Four program-wide learning objectives were directly assessed for 2006-2007, and the following recommendations were made in last year’s assessment report. Action taken by the School is noted:
SLO 2 “understanding of the history and role of professionals and institutions in shaping communications.” The recommendation was made to separate graduates and undergraduates into separte mass communication history courses. Action taken: Creation of the undergraduate MC 564 History of Mass Communication (dual listed with the History Department) and MC 712 History of Mass Communication for graduate students.
SLO 3 “understand diversity of groups in a global society in relationship to communications.” The report recommended more exposure to the nuances of cross-cultural media communications and greater emphasis on cultural sensitivities. Action taken: Tilford grant money was received by instructors for MC 316 Internet Journalism, MC 645 Public Relations Campaigns, MC 712 Environmental Communication and MC 740 Risk Communication. Projects included grater focus on cultural sensitivity (MC 316), campaigns for HIV/AIDS among female minority populations (MC 645) and environmental awareness for low-income populations (MC 712 and MC 740). Also, a new class was established, MC 662 International and Intercultural Public Relations.
SLO 4 “understand concepts and apply theories in the use and presentation of images and information.” The recommended action was for instructors to incorporate as much theory into courses as possible, challenging them to examine the logical assumptions of theoretical concepts.
SLO 8 “write correctly and clearly in forms and styles appropriate for the communications professions, audiences and purposes they serve.” Assessors in 2006-2007 examined writing from the public relations sequence, and recommended that students in all upper-level courses be held to the same rigor in writing assignments as students in undergraduate writing classes. Action taken: Each semester, a memo is issued to faculty members reminding them of the need to demand perfection in student writing at all levels, not merely in classes where writing is the sole focus. Additionally, indirect assessment through senior exit surveys revealed the following needs: 1) more web instruction, 2) cross-platform writing and production, 3) a more modern public relations curriculum, and 4) longer equipment checkout and computer lab availability.
The Miller School has taken the following actions:
The School’s plan designated the following learning objectives for the 2007-2008 academic year:
Learning Objective 8: Write correctly and clearly in forms and styles appropriate for the communications professions, audiences and purposes they serve. According to the assessment plan, the 2007-2008 academic year designated writing from the Advertising sequence for assessment. Student essays from MC 670 Advertising and Social Responsibility were reviewed.
Learning Objective #9: Critically evaluate their own work and that of others for accuracy and fairness, clarity, appropriate style and grammatical correctness. Final exams from the Fall 2008 Advanced Editing and Design class were reviewed in an effort to identify common skill/procedural errors. In addition to answering open-ended questions relating to A.P. style, students edited actual copy for clarity, simplicity and proper grammar and spelling. (Other questions related to layout skills, an important objective of the class, but not a criterion under review here).
Learning Objective #11: Apply tools and technologies appropriate for the communications professions in which they work. Production samples from each of the following classes were evaluated as follows:
Student production samples were reviewed by members of the Miller School Advisory Council (a group consisting of prominent alumni and industry professionals). Student writing was reviewed by selected faculty members who are not members of the Advertising sequence.
In sum, direct assessment of student learning indicates that the following changes should be considered to better meet the Miller School’s stated learning objectives:
SLO 8: Writing mechanics of advertising students selected for assessment seemed to be acceptable, but students need work in more formal writing styles. Classes that rely on formal writing need to provide more training in writing formal papers. Faculty should enact universal writing standards to enforce good mechanics in upper—as well as lower-level—classes.
SLO 9: Enhanced focus on writing in the curriculum would help students do a better job of evaluating their work—and that of others—for accuracy, style and clarity. Students need to be exposed to as many writing and editing situations as possible. Further outside reading in reporting and basic editing classes that exposes students to journalistic writing styles would help students develop the feel for how such stories should flow.
SLO 11: Commonly cited problems indicate that students on the journalism-related tracks do not have adequate training in cross-platform writing and production. Moreover, on both the print and electronic sides, reviewers tend to cite student judgments about typography and photographs in their layouts, web pages and video productions. Recent action by the School’s journalism and electronic media instructors in creating a new “converged” Journalism and Digital Media sequence may go far in improving the overall quality of senior level multi-platform productions. Alumni surveys, feedback from internship evaluators and senior exit surveys (cited below) also seem to reflect students’ weaknesses in writing/reporting/producing across platforms, and any effort to consolidate skills among students will likely go far in improving this situation. Additional classes dealing with visual literacy would help improve students’ awareness of layout issues in both print and electronic media outlets.
As methods of indirect assessment, the Curriculum Committee coordinated three procedures: 1) an exit survey of the School’s graduating seniors, 2) a review of data collected from internship on-site evaluators and 3) a five-year alumni satisfaction survey.
Seniors indicated an overall satisfaction with training provided according to the program’s eleven learning objectives. The exceptions: SLO 10 “apply basic numerical and statistical concepts,” where quantitative ratings were lower; and SLO 11 “apply tools and technologies appropriate for the communications professions in which they work,” where students qualitatively reflected the need for more software training.
Open-ended questions encouraged students were to provide comments about their overall experiences relating to the program’s ability to meeting professional standards, acquiring skills, Miller School facilities and services, and overall assessment of the curriculum. (The comments are consolidated with other verbal feedback below.)
The School’s assessment document mandates periodic research among alumni to determine how the JMC curriculum, advising, teaching and other services have aided our graduates and what suggestions they have for improving our program. The KSU Alumni Association assisted in generating a list of 369 graduates from the years 2003-2007. An online survey was sent to selected respondents via e-mail. The instrument consisted of 16 multiple choice response options, and five open ended questions that provided opportunities for qualitative feedback. A total of 170 JMC alumni responded to the survey, which yielded a 46 percent response rate.
The survey did not focus specifically on the eleven learning objectives. Instead, it ascertained graduates’ perceptions of the overall curriculum and JMC student and alumni services. (The comments are consolidated with other verbal feedback below.)
A total of 53 on-site internship evaluators assessed the quality of JMC interns in light of the School’s eleven learning objectives. Interns generally received high marks for their on-the-job performances, but evaluators expressed some deficiencies, including critical thinking, writing, editing and software knowledge. Some evaluators noted that students sometimes fail to take their work seriously and did not always dress in a professional manner (this is not part of the School’s learning objectives, but is nonetheless a problem worth noting).
Indirect assessment of internship evaluations, the senior exit survey and the alumni survey seem to indicate the following curricular and operational needs:
The School has now been through a full cycle of procedures mandated in its initial assessment plan adopted in 2004. If the faculty maintains the current document, next year’s assessment procedures will simply entail repeating the cycle established four years ago, with SLO #7 (conduct research and evaluate information by methods appropriate to the communications professions in which they work), SLO 10 (apply basic numerical and statistical concepts) and, in the annual assessment of student writing (as stipulated in SLO 8), we would look at senior-level work from electronic media related classes. (The electronic media sequence was eliminated by recent faculty action, but the new Journalism and Digital Media sequence still designates a track for students interested in electronic—as opposed to print—communication, so writing samples from those students would be reviewed.)
For indirect measures, we will continue our senior exit survey in Spring 2009, as well as semesterly reviews of internship evaluations.
We do, however, anticipate that the School will move to a new assessment document yet this year. If this is the case, the new plan will be submitted to the University Assessment Office.
View the Fall 2008 Student Learning Objectives Class Matrix.