student learning assessment report (slar)...1 student learning assessment report (slar) “how are...

1

Student Learning Assessment Report (SLAR)

“How are students learning?”

Instructions: This template is a running document of each annual Academic Program Assessment Report due to the department chairs and Provost the last Friday in October. The final report in the document should be the official report of the year of the full Program Review. All reports below use the same report template. If the report is the Program Review year, please indicate it next to “Program Review Year” and also submit the Academic Program Review (APR).

Department: Communication Program Coordinator: Cameron Pace, Melinda Booze

Academic Program Evaluated: Communication Arts Education Program Review Year: Spring 2022 (Upcoming)

Year 1 Academic Year: Year 2 Academic Year: Year 3 Academic Year: Year 4 Academic Year: Faculty members involved in this assessment process: (List all faculty members who participated: program coordinator, reviewers, committee members, etc.)

Cameron Pace Mark Kelton Chip Stanek Nancy Pace-Miller Melinda Booze Austin Twigg

Number of students in sample: (If known, supply the number of students in each class/year who were used in the assessment report.)

Fall 2018—190 Spring 2019—114 Fall 2019—138 Spring 2020—114 Note: There have been few students in this program, so data from the department is used for this sample.

2

Instrument(s) used in assessment: (List the exams, standardized tests, portfolios, etc. that were used in the assessment process.)

Various projects and reporting content completed by students in courses, rated through PLO rubrics in Course Commons.

Additional Data: (List any additional information/data that informed this report.)

Data from the Education Dept. is used for this program’s assessment and is available in the Education Dept. documentation.

Methodology: (Explain the method of data collection and the data analysis process.)

Assignments are connected to PLOs in Course Commons with related rubrics to use for rating. Student work is rated 1 to 4, with 3 being satisfactory learning.

Data: (Provide the graphs, charts, etc. that were used to show PLO data results. Do not include the raw data.)

See appendices. Educational testing data is available but not for this program at this time as no graduates have recently been processed through the secondary program. This should change in the next year or so. Another issue we are dealing with is retention in the program. Those who start

3

in CAE end up in Multimedia Journalism without the teaching component.

Results of Assessment: (What evidence exists that the program helps students achieve learning outcomes? What changes have been made since the last APR to ensure that outcomes are achieved and what changes will be made to the program following this APR? What have you learned from assessing the changes?)

Comm. Arts Ed. did not have an APR completed in 2019 as there were no students in the program at that time, so this cannot be compared to a previous one. However, the results of the analysis indicate that current students in this major are learning at level that is adequate but with room for improvement, with some PLOs performing above average. The “Ethical Journalism” PLO is significantly above average, which would be in keeping with the mission of the department and university. This is something we feel confident in as the Multimedia Journalism program is nearly identical and information from its assessment

4

would be similar. Strengths: (From the findings, list the areas of strengths that currently exist in the academic program.)

Students are performing as expected in a number of PLOs assessed. Scores for each PLO are fairly consistent, within a .5 range.

Areas in need of improvement: (From the findings, list the areas of weakness(s) that currently exist in the academic program.)

Outcomes need to be assessed at higher level courses to show a cumulative program assessment rather than assessing all PLOs in multiple courses at all program levels.

Plans for improvement: (Provide the improvement plan, when it will be implemented, and person who will administer the improvement plan.) *If an A.A. degree is part of this program, describe how the changes to this program affect the A.A. degree, if any.

Increasing participation in a now wider array of off-campus contests will help us to continue to compare our students’ work to those in similar college programs. These contests are usually judged by working or retired professionals in the relevant fields of competition. In addition, making students’ work public on student media websites and class blogs gives

5

students more real-time, real-world opportunity for audience feedback and engagement, an integral aspect for today’s journalists. Exploring national, standardized assessment vehicles is a need for this program.

Improvements made: (List completed improvement plans and dates of actual implementation.) *If an A.A. degree is part of this program, describe how the changes to this program affect the A.A. degree, if any.

Intentional work has been done to increase students’ knowledge about and skills in original reporting. This is reflected in higher PLO scores for some outcomes.

