presentation U Experience Survey (draft)

1. Please list your name and title: _____________________________________________ 2. Which College/Department do you represent? ___________________ 3. Please provide reason(s) why you decided to participate in the faculty fellows program. 4. In which course(s) did you embed multimodal communication instruction and projects?

______________________________________________________________________ 5. Which mode of communication did you implement? 6. Do you think this integration (Q5) was beneficial to student learning? Why or why not? 7. If only one or two modes of communication, would you consider implementing all three modes

in the future? If yes, what support would you need to do so?

8. Did you attend workshops offered by the Presentation U Office? 9. Did you request extra assistance from the Presentation U Office to guide you with

assignments, rubrics, or syllabi? Please explain? 10. Do you feel you the workshops provided you adequate training on the mode of

communication you chose to implement? Please explain. 11. Please describe key changes you made in your course(s) after participating in the Faculty

Fellows Program. 12. Would you encourage your colleagues to participate in the Faculty Fellows Program? 13. Would you encourage your colleagues to implement multimodal communication

assignments/projects in their classrooms? 14. Do you feel your students have achieved the outcome: Students will demonstrate competent

communication (written, oral, and/or visual across multiple modes) as defined within individual disciplines, both as producers and consumers of information? Please Explain.

15. Do you feel more confident in assigning different types of communication assignments in your classroom after participating in the faculty fellows program?

G.7: Faculty Fellows Portfolio Assessment Rubric (draft)

Course Number __________ Date of Evaluation: ___________________ Title & Instructor: ____________________________________________________ Instructions for peer evaluator: In addition to a numerical value use examples to describe your perceptions of how observed teaching meets each of the following broad questions. 1 2 3 4 1. Instructor communicates clearly which types of communication modes will

be utilized in the classroom and provides an overview and description of the type of communication in the course syllabus.

2. Instructor requires assignments that are connected to at least one type of


94

communication skill (written, oral, visual). 3. MCXC designated assignments and activities are clearly linked to course,

program, and Presentation U student learning outcomes.

4. Instructor provides students with a rubric related to the assignment given. 5. Instructor clearly articulates the purpose of the assignment including

MCXC terms and the use of rubric is described within the syllabus.

Total each column then divide by 5 for average. What are your suggestions and/or recommendations for this instructor? Overall Comments by Peer Evaluator:____________________________________________

G.8: Student Presentation U Experience Survey (draft)

To continue to meet your needs, we are asking students for help. Please complete the survey below as specifically as possible. You responses will help us improve Presentation U and all responses are anonymous. Thank you! Section I: 1. Please tell us your name (first, last): ________________________________________ 2. What is your major? _____________________________________________________ 3. In which course(s) did your instructor embed multimodal communication instruction and

projects? Course 1: ________________ Course 2: ________________ Course 3: ________________ Other Courses: _____________________________________________________ ( ) Not applicable ( ) Don’t Know

4. Please list the instructor’s name for each course you listed above in question three. Instructor 1: ________________ Instructor 2: ________________ Instructor 3: ________________ Other Instructors: _____________________________________________________ ( ) Not applicable

5. Which mode of communication was implemented in your course(s): ( ) Written ( ) Oral ( ) Visual ( ) Two modes ( ) All of the above

6. Was focusing on these communication modes beneficial to you in this course? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Somewhat

Section II: 7. Have you visited the Presentation Center before?

( ) Yes ( ) No 8. If you answered yes to question six, approximately how many times did you visit the

Presentation Center? ( ) 1-4 times ( ) 5-8 times


95

( ) 9-12 times ( ) More than 12 times

9. How did you learn about the Presentation Center? (check all that apply) ( ) From an instructor ( ) From another student ( ) From a classroom visit by a Presentation Center representative ( ) From the website ( ) From a resource fair ( ) Other ____________________________________________

10. Which types of communication did you come to learn about? (check all that apply) ( ) Written ( ) Oral ( ) Visual ( ) Digital ( ) Face-to-face ( ) Print ( ) Online ( ) Explain: __________________________________________

11. Why did you decide to come to the Presentation Center for help with your project(s)? (check all that apply)

( ) My instructor recommended it ( ) A colleague recommended it ( ) A friend recommended it ( ) It’s a particularly challenging assignment ( ) I want to get a better grade ( ) I want to be more adept at using technology in the classroom ( ) I want to improve how I teach, e.g. rubrics, instruction, communication, assessment ( ) Visiting the center is a regular part of my routine ( ) Other: ____________________________________________

