1. Assessment in the Basic Speech
Course
Purpose, Plan, Process,Continuous
Improvement and Benefits
2. Workshop Presenters
Myra Walters, Moderator
Chair, Department of speech Communication and Foreign
Languages
Dr. Katie Paschall, Presenter
Professor of Speech Communication, Collier County
Campus
Dr. Kevin Coughlin, Presenter
Director of Research, Planning and Development
3. About Edison State College
• Located in Southwest Florida
• Has three campuses and one center
• Provides instructional and support services
for more than 25,000 credit and 3000 non-
credit students
4. Oral Communication Assessment:
Purpose
• In May 2009, our basic speech courses were
designated as part of the gen ed core
• InSeptember, 2009 we were told we needed
to assess the oral communication
competency.
5. Developing an Assessment Plan
• How will we record speeches?
• How many speeches do we need to record?
• How much will it cost to fund this
assessment project?
• Where will the money come from to support
this assessment project?
6. Developing an Assessment Plan
• What type of speech should we record?
• What should be the required length of the
assessment speech?
• How will we record and prepare speeches
for viewing?
7. The Assessment Plan
• Held assessment workshop facilitated by Dr.
John Fredericks from Miami Dade
• Decided upon topic, type of speech and
length of speech
• Received assistance from Dr. Coughlin to
determine the number of speeches to be
recorded and which classes would be
recorded.
8. The Assessment Plan
• Faculty were sent e-mails notifying them that
their classes were selected
• Speeches were recorded using digital
cameras
• Edison online student assistants uploaded
speech videos to the college's learning
management system into three separate
playlistsSpeech Link
9. The Assessment Plan
• Assessment teams were given one week to evaluate
speeches
• Rubrics with rating scores were delivered to the
department chair's office
• Nine sets of rubrics were delivered to the assessment
office for interpretation and evaluation
• Full time faculty met to discuss assessment results
10. Assessment Process: Overview
•Pilot Study: focus on inter-rater correlations and
reliability estimates (fully-crossed; small number
of speeches)
•Review: Speech faculty consider results and
refine rubric and other aspects of rating process
•Full Study: Focus on student performance;
secondary focus on inter-rater correlations and
reliability (nested or sort-of-crossed; all
speeches)
11. Assessment Process: Sample
• Population: During the Fall 2011 term, 57
sections of SPC 1017 and SPC 2023 were
offered on 3 campuses and 2 centers
• Sample considerations: We wanted a
representative sample; we wanted as many
speeches that the rating teams could feasibly
assess
• Sample: 5 sections of SPC 1017; 2 sections
of SPC 2023; all students from each selected
section; 167 speeches (835 minutes to rate)
12. Assessment Process: Pilot
• Design Characteristics
• 14 Speeches
• Fully crossed – All raters rated all speeches
• 9 raters (3 groups of 3)
• 6 rubric dimensions or outcomes
• Types of Results
• 14 tables and a summary outline
• Means and standard deviations (percentage scores?)
• Inter-rater reliability estimates by rubric demension
• 9 raters
• 6 rubric dimensions or outcomes
13. Assessment Process: Pilot
• Results
• Consider the tables (that Pdf file entitled pilot . . .)
• All raters (aggregated)
• All Cronbach’s alphas > .80
• Highest = Nonverbal-Physical
• Lowest = Language
• Reliability for each sub-group was generally lower
than the the entire group of raters
• Pairwise correlations highlighted areas of
disagreement as tot the meaning of each rubric
dimension
• Again . . . the tables
14. Assessment Process: Full Study
• Design characteristics
• Two foci: Student performance & rubric performance
• Nested (somewhat crossed)
• 127 speeches (93 after exclusions)
• 9 raters nested in 3 groups (3 raters per group)
• Each group rated between 40 and 55 speeches
• 8 dimensions (up from 6); 4 levels of rating
• Data considerations
o For student performance, we included only speeches
that received a rating from each rater from the
relevant group
o For reliability, we considered all observations
15. Assessment Process: Full Study
• Types of results
• 25 tables and a summary outline
• 19 tables associated with student performance
• Achievement of student learning outcmes
• Differential performance across campuses/centers
• Differential performance across dimensions
• ANOVA’s, means, frequency distributions
• 6 tables associated with inter-rater correlations and
reliability
• Giant correlation table
• Individual reliability tables
16. Assessment Process: Full Study
• Results Highlights
• Frequency distributions indicate that students did
their best in terms of Content
• ANOVA yielded evidence that student performance
differed significantly by campus in only 2 of 8
dimensions (outcomes): Body and Conclusion
• Giant correlation table (show them the table)
• Second rating group had the highest and lowest
inter-rater correlations
• Rater 3 and Rater 6 had the strongest levels of
agreement
• Cronbach’s alphas exceed .9 in all cases)
17. Continuous Improvement
• Revised rubric to better assess the public
speaking competencies
• Revised directions for the final speech
• Planned professional development through our
TLC
• Planning a workshop to increase rubric
reliability
• Developing a repository of sample student
speeches for instructional purposes
• Planning to repeat the assessment in Spring
2013
18. Benefits
• It can be done!
• We can do it!
• Camaraderie among faculty
• Meaningful discussions
• Gained insight into what is being taught in
the classroom
• Development of relationships with other
departments (e-learning, technical support,
assessment office)