APPENDIX A - PLO OUTCOMES DATA OUTCOMES RATINGS FOR FALL 2018

Row Labels Average of outcome score

Distinct Count of student sis id

AE2-1 Knowledge Base 2.83 66.00

COMM 113 LEC 1 Introduction to Mass Communications 2.82 56.00

COMS 346 LEC 1 Small Group and Organizational Communication 2.90 10.00

AP1-1 Audience and Client Types 2.88 37.00

6

COMR 333 LEC 1 Advertising I 3.25 20.00

COMR 352 LEC 1 Public Relations I 2.55 22.00

AP1-2 Integrated Marketing Plans 2.91 32.00



AP2 Ethical Dilemmas 2.75 56.00


AP3 Skills of Observation 2.95 22.00


CS1-2 Conscientious Communication 3.13 15.00

COMM 246 LEC 1 Interpersonal Communications Theory 3.13 15.00

CS2-1 Knowledge Base 2.89 15.00

COMM 331 LEC 1 Political Communication 2.89 9.00


CS2-2 Effective Knowledge 2.76 17.00

COMM 211 LEC 1 Public Speaking and Rhetoric 2.76 17.00

CS3-1 Speaking Skills 2.85 26.00



CS3-2 Writing Skills 3.08 38.00


COMM 214 LEC 1 Introduction To Media Writing 3.19 13.00


DA1 Media Ethics 3.32 36.00

COMD 355 LEC 1 Web Design I 3.00 19.00

COMM 345 LEC 1 Desktop Publishing Design 3.67 18.00

DA2-1 Aesthetic Principles 2.87 65.00

COEM 175 LEC 1 Introduction to Electronic Media 2.82 15.00


7



DA3-1 Client Communication 2.84 19.00


DA3-2 Digital Tools Proficiency 3.00 2.00


DA3-3 Digital Tool Proficiency 2.95 49.00




FB1-1 Faith Reflection 2.94 18.00

COMF 220 LEC 1 Introduction to Film 2.94 18.00

FB1-2 Aesthetic Quality 2.92 33.00



FB2-1 Knowledge of History 3.00 16.00


FB2-2 Knowledge of Techniques 2.81 26.00

COEM 253 LEC 1 Audio Production 3.00 1.00

COMF 353 LEC 1 Aesthetics and Techniques for Film and Video 2.80 25.00

FB3 Effective Production 2.88 74.00



COEM 232 LEC 1 Video Production 2.95 21.00


GC1-1 2.69 13.00

COMM 470 LEC 1 Capstone Project in Communication Studies 2.69 13.00

GC1-2 3.23 13.00


8

GC1-3 3.00 13.00


GC2 2.92 13.00


GC3-1 3.00 13.00


GC3-2 3.00 13.00


MJ2-2 Adaptive Reporting 3.00 11.00


MJ3-2 Relevant Skills 3.16 13.00


Grand Total 2.93 190.00

PROGRAM OUTCOMES RESULTS FOR SPRING 2019



AP1-2 Integrated Marketing Plans 2.17 28

COMR 372 LEC 1 Social Media Communication 1.53 19

COMR 433 LEC 1 Advertising II 3.33 9

COMR 452 LEC 1 Public Relations II 2.38 8

AP3 Skills of Observation 2.37 23



MJ3-1 Production Skills 2.41 30

COMJ 314 LEC 1 News Reporting and Production 1.85 10

9

COMJ 321 LEC 1 Copy Editing 2.86 14

COMJ 422 LEC 1 Multimedia Journalism 2.65 20

MJ2-2 Adaptive Reporting 2.44 21



DA2-2 Audience Appropriate Writing 2.56 10

COMD 325 LEC 1 Web Communication and Analysis 2.56 10

MJ2-1 Knowledge Base 2.65 20


COMJ 435 LEC 1 Feature Writing 2.92 13

AP1-1 Audience and Client Types 2.67 28




GC1-1 2.67 15

COMM 470 LEC 1 Capstone Project in Communication Studies 2.67 15

AP2 Ethical Dilemmas 2.67 23



MJ2-3 Staying Current 2.71 7


MJ3-2 Relevant Skills 2.76 29




MJ1-1 Serving the Audience 2.80 29




10

DA3-3 Digital Tool Proficiency 2.82 28

COEM 175 LEC 1 Introduction to Electronic Media 3.06 18

COMD 456 LEC 1 Web Design II 2.40 10

DA2-1 Aesthetic Principles 2.95 38




FB1-1 Faith Reflection 3.00 22

COMF 220 LEC 1 Introduction to Film 3.00 22

DA3-2 Digital Tools Proficiency 3.00 10


FB2-2 Knowledge of Techniques 3.00 14

COEM 253 LEC 1 Audio Production 3.00 14

GC3-1 3.13 15


FB3 Effective Production 3.14 32



CS3-2 Writing Skills 3.18 17

COMM 441 LEC 1 Mass Media Law 3.18 17

GC2 3.20 15


FB1-2 Aesthetic Quality 3.20 32



GC1-2 3.21 15


MJ1-2 Ethical Journalism 3.21 14

11


GC1-3 3.27 15


GC3-2 3.27 15


Grand Total 2.83 114

OUTCOMES DATA FOR FALL 2019






AP3 Skills of Observation and Research 3.00 8.00









COMS 233 LEC 1 Argumentation and Debate 3.13 12.00






12


Appendix B – Enrollment in Comm. Arts Ed.

14




Department: Communication Program Coordinator: Cameron Pace