12. At what stage were you in the project when you decided to visit the Presentation Center? ( ) Planning ( ) Beginning ( ) Middle ( ) Final stages ( ) No particular project

13. Which Presentation Center staff did you work with? __________________________ How helpful was the staff person you worked with? (1= most helpful; 5= not at all helpful)

1 2 3 4 5

14. Do you feel you the guidance provided by Presentation U staff provided you with the knowledge that you were seeking? Please explain.

15. How likely are you to return to the Presentation Center? (1= very likely; 5= will not return) 1 2 3 4 5

16. How likely are you to recommend other students to visit the Presentation Center? (1= very likely; 5= not likely)

1 2 3 4 5

17. Do you feel you have met the learning outcome: You are able to demonstrate competent communication (written, oral, and/or visual across multiple modes) as defined within your discipline? Please Explain.

18. Do you have suggestions for improving the Center? 19. Other Comments: __________________________________

96

Appendix J: Assessment Plan Timeline for Learning and Program OutcomesBased on Faculty Fellows Cohort Scheduling

Outcomes MeasuresFall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring

Faculty Fellows Cohort #1LO1 Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Collection XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Assessment XLO1 Student Self-Efficacy Survey Pre&PostLO1-1 to LO1-8 CLA Senior Assessment X X XLO3 FF Portfolio Evaluations XFaculty Fellows Cohort #2LO1 Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Collection XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Assessment XLO1 Student Self-Efficacy Survey Pre&PostLO1-1 to LO1-8 CLA Senior Assessment X X XLO3 FF Portfolio Evaluations XFaculty Fellows Cohort #3LO1 Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Collection XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Assessment XLO1 Student Self-Efficacy Survey Pre&PostLO1-1 to LO1-8 CLA Senior Assessment X X XLO3 FF Portfolio Evaluations XFaculty Fellows Cohort #4LO1 Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Collection XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Assessment XLO1 Student Self-Efficacy Survey Pre&PostLO1-1 to LO1-8 CLA Senior Assessment X X XLO3 FF Portfolio Evaluations XFaculty Fellows Cohort #5LO1 Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Collection XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Assessment XLO1 Student Self-Efficacy Survey Pre&PostLO1-1 to LO1-8 CLA Senior Assessment X X XLO3 FF Portfolio Evaluations X

Data Collection Timeline2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19


97

Faculty Fellows Cohort #6LO1 Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Collection XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Assessment XLO1 Student Self-Efficacy Survey Pre&PostLO1-1 to LO1-8 CLA Senior Assessment X X XLO3 FF Portfolio Evaluations XLO1 Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Collection XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Assessment XLO1 Student Self-Efficacy Survey Pre&PostLO1-1 to LO1-8 CLA Senior Assessment X X XLO3 FF Portfolio Evaluations XFaculty Fellows Cohort #8LO1 Pre-MCXC Baseline Collection & Assessment XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Collection XLO1, LO3 MCXC Assignment Assessment XLO1 Student Self-Efficacy Survey Pre&PostLO1-1 to LO1-8 CLA Senior Assessment X X XLO3 FF Portfolio Evaluations X


UK Survey ScheduleLO2-1 Graduating Senior Survey X X X X X X X X X X XLO2-2 Natl Survey of Student Engagement X-UK X X-UK XLO2-3 Undergraduate Alumni X X


PO1 Tally Sheet Analysis X X X X X X X X X X X XPO2 Student Experience Survey X X X X X X X X X X X XPO3-1 FF Recruitment Targets X X X X X X X XPO3-2 FF Implementation Analysis X X X X X X X XPO4-1, PO4-2 FF Workshop Evaluations X X X X X X X XPO4-3, PO4-4 FF Experience Survey X X X X X X X XPO4 FF Needs Assessment X X X X X X X X

Note: Student records will be used for each survey administration to identify Presentation U students who will be asked to participate in the survey; followup will help ensure sufficient participation for analyses which will include, when appropriate, comparing Presentation U students to non-Presentation U students. X-UK denotes administration as part of the university-wide CLA administration.