Academic Program Evaluated: Film BFA Program Review Year: 2019-2020 (as part of the Film & Broadcasting review)


Cameron Pace Mark Kelton Chip Stanek Nancy Pace-Miller Melinda Booze Joe Mason



Fall 2018 – 190 Spring 2019 - 114

Fall 2019 – 138 Spring 2020 - 114

Instrument(s) used in assessment: (List the

Various projects and papers completed by

Various projects and papers completed by

15

exams, standardized tests, portfolios, etc. that were used in the assessment process.)

students in courses, rated through rubric in Course Commons.

students in courses, rated through rubric in Course Commons.






See appendix. See appendix.


Film BFA did not have an APR in the past, so this cannot be compared to a previous one. However, the results of the analysis indicate that students are learning at an average and expected level with some PLOs performing above average.

The Film BFA follows closely with the Film & Broadcasting major where we see only slight changes in results since the 2018-19 school year in FB PLOs. One area of small concern is FB1-1, which is related to character and faith. This score has fluctuated from average to below depending on the semester. Some discussion has been made as to the clarity of the

16

assignment instructions so students know what is expected.

Strengths: (From the findings, list the areas of strengths that currently exist in the academic program.)

Students are performing as expected in nearly all courses examined connected to PLOs and assessed.

For the most part, scores are showing consistency in learning, though higher scores would be better.


The number of students scoring higher than the average is not significant. This is something we want to look at in terms of both rating by the professor and helping students to produce better content. We have long instituted a departmental awards program and will be looking at that for ways to encourage higher quality work by students to raise these scores.

Two PLOs show minor downward trends that will need watching and attention. FB1-1 and FB2-1 have been slightly below average. These areas are less technology-related and may be more difficult for students who prefer to learning skills.


Effort has been made to include more student work in off-campus contests. This gives us an idea of how our students compare to those of other colleges. Though this is not as helpful for

Plans include evaluating the effectiveness of the electronic media workshops, especially Film Workshop. Students who are Film BFAs are most affected by the changes to the Film

17

statistical analysis as judges can be very subjective, it does help us anecdotally to compare our results over a period of time as we continue to enter student work.

Workshop as they take it three semesters. Continued evaluation of the impact on these changes to BFA students will need to be followed.


The Film & Broadcasting major was previously two majors and are now combined into one. More time is needed to determine how this change has affected student learning since the change was made. The next year may give us some data to work with as it is the APR year. It has been only a short time since the Theatre department has updated all its courses. These courses are integrated into the Film BFA as a minor. Students have given positive reviews of these changes to the Theatre courses and looks to be an overall improvement in that part

Enrollment in electronic media workshops had been waning, yet this is one of our larger majors. We decided that Mass Media Workshop, a general communication workshop was siphoning off student enrollment in higher-skilled workshops. The Mass Media Workshop was discontinued to help with enrollment and steer students to workshops that provide higher levels of experience.

18

of the program. For information on PLO data from the Theatre area, please review the Humanities Department.

19



























20






























21







GC1-1 2.69 13.00


GC1-2 3.23 13.00


GC1-3 3.00 13.00


GC2 2.92 13.00


GC3-1 3.00 13.00


GC3-2 3.00 13.00








22


























GC1-1 2.67 15




23

























GC3-1 3.13 15





24



GC2 3.20 15





GC1-2 3.21 15




GC1-3 3.27 15


GC3-2 3.27 15















25














COMD 365 LEC 1 Motion Graphics and Effects for Film and Television 3.22 18.00
















26






COMF 324 LEC 1 Scriptwriting for Film and Television 3.00 12.00

GC1-1 2.89 9.00


GC1-2 3.67 9.00


GC1-3 3.56 9.00


GC2 3.56 9.00


GC3-1 3.89 9.00


GC3-2 3.89 9.00







ASSESSMENT DATA FOR SPRING 2020




27

COSC 231 LEC 1 Strategic Communication: Principles and Practices 3.00 17










CS1-2 Conscientious Communication 3.51 20

COMM 246 LEC 1 Interpersonal Communication Theory 3.51 20

CS2-2 Effective Knowledge 3.58 20



COMM 214 LEC 1 Introduction To Media Writing 3.21 28


DA1 Media Ethics 3.13 23

COMM 345 LEC 1 Desktop Publishing Design 3.13 23




COMD 425 LEC 1 2D and 3D Animation 2.80 10







28














COMF 473 LEC 1 Electronic Cinematography 3.33 9

GC1-1 2.93 14


GC1-2 2.93 14


GC1-3 3.07 14


GC2 3.21 14


GC3-1 3.14 14


GC3-2 3.00 14



COMJ 350 LEC 1 Magazine Production 2.60 10

29









30




Department: Communication Program Coordinator: Cameron Pace

Academic Program Evaluated: Film & Broadcasting Program Review Year: 2019-2020





Fall 2018 – 190 Spring 2019 - 114

Fall 2019 – 138 Spring 2020 - 114

Instrument(s) used in assessment: (List the exams, standardized tests,

Various projects and papers completed by students in courses, rated

Various projects and papers completed by students in courses, rated

31

portfolios, etc. that were used in the assessment process.)

through rubric in Course Commons.

through rubric in Course Commons.








Film & Broadcasting did not have an APR in the past, so this cannot be compared to a previous one. However, the results of the analysis indicate that students are learning at an average and expected level with some PLOs performing above average.

As this is the second year of assessment for this major as it now is constituted, we see only slight changes in results since the 2018-19 school year in FB PLOs. One area of small concern is FB1-1, which is related to character and faith. This score has fluctuated from average to below depending on the semester. Some discussion has been made as to the clarity of the

32

assignment instructions so students know what is expected.





The number of students scoring higher than the average is not significant. This is something we want to look at in terms of both rating by the professor and helping students to produce better content. We have long instituted a departmental awards program and will be looking at that for ways to encourage higher quality work by students to raise these scores.

Two PLOs show minor downward trends that will need watching and attention. FB1-1 and FB2-1 have been slightly below average. These areas are less technology-related and may be more difficult for students who prefer to learning skills.


Effort has been made to include more student work in off-campus contests. This gives us an idea of how our students compare to those of other colleges. Though this is not as helpful for

Plans include evaluating the effectiveness of the electronic media workshops, especially Film Workshop.

33

statistical analysis as judges can be very subjective, it does help us anecdotally to compare our results over a period of time as we continue to enter student work.


The Film & Broadcasting major was previously two majors and are now combined into one. More time is needed to determine how this change has affected student learning since the change was made. The next year may give us some data to work with as it is the APR year.

Enrollment in electronic media workshops had been waning, yet this is one of our larger majors. We decided that Mass Media Workshop, a general communication workshop was siphoning off student enrollment in higher-skilled workshops. The Mass Media Workshop was discontinued to help with enrollment and steer students to workshops that provide higher levels of experience.

34



























35






























36







GC1-1 2.69 13.00


GC1-2 3.23 13.00


GC1-3 3.00 13.00


GC2 2.92 13.00


GC3-1 3.00 13.00


GC3-2 3.00 13.00








37


























GC1-1 2.67 15




38

























GC3-1 3.13 15





39



GC2 3.20 15





GC1-2 3.21 15




GC1-3 3.27 15


GC3-2 3.27 15















40






























41







GC1-1 2.89 9.00


GC1-2 3.67 9.00


GC1-3 3.56 9.00


GC2 3.56 9.00


GC3-1 3.89 9.00


GC3-2 3.89 9.00











42






























43















GC1-1 2.93 14


GC1-2 2.93 14


GC1-3 3.07 14


GC2 3.21 14


GC3-1 3.14 14


GC3-2 3.00 14




44









45




Department: Communication Program Coordinator: Cameron Pace, Melinda Booze

Academic Program Evaluated: Multimedia Journalism Program Review Year: Spring 2021 (Upcoming)




Fall 2018—190 Spring 2019—114 Fall 2019—138 Spring 2020—114

Instrument(s) used in assessment: (List the exams, standardized tests,

Various projects and reporting content completed by students in

46

portfolios, etc. that were used in the assessment process.)

courses, rated through PLO rubrics in Course Commons.





See appendix.


Multimedia Journalism did not have an APR in the past, so this cannot be compared to a previous one. However, the results of the analysis indicate that students are learning at level that is adequate but with room for improvement, with some PLOs performing above average. The “Ethical Journalism” PLO is significantly above average, which would be

47

in keeping with the mission of the department and university.


Students are performing as expected in a number of PLOs assessed. Scores for each PLO are fairly consistent, within a .5 range.


Outcomes need to be assessed at higher level courses to show a cumulative program assessment rather than assessing all PLOs in multiple courses at all program levels.


Increasing participation in a now wider array of off-campus contests will help us to continue to compare our students’ work to those in similar college programs. These contests are usually judged by working or retired professionals in the relevant fields of competition. In addition, making students’ work public on

48

student media websites and class blogs gives students more real-time, real-world opportunity for audience feedback and engagement, an integral aspect for today’s journalists. Exploring national, standardized assessment vehicles is a need for this program.


Intentional work has been done to increase students’ knowledge about and skills in original reporting. This is reflected in higher PLO scores for some outcomes.






49





























50





























GC1-1 2.69 13.00

51


GC1-2 3.23 13.00


GC1-3 3.00 13.00


GC2 2.92 13.00


GC3-1 3.00 13.00


GC3-2 3.00 13.00
















52


















GC1-1 2.67 15












53

















GC3-1 3.13 15







GC2 3.20 15





54

GC1-2 3.21 15




GC1-3 3.27 15


GC3-2 3.27 15





















55





56




Department: Communication Program Coordinators: Cameron Pace, Melinda Booze & Nancy Pace-Miller

Academic Program Evaluated: Strategic Communication (Advertising/PR Track) Program Review Year: 2018-2019





Fall 2018 – 190 Spring 2019 - 114

Fall 2019 – 138 Spring 2020 - 114

Instrument(s) used in Various projects and Various projects and

57

assessment: (List the exams, standardized tests, portfolios, etc. that were used in the assessment process.)

papers completed by students in courses, rated through rubric in Course Commons.

papers completed by students in courses, rated through rubric in Course Commons.


Only courses contributing to the Adv/PR PLOs were used.

Only courses contributing to the Adv/PR PLOs were used.







Five PLOs were evaluated this semester. All came in with averages as expected. Improvements were noted in AP3 = 3.13.

As this is the second year of assessment for this major as it now is constituted, we see only slight changes in results since the 2018-19 school year in AP PLOs. There is still some concern over the lower scores in client interaction and in marketing strategies. It seems the two main

58

faculty who are rating student work have differing views on what scores might mean. There needs to be further discussion on how to interpret the rubric for these student projects as they relate to the PLOs.


All areas showed well and as expected here. The areas showing weakness in the past seem to be improved upon.



All PLOs assessed except for AP3 showed a reduced amount of learning or at least demonstration of learning. We discussed whether review standards were changed, but that didn’t seem the case. One explanation mentioned that the students’ aptitude/ability didn’t match previous scores.

Two PLOs show minor downward trends that will need watching and attention. AP1-2 and AP2 have been slightly below average. This has been the case for the last couple semesters, so little improvement has been made either in the scoring or in student work quality.

Plans for improvement: (Provide the improvement plan, when it will be implemented, and person who will administer the improvement plan.)

Improvements are needed to the Advertising Workshop to monitor student work hours and activities.

More work needs to be done in the area of rating student work for consistency. This will be accomplished during the

59

*If an A.A. degree is part of this program, describe how the changes to this program affect the A.A. degree, if any.

This was administered by Nancy Pace-Miller.

Fall 2020 semester during department meetings. Possible use of exercises to see differences of view as to what is acceptable student learning evidence versus that which is above or below average.


As this was the first year of the Strat. Comm. program with the Advertising/PR major rolled into a track inside it, there are a number of things improved upon during this change. More marketing classes are now allowed to count towards the major. The development of the Strategic Communication course is well-underway. Student interest in the Advertising Workshop has increased as it is more organized towards a professional business model.

The Strategic Communication course is now in place and being taught by Melinda Booze. This course is the cornerstone course of the program in all tracks. Now that students will have this fundamental understanding of the field, their work should reflect this. Changes were made in the Cases and Campaigns course that integrated both advertising and PR knowledge and skills in a way that is more professional. Prior to this course’s updating, advertising and PR were considered two separate areas and were not

60

integrated as well as applied to client services.

61



























62






























63







GC1-1 2.69 13.00


GC1-2 3.23 13.00


GC1-3 3.00 13.00


GC2 2.92 13.00


GC3-1 3.00 13.00


GC3-2 3.00 13.00








64


























GC1-1 2.67 15




65

























GC3-1 3.13 15





66



GC2 3.20 15





GC1-2 3.21 15




GC1-3 3.27 15


GC3-2 3.27 15















67






























68







GC1-1 2.89 9.00


GC1-2 3.67 9.00


GC1-3 3.56 9.00


GC2 3.56 9.00


GC3-1 3.89 9.00


GC3-2 3.89 9.00











69






























70















GC1-1 2.93 14


GC1-2 2.93 14


GC1-3 3.07 14


GC2 3.21 14


GC3-1 3.14 14


GC3-2 3.00 14




71









72



Department: Communication

Academic Program Evaluated: Strategic Communication (Communication Studies Track) Program Review Year: 2019-2020 (APR year)

Fall 2018 Spring 2019 Fall 2019 Spring 2020 Faculty members involved in this assessment process: (List all faculty members who participated: program coordinator, reviewers, committee members, etc.)

Cameron Pace Nancy Pace-Miller Melinda Booze Mark Kelton Chip Stanek Joe Mason

Cameron Pace Nancy Pace-Miller Melinda Booze Mark Kelton Chip Stanek Joe Mason

Cameron Pace Nancy Pace-Miller Melinda Booze Mark Kelton Chip Stanek Austin Twigg

Cameron Pace Nancy Pace-Miller Melinda Booze Mark Kelton Chip Stanek Austin Twigg

Number of students in sample: (If known, supply the number of students in each class/year who were

103 student responses, some are repeated but part of a different course.

190 student samples were included in this report.

138 student responses, some are repeated but part of different courses.

114 student responses, some are repeated but part of different courses.

73

used in the assessment report.)


Various types of assessments used in courses, but primarily speeches, papers, and projects.





Only courses contributing to the CS PLOs were used.









Results of Assessment: (List the findings in summary format as narrative.)

Five PLOs were evaluated this semester. Two did well at 3.08 (CS3-2 Writing Skills) and 3.13 (CS1-2 Conscientious Communication). Three came in below expectations (CS2-1 Knowledge Base = 2.89; CS2-2 Effective Knowledge=2.76; CS3-1 Speaking Skills=2.85).

Only one CS PLO was evaluated this semester. CS3-2 (Writing Skills) continued to show a strength at 3.18

Four PLOs were evaluated this semester. All came in above satisfactory scores with a range of 3.11 to 3.33.

Three CS PLOs were evaluated this semester. All were above satisfactory levels with two showing strength and improvement at 3.51 (CS1-2 Conscientious Communication) and 3.58 (CS2-2 Effective Knowledge).

Data: (Provide the graphs, charts, etc. that were used to show data results. Do not

See appendix. See appendix. See appendix. See appendix.

74

include the actual data.)


Students were doing well in two areas evaluated: Writing Skills (CS3-2) and Conscientious Communication (CS1-2).

Writing Skills (CS3-2) increased slightly in strength from 3.08 to 3.18 this semester.

All areas evaluated showed well and as expected here. The areas showing weakness in the past (particularly from Fall 2018 semester) seem to be improved upon. None of the results came in below average.

As stated above, there was marked strength in the areas of Conscientious Communication (CS1-2) at 3.51 and Effective Knowledge (CS2-2) at 3.58. Both showed an increase from previous semesters.


Two CS PLOs fell short of satisfactory level of learning: Effective Knowledge (CS2-2) at 2.76 and Speaking Skills (CS3-1) at 2.85. Knowledge Base (CS2-1) was slightly below satisfactory learning at 2.89. While not a major level of concern at the present, these areas will need be monitored over the following semesters.

Only one CS PLO was assessed this semester for some reason. It was agreed in discussion within department that more PLOs should be sampled through assignments going forward to gain a more accurate picture of learning outcomes.

No areas of concern seem to be indicated this semester. The PLOs assessed came in slightly above the satisfactory range with scores of 3.11 to 3.33. The new configuration of incorporating Communication Studies as a track under the Strategic Communication major seems to be working as this is the second year of this program change.

The three PLOs assessed did not indicate any areas of weakness. However, all PLOs need to be assessed in future semesters with more classes and class assignments involved in the assessment process.

75























76






























77











GC1-1 2.69 13.00


GC1-2 3.23 13.00


GC1-3 3.00 13.00


GC2 2.92 13.00


GC3-1 3.00 13.00


GC3-2 3.00 13.00







78



























GC1-1 2.67 15

79




























GC3-1 3.13 15


80






GC2 3.20 15





GC1-2 3.21 15




GC1-3 3.27 15


GC3-2 3.27 15








81






























82














GC1-1 2.89 9.00


GC1-2 3.67 9.00


GC1-3 3.56 9.00


GC2 3.56 9.00


GC3-1 3.89 9.00


GC3-2 3.89 9.00





83




























84























GC1-1 2.93 14


GC1-2 2.93 14


GC1-3 3.07 14


85

GC2 3.21 14


GC3-1 3.14 14


GC3-2 3.00 14












86




Department: Communication Program Coordinator: Chip Stanek

Academic Program Evaluated: Visual and Digital Arts Program Review Year: 2020-2021




Fall 2019 – 138 Spring 2020 - 114


Various projects and papers completed by students in courses, rated through rubric in Course Commons.

87





See appendix.


Visual and Digital Arts, being a new major, did not have an APR in the past, so this cannot be compared to a previous one. However, the results of the analysis indicate that students are learning at an average and expected level with some PLOs performing above average.



Areas in need of The lowest PLO scores,

88

improvement: (From the findings, list the areas of weakness(s) that currently exist in the academic program.)

although still fairly high, seem to be in COEM 175, a introductory class, and COMD 456, a high technical class.


This degree is split into two tracks, one more visual and artistic, the other more technical. As the new students start to progress down their tracks, those more technical classes will be filtered to the technically-minded students in their track, thus raising the PLO’s.


As stated above, the degree is split into two tracks. Those that want a less technical and more artistic degree can follow the Digital and Media Design track. Those that want a more computer-based technical experience can follow the Digital Arts track. As to the changing of the major to two different tracks, it was apparent to

89

us that students wanting more Graphic Design courses would either have to apply for the BFA or change to an Art major. The Visual & Media Design track was developed to create a middle ground between these two options. As we move forward, we will monitor both enrollment and student success in this new track.

90



























91






























92







GC1-1 2.69 13.00


GC1-2 3.23 13.00


GC1-3 3.00 13.00


GC2 2.92 13.00


GC3-1 3.00 13.00


GC3-2 3.00 13.00








93


























GC1-1 2.67 15




94

























GC3-1 3.13 15





95



GC2 3.20 15





GC1-2 3.21 15




GC1-3 3.27 15


GC3-2 3.27 15















96






























97







GC1-1 2.89 9.00


GC1-2 3.67 9.00


GC1-3 3.56 9.00


GC2 3.56 9.00


GC3-1 3.89 9.00


GC3-2 3.89 9.00











98






























99















GC1-1 2.93 14


GC1-2 2.93 14


GC1-3 3.07 14


GC2 3.21 14


GC3-1 3.14 14


GC3-2 3.00 14




100









student learning assessment report (slar)...1 student learning assessment report (slar) “how are...

Documents